1926-06-30

PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRED W. BOWEN (Durham) moved:
That in accordance with the recommendations contained in' the ninth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, all bills reported llOtl-327
in the eighth and ninth reports of said committee be placed on the oidera of the day among private bills for consideration in committee of the Whole this day
Mr. SPEAKER:: There are no private
bills to-day; they will appear on Friday.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Are we to prorogue to-night or not?


Hewitt Bostock: I am in the 'hands of
the House.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Mr. Speaker, do those bills include all the divorce bills?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: If so, I object to the motion. I ask that those bills should go to the Private Bills committee like all the other bills.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Leader of the House):: Mr. Speaker, may I make a suggestion to my hon. friend? I understand some of the bills are contentious and some are not. Would he indicate the bills which are contentious and let the other business of private bills be discharged in the ordinary way? It is within my hon. friend's right, of course, to object to ail of them, but I would suggest that course of action to him.


Ernest Lapointe: We may allow the matter to stand for the present, anyhow.


Hewitt Bostock: It will stand for the
present.


Mr. BROWN:: I was on my feet, Mr. Speaker, to move that tbe House proceed to consideration of private bills in committee of the Whole forthwith. I had been given to understand that the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) who had raised objection to the motion yesterday had withdrawn his objection.


Hewitt Bostock: At the present time one cannot say whether the House will prorogue to-day, to-morrow or the day after. But the motion will stand: It will have the same effect as the motion of the hon. gentleman from Lisgar.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: May I ask the leader of the acting government, Mr. Speaker, if there is any agreement to be arrived at as to what bills are contentious and what are not contentious; he should take into consideration the fact that there are two other groups in the House?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I very gladly include my hon. friend's party, and I have no doubt Dhat he will be able to get full information as to the motion from the hon. member immediately next to him.

Civil Service Superannuation


John Livingstone Brown: I may say that the hon.
leader of the House is entirely wrong.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am sorry that there is a rift within the lute, Mr. Speaker.


John Livingstone Brown: That is a guess again; there is no rift.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that there is far less of a rift within the lute in this quarter than I find indicated in the party to which my hon. friend belongs.
Sir HENRY' DRAYTON: We now understand, Mr. Speaker, that this motion will come up again to see if the business of the House can be expedited.
Motion stands.
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR 1925-26 and 1926-27
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1926, was presented by Sir Henry Drayton (Acting Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the committee of Supply.
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1927, was presented by Sir Henry Drayton (Acting Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the committee of Supply.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker,
I desire to point out that the estimates now tabled are the estimates of my hon. friends opposite without any change whatever.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. C. R. MoINTOSH (North Battlefoi'd) the second report of the select standing committee on Industrial and International Relations was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton) the final report of the special committee appointed to investigate the fuel supply of Canada was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Acting Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 233, to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Hewitt Bostock: When shall said bill be read a second time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Next sitting of the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is for my hon. friends to say, of course; it is not our bill.


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: I think we should follow the regular procedure. We have not seen this bill yet, and I think everyone should have that opportunity.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am asked to explain. This bill merely extends the time within which civil servants may take advantage of the acts in connection with the retirement and pension funds. It has been brought up in the House several times, and was prepared by my hon. friends.


EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Acting Minister of Customs and Excise) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 234, to amend the Excise Act.
He said: This bill arises out of the report of the special committee investigating this department, and merely amends section 4 of chapter 52 by striking out the proviso at the end of that section, which reads as follows: Provided, however, that the Governor in Council may suspend the operation of subsection 4 of this section during such .period or periods as he may deem ne~ cessaryp
This subsection was inserted in the bill in 1920.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1_ What international ferry licenses have been granted by the government on the St. Lawrence river routes since January 1, 1922?
2.	To whom were such licenses granted?
3.	What are the names of all applicants for each license granted?
4.	What amount was paid for each of such licenses?
5.	Was license granted to party making highest offer in each instance? If not, why?
6.	Was license refused to all applicants for any service? If so, where and why?

Questions


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Acting Minister of Public Works):: 1.	(a) Morrisburg, Ont.-Waddington, NY.;
(b)	Rockport, Out.-Alexandria Bay, N.Y.;
(c)	Gananoque, Ont.-Clayton, N.Y.;	(d)
Kingston, Ont.-Cape Vincent, N.Y.;	(e)
Prescott, Ont.-Ogdensburg, N.Y. (renewal of license);	(f) Brockville, Ont.-Morristown,
N.Y. (renewal of license).
2.	(a) Walter Y. McGannon, Morrisburg, Ont.; (b) J. Herbert Hutchinson, Alexandria Bay, N.Y.; (c) The Thousand Island Navigation Co., Ltd., Kingston, Ont.; (d) The Rock-port Navigation Co., Ltd., Kingston, Ont.; (e) Prescott & Ogdensburg Ferry Co., Prescott, Ont.; (f) Brockville & Morristown Transportation Co., Inc., Morristown, N.Y.
3.	(a) Walter V. McGannon, Morrisburg, Ont.; (b) J. Hejbert Hutchinson, Alexandria Bay, N.Y.; The International Ferry Co., Alexandria Bay, N.Y.; (c) Lewis Orr, Kingston, Ont.; The Thousand Island Navigation Co., Ltd., Kingston, Ont.; A. B. Chaffee, Montreal, Que.; (d) The Rockport Navigation Co., Ltd., Kingston, Ont.; (e) Prescott & Ogdensburg Ferry Co., Prescott, Ont.; (f) Brockville & Morristown Transportation Co., Inc., Morristown, N.Y.
4.	(a) S25.00 per annum; (b) $25.00 per annum; (c) $3,000 per annum (license renewed and reduced to $25.00 per annum by order in council June 7, 1926; (d) $25.00 per annum; (e) $1.00 per annum; (f) $1.00.
5.	Under the Ferries Act licenses for international ferries are not offered to public competition.
6.	Morrisburg, Ont.-Brandy Brook, N.Y.; Kingston, Ont.-Clayton, N.Y.
The granting of licenses for these two ferries was not considered necessary in the public interest.


FREE TRANSPORTATION-MR. DUNCAN MARSHALL
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Has a railway pass or free transportation of r.ny kind been issued to the Hon. Duncan Marshall by the president, directors or other officials of the Canadian National Railways during the year 1926?
2.	If so, in what section of Canada is pass or transportation honoured?
3.	On what ground is transportation issued?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Acting Minister of Railways):: 1.	Transportation over lines in Canada was issued to Hon. Duncan Marshall, first as Commissioner of Agriculture, and, since, on newspaper account.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


HOll-327J SURRENDER OF LANDS AGREEMENT WITH HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY
Mr. EVANS:: Has any agreement between, this government and the Hudson's Bay Company been reached whereby the company agrees to abandon certain lands in the province of Alberta for the privilege of choosing the same amount in Manitoba or Saskatchewan?


Hon. Mr. STEVENS (Acting Minister of the Interior):: On the 23rd December, 1924, an agreement was entered into with the Hudson's Bay Company under which all lands held by the company within Forest reserves, Dominion parks and Indian reserves in the Fertile Belt were surrendered in exchange for vacant and available Dominion lands in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, to be selected by the company.
Clause one of the agreement reads as follows:
1.	The company agrees to surrender and release unto His Majesty all lands situate within Forest reserves, Dominion parks and Indian reserves in the Fertile Belt as defined in the said deed of surrender, hereinafter called the deed, and by an order in council P.C, 1667, bearing date the seventh day of May, 1896, to which the company holds title, and also any other interest, if any, in or to lands in the said reserves and parks to which it is entitled or claims to be entitled under the terms of the deed and the said legislation, in exchange for a quantity of vacant available Dominion lands in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, situate outside the said reserves and parks to be selected by the company, and equal in area to the sum of the following:
(a)	One-twentieth of the area of any land surveyed or unsurveyed included in Fertile Belt forest reserves other than the parks and reserves mentioned in subparagraph (c) hereunder. Forest reserves being as defined by the schedule to chapter 13 of the statutes 13 and 14 George V (Dom. 1923).
(b)	One-twentieth of the area of any land included prior to said enactment in Forest reserves other than those mentioned in said subparagraph (c).
(c)	The area of any land within Rocky Mountain park, Waterton Lake park, Rocky Mountain forest reserve and Indian reserves, unencumbered title to which is surrendered by the company to His Majesty.
Provided that no lands in Indian reserves and the Rocky Mountains forest reserve, the Rocky Mountains park or in the Waterton Lakes park as defined and shown on the homestead map or plan, Western Canada, of the Department of the Interior, seventeenth
Questions

edition, published in the year 1921, copy of which is hereto annexed, except lands to which ihe company surrendered, or surrenders, the unencumbered title in fee simple shall be credited to the company in the said exchange of lands. Provided that in cases where the company has leased mineral rights the lands shall be conveyed and the leases assigned to His Majesty, and the title shall be treated as an unencumbered title in fee simple for the purposes of this agreement. Provided that any lands heretofore granted or conveyed by His Majesty to the company for purposes of exchange in excess of the area heretofore relinquished or surrendered by the company for such exchange shall be reckoned and taken as lands selected and acquired by the company in satisfaction-pro tanto-of the company's rights to lands under this clause.
No other agreement has been entered into whereby the company agrees to abandon lands in Alberta for the privilege of choosing the same area in Manitoba or Saskatchewan.


SADDLE LAKE RESERVE-ALBERTA SALE OF LANDS
Mr. BURY:: 3.	Shortly prior -to, or at the sale on March 3, of a portion of the lands of the Saddle Lake Indian reserve, Allberta, did the Indian agent at the said reserve retoeive instructions that intending purchasers securing first choices would 'be entitled to purchase as much land as they desired?
2.	If so, were these the original instructions of the government to the said agent, and if not the original instructions, on whose advice, request or suggestion and on what ground was the change in such original instructions made?
3.	Were the names of the persons who actually drew and purchased portions of the said land only those set-out below; and did each purchase the amount of land set out below opposite his name?
J. Gagnon, 8 quarter sections;
J. Conrnack, 3 quarter sections;
Jacobs, 3 quarter sections;
H. Fontaine, 19 quarter sections;
V. Tessier, 5 quarter sections;
A. Poitras, 7 quarter sections;
P, Charron, 2 quarter sections.
1 Purchaser (name unknown), 1 quarter section.
4.	If the above names and amounts of land were not those of the persons who actually purchased on the said 3rd or 4th of March, what were the names of acd amounts purchased by such original purchasers respectively?
5.	Were one hundred and nineteen (119) tickets actually drawn by applicants to purchase?
6.	Were initial payments on their said purchases made by any of the said purchasers to the agent on the said 3rd or 4th of Mandh or shortly thereafter?
7.	Were other persons who had not themselves drawn tickets entitling them to purchase, subsequently summoned to the house of the said agent and desired or allowed themselves to become direct purchasers of lands or portions of such lands?
8.	Does the list of purchasers given by the Minister *of the Interior in answer to question (8) of the ques-

tions put to him on April 15th (Hansard 27th May, p. 3902), Include as well such subsequent purchasers as th" said original purchasers? If so, which are they?


Hon. Mr. STEVENS (Acting Minister of the Interior):: 1.	First instruction was to sell these lands by units, as originally plotted by the Soldier Settlement Board, such units ranging in area from 160 to 320 acres according to the suitability of the land for farming purposes. Following representations that this method would not prove satisfactory as the majority of prospective purchasers required half a section in order to farm properly by western methods, it was decided to permit each purchaser to select any parcel he desired, on the understanding, however, that not more than half a section would be allotted to any one individual.
2.	Answered by No. 1.	[DOT]
3.	The names of the purchasers or allottees at the first sale and the areas applied for were as follows,-
Quarter sections
Jos. Gagnon	 8
James Cormack	 3
Alphonse Poitras	 7
Arthur Fontaine	 19
Frank Jakubik	 2
Victor Teasier	 5
Pierre Charron	 2
Ed. LeBlanc	 1
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes.
7.	Immediately after receiving report of sale as held on March 3, the department advised the agent in charge that the original instructions with respect to limiting individual purchases to a half section must be carried out. Several of the first allotments were made, the department is advised, by parties acting on behalf of others, the various selections being pooled, so the department instructed that these parties must be called upon to assume their contracts and obligations direct with the department, and individual purchases in no case to exceed half a section. This re-adjustment was satisfactorily carried out, and all available lands have been allotted or sold on this basis.
8.	Yes. Fourteen quarter sections remaining have since been sold to the following parties:-
Peter Sheput, half section. Jos. Verbisky, half section. William Sheput, half section. Nick Chornohus, half section. William P. Kuz, half section. Stanley Boychuk, half section. Fred Calliou, quarter section. Joseph Leroux, quarter section.

Questions


SPECIAL TRAIN TO OTTAWA
Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto-High Park):: 1.	Was Mr. Armand Sylvestre, member for Lake St.
John, in Roberval, Quebec, on Tuesday ithe 15th instant?	_ t .
2.	Was Mr. J. E. A. Dubuc, member fo-r Chicoutlm., in Chicoutimi, Quebec, on Tuesday the 15th instant?
3.	Were telegrams despatched to the above gentlemen enjoining them or either of them to return to Ottawa by special train on that day?
4.	Was a special train despatched on the Canadian
National, leaving Chicoutimi at 11 o'clock on the evening of the aforesaid Tuesday or thereabouts to expedite the movement of said gentlemen or either of them to Ottawa?	.
5.	If so, who made arrangements for such special
train?	[DOT]
6.	Whait was the cost thereof?
7.	By whom is such cost defrayed?


Henry Lumley Drayton: 1,	2 and 3. The Department of Railways and Canals has no information.
4.	Yes.
5.	Pierre Casgrain, K.C., M.P.
6.	$1,301.50.
7.	By the person ordering service.


PATROL BOAT &quot;VAGRANT''
Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: 1 Who is captain of patrol boat "Vagrant" No. 2 engaged in preventive service on Cape Breton coast?
2.	Has such captain a certificate qualifying him for such a position?


Hon. Mr. STEVENS (Acting Minister of Customs and Excise):: 1.	Captain Thomas Scott.
2.	Captain Thomas Scott holds a service certificate No. 3464, as master of a fore-and-aft rigged sailing vessel not exceeding 750 tons registered tonnage, in the coasting trade, which is considered a higher class of vessel than "Patrol Boat No. 2" and he is therefore qualified under section 96, Canada Shipping Act, to act as master of "Patrol Boat No. 2".


BELLE RIVER, ONTARIO
Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton East):: What amount of money was spent by this government each year during the last five years at Belle River, Ontario, including bridging and construction work?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Acting Minister of Public Works):: Fiscal year	Dredging Construction Total
1921- 22	 Nil Nil	
1922- 23	 Nil	Nil	
1923- 24	$ 3,652 45 $ 3.652 45
1924- 25	$42,426 09 29,875 25 72,301 34
1925- 26	 12,367 47		 12,367 47


INDIAN AGENT-PUNNICHY, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. DAVIS:: 1.	Why was t'he Rev. Major Harding dismissed as Indian agent at Punnichy, Saskatchewan?
2.	Did Robert Hicks inform the department as to gross irregularities at this post?
3.	Was Robert Hicks an applicant and temporarily appointed as Indiant agent at this post?
4.	Was he fianlly replaced by Mr. Moore and was the latter removed from the post of the Indian agent at Sintaluta, Saskatchewan, to Punnichy, Saskatchewan?
5.	Was the man appointed in his place a son-in-law of the Minister of the Interior? If so, what experience or qualifications had the new appointee for the post?
6.	Why was not the permanent appointment of Mr. Hicks considered favourably?


Hon. Mr. STEVENS (Acting Minister of of Indian Affairs):: 1.	Indian Agent Hardinge was dismissed owing to the unsatisfactory nature of his services, involving defalcations, maladministration of Indian funds, and general lack of ability to supervise and control the Indians.
2.	No.
3.	No. He administered the agency after Mr. Hardinge's dismissal under the direct supervision of the Indian commisioner pending the appointment of an agent.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes. The appointee had practical experience in farming and ranching.
6.	Mr. Hicks has not the necessary qualifications for an Indian agent.


DUMPING DUTY ON BUTTER
Mr. ESLING:: 1.	Has the dumping penalty been applied on any shipments of butter, entering Canada, (a) during the present year, (b) during 1925?
2.	If so, what was the country of origin of such butter and what amount was collected at each port of entry?
3 Have any refunds of such penalties been made and to whom?


Hon. Mr. STEVENS (Acting Minister of of Customs and Excise):: 1.	(a) Yes.
(b) There is no record of the matter being before the Department in 1925.
2.	Australia. The department has no separate record of amounts of dumping duty collected on butter.
3.	No record has been found of refund of lumping duty on butter.


DUMPING DUTY ON STRAWBERRIES
Mr. ESLING:: 1.	Has the dumping penalty been applied to strawberries entering Canadn from the United States, (a) during the present year, (b) during the calendar year 1925?
2.	At what ports were such entries made and what, was the total amount of the penalties at each port?
Total

Questions

3.	Have any refunds of such penalties been made and to whom?


Hon. Mr. STEVENS (Acting Minister of of Customs and Excise):: 1.	The department has no separate record of amounts of dumping duty collected on strawberries. Ports have been advised as to home consumption values of strawberries for purposes of application of dumping clause provisions.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No record has been found of refund of dumping duty on strawberries.


A. HARVEY
Mr. HUBBS:: 1.	Is A. Harvey an employee of the House of Commons staff?
2.	If so, when was he appointed, by whom, and what is his salary?
3.	If so, what are his duties and is he at present m Ottawa ?
4.	If on the House of Commons staff and not e?n-ployed at Ottawa, at what place is he employed, in what capacity, and what are his duties?


Mr. SPEAKER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	March 8, 1922, Mr. Speaker, $4 per diem.
3.	Speaker's steward. Yes.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


DREDGING-AMHERSTBURG
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What dredging work is being done by the Canadian government at the port of Amherstburg?
2.	Were tenders asked?
3.	By whom were tenders submitted?
4.	What is the tender amount of contract?
5.	How long is it expected it will take to complete the contract?
6.	What is t<he object of the work?
7.	Under whose suggestion was work started?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Acting Minister of Public Works):: 1.	The dredging of a cut 45 feet wide to 10 feet at low water adjacent to the buoy depot wharf of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, at Amherstburg.
2.	Prices asked from the following firms:- The Chatham Dredging & General Contracting Co., Ltd.; The Detroit River Construction Company, Ltd.; The St. Clair Dredge & Contracting Co., Ltd.
3.	The St. Clair Dredge & Contracting Co., Ltd.
4.	$2,846.80 (Approximately) at 60 cents per cubic yard scow measure, and 40 cents per cubic yard place measure.
5.	Two months.
6.	To give shelter to the floating plant of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
7.	Department of Marine and Fisheries.

QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN Mr. WOODSWORTH:
1.	What area of land has been granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway or its subsidiaries in the provinces of Ailiberta and Saskatchewan?
2.	How many acres approximately in these provinces are within areas on which coal has been found or is believed to exist?
3.	How much land was granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway or its subsidiaries in the Turner valley in southern Alberta?
4.	How much land has been granted in the areas covered in Dr. Hume's report as probable oil districts in the Wainwright and Ribstone areas in Saskatchewan and Alberta?
5.	What is the approximate area granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway in' which there is a probability of oil or other mineral resources being found?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Passed as an order for return, which I now table.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. BLACK (Yukon) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence relating to W. S. Loggin, customs-excise preventive officer, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, together with a copy of the report made by an officer of the Customs and Excise department in connection therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE DOMINION DAY SITTING On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to ask my hon. friend if the government has decided as to whether or not the House is to sit on the 1st of July. I may say that the opposition is wholly agreeable to any decision which the government may have reached in the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think last night, Mr. Speaker, we
asked what the opinion of the House was as to whether we would sit or not on Dominion Day. If it is the opinion of the House that we should sit, we sit. .


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want to be sure 1 understand my hon. friend aright.
I intimated that the opposition collectively are agreeable to whatever decision the government has reached. Do I understand that the government has reached the decision to sit on the 1st of July?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
government's decision?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.

Privilege-Mr. McMillan
PRIVILEGE-Mr. McMILLAN
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question
of privilege. In yesterday's Mail and Empire I find the following:
Ottawa, Ontario, June 28.-The reasons Thomas McMillan, South Huron, was not entitled to a pair are stated in the following statement made by W. A. Boys, chief Conservative whip. Mr. Boys has given the following details of the situation over the McMillan pair.
When the Liberal whip asked me for a pair for Mr. McMillan, I refused on three grounds:
1.	Early in the session when Mr. A. D. Chaplin was sick in bed in Chatham and could not attend, I was refused a pair for him.
2.	Mr. McMillan had but a few days ago paired with Mr. Jones of New Brunswick, and had disregarded his pair and had voted.
3.	Mr. Carmichael, one of the Progressives, was supporting the opposition, so I was given to understand, and hod to leave for the west on account of the illness of -his daughter, and I felt his vote would offset Mr. McMillan's, and the actual voting strength of the House would thus be preserved.
In addition to the above reasons I since learned from Mr. Hocken that about five weeks ago Mr. McMillan had approached him for a sessional pair, to which Mr. Hocken had verbally agreed. On the 13th June, Mr. Hocken took sick and was confined to bed. On the 15th June, Mr. Hocken, owing to the unusual importance of the division, asked to have the pair confirmed by the Liberal whip, and asked Mr. McMillan to come to see him in his room. This [DOT] Mr. McMillan refused to do, and in consequence Mr. Hocken had to be carried into the House at two a.m., when he should have been at home in bed.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to take exception to such a statement. So far as I am implicated, there is no truth in this statement. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones) came to me and asked for a pair. My reply was: "All right, but I will do nothing myself; we will go to our whip, Mr. Casgrain," which we did.
I told Mr. Casgrain in the presence of Mr. Jones that he would like to pair with me, and while I was not going home till to-morrow, Friday, night, yet I would pair with him from that moment until my return on Monday night, but it was between the two of them. When the hon. member for Royal did return, he came to me and said that while he thought he was paired, he knew there was no blame attached to me.
As to the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr, Hocken), while we did meet and I would have liked a sessional pair, I got no such assurance from him, and considered our pair only temporary over the week end until our return on the following Monday. Furthermore, I know nothing of the hon. member for Toronto West Centre wishing the Liberal whip to confirm my pair with him on the evening of June 15. This report is
the first I have heard of it. That was the same night on which my pair expired with Mr. Jones, and while a messenger did hand me a note from Mr. Hocken, saying he wished to see me in his room, it was just when the vote was called, and having no obligation to him, I returned the note saying I could not come at present. I did not know of his illness till afterwards.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the statement made
by the chief whip of the Conservative party which has just been read by the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) is absolutely accurate. The hon. member came to me of his own initiative, outside the door of my room upstairs, and suggested that he and I should pair for the session. The words he used were these: "When I am away you won't vote, and when you are away I won't vote." If that is not to be understood as a sessional pair between two hon. members of the House, then I would like to know what is.
As to the occasion upon which he voted, I was under the doctor's orders at the time under no circumstances to leave my bed. I endeavoured to get the assistant whip to confirm the sessional pair I had made with the hon. member for South Huron, and he came to me and said that he had gone to the hon. member for South Huron and said that he would like h'im to come and see me in my room upstairs so that I could go home to bed, but that the hon. member for South Huron had refused to do so. That is the substance, and pretty nearly the text, of the statement made by the whip, and I am here to say that that statement is correct.


Mr. G. B. JONES (Royal):: Mr. Speaker,
I have listened to the statement made by the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan). On Thursday the 10th of June I passed a note across the floor to the hon. member for' Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Hatfield) asking him to favour me with a pair from Friday until the next Wednesday. He returned the note and said that he was paired with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) until his return. I spoke to our whip and he said: "Perhaps you could see Mr. McMillan." I crossed the floor to where Mr. McMillan was sitting, somewhere near his old seat before we changed sides, and I asked him if he would give me a pair until next Wednesday. He said, "Wait till I see my whip." He spoke to the whip of the Liberal party, and the whip beckoned me to come up and said: "You wish to pair with
5166	...	COMMONS
Business Conditions in Sydney
Mr. McMillan?" I said, "Yes, until next Wednesday." The Liberal whip wrote down, "Jones-McMillan, Wednesday." I got up then to leave, and Mr. McMillan put out his hand and shook hands on it. I went over and reported the matter to our whip, and he recorded the pair in the same way as until Wednesday next. That was on Thursday night. I went home on Friday afternoon and arrived in Montreal at 7.20 on Wednesday morning, and on looking at the Montreal Gazette I noticed that it said that I was the only Conservative away from the House without a nair. You can understand the feeling that came over me when I read that. I came to Ottawa and crossed over and said to Mr. McMillan: "Why did you go back on the pair you made with me?" He said: "I am not to blame for that." I said: "Who else is to blame but you?" "Oh well," he said, "it was our whip." I said: "I did not pair with your whip. I made an honourable pair with you as between man and man and member and member, and you have gone back on your word." He said: "The next time we make a pair we will make it between ourselves." He then asked me if I would give him a pair that week end so that he could go home as his wife was ill, and I said: "Not until this matter is cleaned up." That is the last conversation I had with the hon. member.
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAJN (Charlevoix-Saguenay):	May I say a few words in connection with this matter? I remember the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones) and the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) coming to see me and telling me that they wanted to pair. I did not object to it, but I said that the hon. member for South Huron could pair with the hon. member for Royal if all our members would be here and there would be no absentees, and that should there be any absentees I would see that the pair would be covered by some other member on our side who might be absent. On that very night before the division took place I remember going to the whip of the then opposition and reciting these facts to him and offering him a pair for the hon. member for Royal, I think Mr. Sylvestre, the hon. member for Lake St. John, but it was declined. That, according to my recollection, was the only understanding at that time. I have never refused to give a pair to hon. gentlemen opposite; I have always desired to be agreeable to them.
As regards the other incident that was mentioned, that a pair was refused to the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Chaplin) who 
happened to be sick, the circumstances are these:	At that time the hon. member for
Kent had not been sworn in and had not signed the roll and so, according to the usages, practice and rules of the House of Commons, was not a member in regular standing.


BUSINESS CONDITIONS IN SYDNEY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Antigonish-Guysborough):: Last week a very representative delegation from the city of Sydney, Nova Scotia, waited upon the then government and made certain representations as to the conditions of business and the industry there, and asked for certain remedies. I may say that the then government had under consideration dealing with that question. I desire to ask the government whether any representations have been made to them since they took office, and whether they intend to bring down any legislation to deal with the matter this session?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite sure we will be very glad to hear any representations my hon. friend has to make in connection with the conditions in Nova Scotia, and I hasten to assure him that we will not only, consider them, but, I hope, give far quicker and more sympathetic treatment to them than he has been able to do.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Have any representations been made to the government?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, I have
heard nothing.


ORDER IN COUNCIL PASSED BY THE LATE ADMINISTRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West):: I wish to ask the government if it is true that a general order has been issued to suspend the execution of all orders in council passed by the previous administration, and also the execution of all contracts already entered into between the late government and contractors?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no knowledge of any such order.


MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Henry Drayton, Bill No. 189, to provide for a loan to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal was read a third time.

Soldier Settlement Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Acting Minister of
Soldier's Civil Re-establishment) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 17, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What are the
amendments?


Mr. MANION:: I have not had time to go into them thoroughly but there is only one change that I can discover, and I have discussed the matter with the chief commissioner, and it is to the effect that instead of having a board of arbitration as was decided by this House, any change in the valuation of the soldiers' land is now left to the Soldier Settlement Board itself, with the opportunity of appeal to the Exchequer Court of Canada. There was some idea, I believe, that this would impose too much work upon the Exchequer court. However, I had the matter looked into and as far as I can find after rather hurried examination there would not be so many appeals as to embarrass the Exchequer court. At the same time there is a condition in the bill permitting the Exchequer court to delegate that work if they will to some other agency such as a district judge or a county court judge. So far as I have been able to look into the matter, and I have done that as thoroughly as time would permit, the change is satisfactory to all concerned. I have inquired of some of those who took great interest in the soldier settlement question when it was up and I think the matter is satisfactory from our standpoint unless there should be objections from somebody else.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
has just stated that he himself has not had the opportunity to inform himself fully as to the amendments. I have a copy of the amendments which, through the courtesy of hon. gentlemen opposite, has just been handed to me, and when I look at the bill it seems to be completely scored from end to end. Consequently I think opportunity should be given to the government and to the members of the House to see what the significance of these amendments is before we consent to them. I therefore suggest to my hon. friend that he allow the bill to stand until we have had an opportunity of fully considering them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We will allow
it to stand until later in the day.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the minister
whether the expense connected with such appeals would not preclude anyone at a distance, or anyone who is not in good circumstances, from making an appeal?


Robert James Manion: It may, perhaps, result in a little more expense, but I am not even certain as to that. I can assure my hon. friend, however, that if the bill goes through every effort will be made to avoid expense to any of these soldier settlers who may have to appeal. As I have already said, the matter is so arranged that the Exchequer court could delegate the work to a local board. They could appoint, for example, an assessor to go and investigate so that there would not necessarily be any additional expense to the soldier settlers. Of course the Exchequer court itself holds sittings throughout the country; but the point is that they could delegate to a county court judge, or to some other official whom they saw fit to choose, the power to act as assessor in their behalf in order to get a fair decision. The reason for making the change was that an appeal to the Exchequer Court of Canada would be more likely to result in an absolutely fair and impartial decision in all cases than would an appeal to local boards, who might be influenced one way or the other by local influences.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would ask that the motion stand.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the minister say that up to the point where disagreement arises upon the question of valuation, the full jurisdiction rests in the hands of the Soldier Settlement Board and the board has the power to decide?


Robert James Manion: Yes, if the man is satisfied, but if he is not satisfied he can appeal to the Exchequer court.


Edward Joseph Garland: If my hon. friends, after all their protests, can accept that, very well.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: Inasmuch as we have not had an
opportunity of noting the amendment I welcome the delay, and I do not attempt to say anything at the moment, except that I am amazed that my hon. friend would accept this amendment, because it is the identical proposal which I made to the House, and hon. members kept me here for three days endeavouring to change this, in order to place the matter in the hands of the district court. I am glad the Senate viewed this matter in the light of the experience they had in discussing it and went back to the original proposal.
Soldier Settlement Act


Robert James Manion: I did not keep my hon. friend three days. Some of my hon. friends may have taken a certain attitude on this question, but I do not remember. It is now left entirely in the hands of the Exchequer court, with the opportunity of passing it over to the district or county court or some assessor, if they desire. In reference to the remarks of my right hon. friend on the other amendments, I think they are mainly technical but I am satisfied to have the bill stand.


Mr. A. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: Apparently the strongest argument that can be advanced in favour of the changes .made in this bill by the other body is the claim that they have left it open for us to go back to the original bill as passed in this House. They have left it open to go back to the local tribunal, and the strongest argument advanced by the minister apparently, as to why we should accept their amendment, is that they have left open the door to get back to the bill as it passed this House; in other words, to the local tribunal. That was the provision in the bill as it left this chamber.
Then again the argument is used that appealing to the Exchequer court will provide uniformity and will be more reliable. That argument might apply were it a question of law, or a case where it was desirable to have a uniformity of law throughout Canada; but how can you have uniformity of judgment?


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I cannot hear a word.


Alan Webster Neill: How can you have uniformity of judgment in the matter of the value of land which varies every five miles? It was alleged in the previous debate or possibly in the other chamber, that by having a judge, one man acting, he could make up his mind what the value was in a given case. Then the matter was settled. All he had to do was to adopt- that value in every case. To anyone who knows anything about the common sense view it is simply ridiculous, because the value of land varies, not only in every province, but every few miles. In one case it might cost $300 or $400 to clear land. That is common in the west. Is that condition to be compared with the case of broken land on the prairie where it does not require anything to clear it? The purpose of the bill was to see that justice would be done by the local tribunal in every local condition that arose. I think it would be desirable that we should have the full amendments of the bill before us, so that we would know what particular sections were affected and in what way. The amendments will be found in Votes and Pro-
ceedings. Perhaps in line 95 you strike out the word "and". It may not mean much or it may be very important. In one of the Senate Hansards I saw a suggestion made on the addition of a clause which while apparently innocent, might be used in a court directed to the strictly legal aspect for the purpose of upsetting the whole bill; because it said -it could only apply to those soldiers whose condition was such that it was impossible for them to continue with the overload of indebtedness which they might have. The wording of the clause was of such a character that it might be held, "Well here is this man with an overload of $2,000, but he is a hardworking industrious chap, with a wife and growing family. It is not impossible for them to survive that load and overcome it." That was not the principle of the bill as it left this House. The principle was that fair and evenhanded justice should be meted out, and the case should not be decided upon legal technicalities at all. At a later stage I saw that same bill in the Senate and I could not find that clause; but if that clause is in the measure it requires careful investigation. The minister should take steps before the hill comes up again to have the amendments printed in such a way as to show what their effect will be. If we have to wade through forty or fifty amendments, where we are told to strike out the word "or" and insert two or three words in another place, going through it in the hurried way in which we are doing, justice will not be done.


Robert James Manion: I am not-neither is the government-in any way wedded to this measure, because we have not had sufficient time to look into it. The amendments of the Senate were put on the order paper and appear in Votes and Proceedings of June 23, so that we did have an opportunity, had we watched our Votes and Proceedings, of studying the matter. But if it is the opinion of the House, after a further discussion when the matter comes up again, that these amendments should be dealt with further, we have no objection. My copy of the bill contains the amendments.
Motion stands.


LONG TERM FARM LOANS
[Stage Direction]
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Leader of the House) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 148, for the purpose of establishing in Canada a system of long term mortgage credit for farmers.

Long Term Farm Loans
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What are
these amendments?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I desire to bring these amendments to the attention of hon. members. I think they have been tabled for some time and are available to hon. members who desire to look into the question.


Mr. DUNNING:: Did the minister say
they had been tabled for some time?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the information has been before us.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yesterday.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought it
was earlier. They were tabled only yesterday, but the bill is a very important one, and I think we should consider it as 'early as possible. I propose to take up the amendments one by one and draw them to the attention of my hon. friends. The amendments appear in the Votes and Proceedings. The first amendment is one made to clause 3 of the bill. That clause provides for the appointment of the members of the board. I believe the House will agree that there is no objection whatever to that amendment; it simply adds, after the word "council" the words, "On such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may prescribe."


Edward Joseph Garland: What does that mean?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Personally I do not think it adds anything to it.


Charles Avery Dunning: It makes no difference?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It makes no difference. Generally when anyone is appointed he is appointed on such terms and conditions as the person making the appointment chooses to attach. That is all that is said. The amendments are to be found on page 497 of Votes and Proceedings. The amendment to section 5 merely makes it clear that the capital stock shall be based on the principal outstanding on mortgages from time to time rather than on the original face value of the mortgage. The first three and a half lines of subsection (a) of section 5 are struck out and it is provided instead that the government of Canada may subscribe an initial amount not exceeding $5,000,000 and pay that amount in such subscriptions and at such times as in the judgment of the board are necessary.
On page 3 after the word "total" the words "amount of principal outstanding on" are added. The effect is to restrict the capital to the amount actually outstanding. I do
not think there is any other change in that section except one providing that shares in the capital stock may be transferred at the option of the board where the sale of property is satisfactory to the board.
Next we come to section 7. On page 5 of the bill there is a charge of some moment. The matter was discussed in the House and there were some differences of opinion as to W'hether we were doing right or not. The particular provision had reference to the limitation of expenses of operation to one per cent of the loan, and after some discussion that was carried. I remember supporting it myself although other hon. gentlemen considered it unfair to fix such a limitation until it had been seen how matters worked out. It was thought that we could trust to the board to manage things properly. However, we put it in and the Senate struck it out. That limitation having been removed the matter is left entirely to the proper administration of the board. In his note on the section Mr. Finlayson, who had the matter in hand both in this House for the minister and in the Senate, says that it was felt that the judgment of the board should be unfettered in fixing upon the provision to be made in the mortgage interest rate to take care of cost of operation.
There is another change in subsection 6 of section 7. That subsection provides:
Every .farm loan shall be repayable in equal annual or semi-annual instalments of principal and interest.
The Senate has added the words "at the option of the borrower." No one I think will object to that. It simply means that the borrower can decide whether he wishes to have his loan carry payments annually or semi-annually.
In subsection 7 the words "all assessments and taxes" are struck out and the following words are substituted:
All assessments, taxes and other charges necessary to he paid for the security of the board in respect of the loan.
The amendment is to provide that the borrower shall pay, in addition to assessments and taxes, such other charges as may be found necessary for the protection of the board in relation to the upkeep of its property. Personally, I do not know exactly what was feared, but hon. gentlemen who live in the district will probably appreciate the reason for the change. At any rate, the amendment does not appear to be of considerable importance. The subsection as amended by the Senate reads:
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Interest Act every borrower shall .pay simple interest
Long Term Farm Loans

on defaulted payments at a rate not exceeding eight per cent per annum and shall agree to pay when due all assessments, taxes and other charges necessary (to be paid for the security of the board in respect of the loan and to effect such insurance as the -board may require. Should such taxes, assessments and charges not be paid when due, they may be paid by the board and charged to the borrower, and if not repaid to the board on or before the next interest date with interest thereon at a rate not exceeding eight per cent per annum the borrower shall be considered in default under the mortgage.
The effect of this amendment is that if these payments have to be made by the board in the ordinary course the board may charge interest on such payments, not to exceed 8 per cent.
There is a change in subsection 8 of the same section. The amendment recognizes the right of the borrower to repay his Ipan in whole or in part at any time within the specified period.


Edward Joseph Garland: At no time shall the borrower pay more than 8 per cent on the loan in arrears. Does that 8 per cent include all charges?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would cover all charges which have been actually paid by the board; that is all. Tlie rate is not fixed. That is something for the board to arrange in the ordinary way, but they cannot stipulate for a greater rate of interest than 8 per cent.
We were considering the section dealing with payments by borrowers. As I was pointing out, this subsection has been amended to recognize the right of the borrower to repay his loan in whole or in part at any time without notice, instead of after five years as in the original bill. This privilege, however, will be subject to regulations not inconsistent with the Interest Act, which provides that the penalty for repayment without notice after five years' duration shall not exceed a bonus of three months' interest. As I said to my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Dunning) I would think this would be a matter of administration.	.


Charles Avery Dunning: I said so when the bill was going through this House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would think
the board ought to take the money at any time without any trouble at all. This is to help the borrower because before he had not the right to repay without notice, This helps him to the extent that he can repay at any time without waiting five years, but that he may be charged a bonus of not more than three months interest. In my view, when we establish the machinery of administration the proper way of dealing with this would be

to have a rule enabling a man to repay his loan at any time without charging him any bonus whatever.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Chateauguay-Hunting-don):: Before my hon. friend leaves section
8, may I direct his attention, if it is permis- [DOT] sible, to certain suggested amendments that were made in another House by the leader of the government. A resolution was presented there and seconded by an hon. gentleman who is mentioned as a member of this government. I should like to know what my hon. friend's attitude is in that regard. I observe some hon. gentleman over there said that if you were going to chloroform the bill you might as well chloroform it at once. I submit to my hon. friend that even should the bill pass this House, if the government is not sympathetic towards it there will be means of tying it up.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Some amendments were proposed in the other House but were withdrawn; for example, an amendment to the effect that this law was not to be operative without the consent of the provinces, as I recall it. We are not receiving this bill in any such spirit at all. So far as we have gone with these amendments, I have not seen anything which really tends to injure the administration of this bill one way or the other. I do not know if my hon. friends are going to say we will strike something later on of that character, but so far we have not.
I quite admit to my hon. friend that the usefulness of all legislation depends upon how it is carried out-


James Alexander Robb: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -and I hope
this bill is going to be properly carried out. So far as I am concerned, it will be properly carried out.


James Alexander Robb: I congratulate my hon. friend upon his rapid conversion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite delighted to give my hon. friend an opportunity of exchanging smiles with me, but he is entirely wrong. Why, we were calling for this provision before the bill was brought down.
If my hon. friend will go back a little he will remember the ghost of a bill we had last year, and he will remember that the then opposition laid down the lines of a bill which my hon. friend afterwards put the clothes on.
I congratulate him on that.
Sections 9 and 10 are pretty well tied together. They speak for themselves. The calling of the loan is to be at the option of the board. I do not think there is any difficulty about that. Then comes section 8, in

Long Term Farm Loans
which a change is made in the number of members to act as agents for the provincial board. The number of members is reduced from five to four, the reduction being in the members representative of the borrowers from two to one. There is also a proviso-
I am giving the effect of the whole thing- that until such time as in the judgment of the board nomination by the borrower is practicable, all the functions of the provincial board may be exercised by the three members nominated by the government of the province. I think my hon. friend will say that that is all right.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not altogether certain that it is all right, but I doubt if at this stage we can do anything to remedy it. As my hon. friend well knows, one of the major principles underlying this bill was that it should ultimately develop into that type of credit control which would allow the borrowers themselves to administer their own credit. I remember the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) supported us strongly on that point before the Banking committee in the last four years. The ideal condition is an agricultural credit system which will in the ultimate rest absolutely in the hands of the borrowers and be administered by them. This amendment to a great extent delays that action. We need more representation. You have to encourage the borrowers to take an interest in this matter and the best way to arouse their interest is by giving them power to elect their representatives to the board. This amendment cuts down their representation from two to one. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can do anything at this late stage with respect to this feature, but I simply wish to go on record as intimating to the administration that unquestionably in future we, or others, will come back to this House asking that recognition be given to the borrowers' interest in the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The next section to be amended is number 9, where the word, "stock" is put in after "capital". I need not pause there at all, for it is just carrying out the purpose of the first amendment that I drew attention to. Then we have subsection 5 of section 9:
If as a result of proceedings under any mortgage the title to the property securing such mortgage is transferred to the board, the stock held by the borrower in the board shall be cancelled and the amount paid thereon by the borrower shall be forfeited to the board.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Regina): I do not know whether we are exactly in order
in discussing the amendments in this manner, but, Mr. Speaker, I object to the amendment.
I do not think it is fair to the borrower. His land is forfeited to the board, and in addition the amount of his stock, which, remember, he paid for in cash, and which was equivalent to 5 per cent of the original amount of his mortgage, is also forfeited to the board. It is not even credited to him in any manner as part of his debt. It is true there may very well be circumstances where the amount owing to the board by the mortgagor may be so much greater than the value of the stock which the board takes over as to involve the taking also of the borrower's interest in the association equivalent, as I have said, to 5 per cent of the amount of his loan. But surely we should not assume that all cases will be of that kind. Under the amendment, however, as suggested by the Senate, all cases would be treated alike, and whatever the situation of the borrower and his security might be he would nevertheless forfeit the 5 per cent interest in the capital stock of the institution.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I speak subject to correction by my hon. friend, whose bill this very largely is. I would have thought that if it is not clear it ought. to be made clear, and as a matter of administration it must be made clear, that so far as that stock i3 concerned it must be looked upon as a payment pro tanto on the borrower's debt.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is "pro tanto?"


Henry Lumley Drayton: "To the extent it goes." You see, the man is given a certain amount of stock.	* '


Mr. CAHAN:: It is a partial security.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, which is
held by those administering it, and I submit that no board would ever think of taking that stock and the property as well if, by taking any of the stock, the debt would be paid.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the debt would be more than
paid it would be highly immoral.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And I do not
think that is at all the intent of the section.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the language.
- Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod): Could not further words be added to that amendment, that it should apply on the mortgage?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is only in the case of
one particular proceeding, when the board have failed to realize on a mortgage security sufficient to pay the mortgage debt, and of
Long Term Farm Loans

course I think it would be highly immoral indeed if, when a transfer of the mortgaged property, plus -the stock, was more than sufficient to liquidate the actual indebtedness outstanding, the board appropriated that excess.


Edward Joseph Garland: If that is
the spirit in which the act will be administered it will be satisfactory, but it should be made very clear that in the event of a delay in the realization of a security, if the amount of money secured including the 5 per cent is more than enough to pay the mortgagor's liability, then there should be a refund.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It seems to me, at this late hour, that that could be arranged by regulation, but it should be clearly understood as my hon. friend has pronounced it.


Edward Joseph Garland: If the Acting Minister of Finance, whoever is acting at the moment-I am really at a loss to know.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is all the same.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, it is
all the same. If whoever is acting will go on record that a regulation will be enacted providing that the spirit enunciated here will be incorporated in the bill, it will be satisfactory.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is not
the slightest difficulty in that. Furthermore, before any proceedings would be taken the man must be credited with the amount of the stock.


Mr. A. M. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: In an
important matter like this why should not, the procedure be incorporated in the bill, without trusting to some regulations which are to come afterward? I strongly protest against legislation going through in this fashion. These things should be printed and submitted to the House, and there should be no cross-firing here unless we know what we are doing. I want to go on record as saying that this manner of doing business is entirely improper, in my judgment, and should not be carried on.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid my hon. friend is singularly ignorant of the business of the House. If he will look at the Votes and Proceedings he will find everything before him, and I have no doubt he can read as well as anyone. If hon. gentlemen want to delay this bill and tie it up the responsibility must be theirs. I am willing to assist in every possible way in providing the fullest measure of relief to farmers all over Canada under this measure. That is my desire, but if for technicalities or the like we are 
to be held up certainly the fault is not ours. This bill will have to go back to the Senate if any further changes are made. I am perfectly willing to accept what has been said by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) to the fullest possible extent, and I really think the House should take the same stand. However, I am entirely in the hands of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Very well. There is a new clause A, having to do with the audit of the books. It is as follows:
An audit of the books of the board and of each provincial board shall be made in accordance with regulations made under the provisions of section sixteen of this act by a firm of charterd accountants appointed for that purpose by the Governor in Council, and a copy of the report of the said accountants on the annual statement of the board shall be laid before parliament by the minister within the first fifteen days of the first session thereof following the date of the said report.
I do not think my hon. friend will object to that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not at -all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then there is
another new clause B, as follows:
(1)	Notwithstanding anything contained in 'this act the operations of the board in virtue thereof shall bo conducted in such a manner as to give, as far as practicable, to the shareholders in each province the full benefit of the operations in such province.
(2)	The word "shareholders" in this section shall mean the holders of shares of the board subscribed by the provinces, respectively, by the borrowers in such provinces and by the government of Canada as provided in paragraph (2) of section five of this act.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
think the principle is a sound one in any. national rural credit scheme but I am not going to raise any opposition to it, because I feel satisfied -that there will be no possibility of taking advantage of this particular clause for many years. By that time probably we will have come to reason again and will have amended the bill to conform to proper principles.
Mr. 'CAHAN:	I would like very much to
see this clause retained for the present, because i-t is witih great difficulty that members representing eastern constituencies can prevail upon the provincial governments to cooperate under this scheme. This provides something of an incentive.


Edward Joseph Garland: It will not really amount to anything.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Possibly not.

Long Term Farm Loans


Edward Joseph Garland: It would
mean some additional expense in keeping the books; you would have to keep all the provinces separate, but I have no objection at present because I think the problem will solve itself.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I proceed to the new clause C, which is as follows: Except as may be otherwise decided from time to time by the Governor in Council all actions and decisions of the board shall be deemed within its powers and shall be conclusive against all interested parties.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not like that, but
I suppose we had better take it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know
that there is any very great harm in it, and I do not know that it does any particular good either; I do not think it makes any difference.


Mr. COOTE:: What was the purpose of
putting it in?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The expert of
my hon. friend the ex-MinisteT of Finance did not give me a memorandum on that particular clause, but I suppose it really means that as between the investors and the board, the board is supposed to be boss. I do not see how it can possibly change any matter of property in civil rights, which are entirely in the courts and with which we cannot interfere. I agree with my hon. friend; I do not see any use in it but if we cut it out it means wasting time. I do not think it will do any harm.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does it not merely enact
that, prima facie, the decision of the board shall prevail? That is all that is meant, I think, that prima facie the decision of the board shall prevail against all interested parties, but that if there should be a case of exceptional wrong resulting therefrom, an appeal may be made to the Governor in Council.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is very dangerous.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, but it is necessary.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course, as
every hon. member knows who has had anything to do with mortgage companies, the mortgage company is prima facie correct all the time, but they have to go to the courts just the same, and the borrower here would have his remedy in the courts, and nothing we can do can bar that court remedy. I do not think this does any harm.


Edward Joseph Garland: Just one
other point, and it is an important one. I
think one of the greatest conflicts that took place with regard to this bill was on the question of the jurisdiction of the provincial board.
I am very much afraid that this clause will entirely destroy what little right the provincial board has been given, and the only right which the board now definitely has is to insist upon a conference in the event of a dispute as between the central board and the provincial board on questions affecting the borrowings of that province. If this clause is designed to destroy that little vestige of authority that is JeR to the board. I think it ought- to be struck out. I do not want to delay the bill in the least, but unless I can get the assurance that that is not the intent and purpose of this clause, and that it will not be so interpreted, I am afraid that in fairness to the bill itself and to our understanding of it, the clause should be modified.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I call to my hon. friend's attention the fact that this clause opens with this expression:
Except as may foe otherwise decided from time to time by the Governor in Councilshowing that there is still a restraining hand on the board by the Governor in Council, which would be precisely the proper body to which any provincial board might appeal if they felt aggrieved. I think my hon. friend's point was well taken, but I think he will find that it is safeguarded there.


Edward Joseph Garland: The
authority of the provincial board is given to it in a prior clause of this bill, and the only authority it has is the authority of forcing a conference in the event of a disagreement as between the central board and the provincial board on a question of policy, particularly on matters of foreclosure. This does unquestionably refer to .Questions of foreclosure. The interested parties can be interpreted as nothing else but the bondholders or the borrower. Now if the board is to be given full authority under this clause to step in and exercise its full power in any way it likes on any individual without reference to the provincial board, the situation is unquestionably bad. But if the minister will declare now that this cannot be interpreted as referring to or minimizing any of the powers previously given in the act to the provincial board, I am willing to let the matter go.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would not be possible
to say that, offhand, at least, but I submit again that if my hon. friend will read the clause carefully he will note that if it were brought to the attention of the Governor in
Long Term Farm Loans

Council that some abuse such as he mentions had actually arisen, then the Governor in Council has power to curb the action of the board in deciding against all parties. My hon. friend and his colleague from Macleod (Mr. Coote) and one or two other hon. gentlemen who have given close study to this matter for so many years, as well as myself, know the very great difficulty in matters of this kind in getting a formula that will exactly meet the situation. I earnestly trust because I am interested in this legislation, that nothing will be done to prevent the legislation now becoming law. I think we are perhaps fortunate in getting it to the point where it is to-day. There might be some technical question such as my hon. friend raises that might cause some apprehension, but I feel certain that it is not sufficient to jeopardize the bill. I think I can say with some assurance that my hon. friend will be able to trust any responsible federal government, whatever its political complexion may be, to properly exercise its rights and its functions in connection with this clause or similar clauses.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In reply to my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland), certainly under this provision I am prepared to advise him that, as a matter of law, no order in council can diminish or take away any of the powers conferred by statute upon a provincial board. It os absolutely impossible.


John Evans: I would like to point out that if there is one general fault with this bill, it is that the borrower himself is so far away from the management. This new clause is, I think, dangerous. In my opinion it over-rides entirely clause 11 of the bill, and I certainly do not like it.


Edward Joseph Garland: Before the motion is put, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am indeed gratified to know that although there has been a change of administration, a change from the administration which has succeeded in bringing this legislation to this point, yet this legislation will rest in the hands of two hon. gentlemen opposite one of whom has been a 'constant and faithful supporter of legislation of this character for five years, to my personal knowledge, and the other one, who is now the acting leader of the government in this House, recently indicated has entire sympathy with the object sought to be secured by this bill. Not only that, but he supported the protests which emanated from this corner of the House as to the possibility of the interest rate going to a higher point than 7 per cent.
[Mr. Stevens.1
When this particular section which has been amended by the Senate was before us a few moments ago, I refrained from discussing it in order that we might discuss the whole principle on the conclusion of the discussion of the details. The administration which has just gone out of office gave us the definite assurance that in the event of their finding themselves unable to sell the bonds in the open market at a rate of interest which would allow them to loan to the borrowers at a sufficiently low rate, 7 per cent, they would thems'elves take up the first issue of the bonds up to the amount of $15,000,000, if necessary, and so establish a market. I am quite satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentlemen opposite will be willing to go just as far as the administration which has just gone out was willing to go, and that they will give the House and the country, especially those in the west who are suffering from rates of interest running from 8 to 9 and 10, and in some cases even to 12 per cent, some hope that in the future agriculture will be put on a basis where it will be at least relieved, if not unshackled, from the hideous burdens which it is carrying at the present time. But I am satisfied that unless sympathetic administration is given to this act from the very outset, and unless some attempt is made to apportion the costs over a period of years, the costs in the initial stage will so advance the interest rate to the borrower that the bill itself will utterly fail. But in the hands of a sympathetic administration, looking at this matter from the point of view of the whole national industry of agriculture extending over the whole of the future, the set oan be made of great value. But it rests entirely with the administration; it rests completely with the sympathy of the government that is handling it.
Although I deeply regret the action of the Senate in striking out the 1 per cent limitation of administration costs, a limitation which would have ensured us a reasonably low rate of interest,-the rate would have been governed solely by the cost, plus the rate at which the bonds could be sold-there was some surety there, but there is none today. We have to rely entirely on sympathy from hon. members opposite who will be administering this act.


An hon. MEMBER:: You will not be depending upon a broken reed.


Edward Joseph Garland: Perhaps not but that remains to be proved. Let me say to the hon. member who has just spoken that his fate and the fate of his party in Can-

Soldier Settlement Act
ada in the future may rest entirely upon the sympathetic manner in which they handle this matter they are taking into their 'hands. At this moment few in eastern Canada realize the growing power and force of western Canada. The sooner they do realize it the sooner they will give more sympathetic hearing to and indulge in less bitter criticism of the protests we are bringing to this House. Let me say this: Although I deeply deplore the action of the Senate in striking out the one per cent limitation, I am prepared to accept the assurance on record in the speeches of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, who is now a member of the government, and the hon. gentleman who is acting leader of the government, that they believe the one per cent limitation should be put in this bill. I am satisfied that they will carry out that assurance and I am prepared to give them every assistance to make the act a success. But I say that upon them rests the responsibility of properly administering the act and I hope they will be true to it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Before the motion carries I desire to say a Very few words. On the whole, the amendments will not prevent the carrying out of the objective which the government had in view in bringing down the legislation in the first place. It is perhaps fortunate for us that the chloroforming process which was referred to in a quotation by the ex-Minister of Finance did not come to fruition in another place. I am not so sanguine as my hon. friend who has just sat down, regarding the administration of this act and the development of this system by the pro tern government. I am not so sanguine for the reason that I have a Very vivid memory-


Edward Joseph Garland: I can assure my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways that if he had been in this battle for five years he would have found that with respect to one member of the Conservative party at least we got more complete sympathy and understanding from him than we did from any other member of that party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edward Joseph Garland: Hon. gentlemen opposite need not applaud because with that one exception not a single hon. member in their ranks gave us any assistance. But there is at least that moiety of justification for my statement.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not complaining of my hoe. friend's statement. I think it took more than one to save a certain bity on a notable occasion, and it will take more than 14011-328
one advocate of a rural credit system on the other side to blot out from my mind the objections which were urged by scores of hon. gentlemen opposite when we were putting this very legislation through this House. But hon. gentlemen opposite are silent to-day. Well, we will judge of the sincerity of this pro tern government in regard to this matter by the manner in which they give this legislation a chance to live. It must come into being first. A sympathetic administration can bring it into being; an unsympathetic administration can make absolutely sure that if it is bom at all its life will be anaemic indeed and very brief.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I suggest to the hon. member that 'he should not be as gloomy as the former opposition was just because he is now sitting where they used to sit?
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.
SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT, 1919, amendment


CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Acting Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 17, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have not had any opportunity to consider the significance of these amendments. We would require at least until the six o'clock recess to look into the effect of the changes.
Mr. MlANION: I am not particularly desirous that there should be any hurry in the matter at all but the ordinary business before the House is getting cleaned up and so we come back once more to this particular legislation. I quite agree with the right hon. gentleman that there has not been very much time for consideration, but may I say that in the meantime I have discussed the subject with hon. members who were raising objections and I think most of them are reasonably satisfied with the matter as it stands at the moment.
Mr. MACKENZIE	KING: The former
Minister of the Interior (M'r. Stewart) who is particularly desirous of having something to say on this matter asked me' expressly, as he might be out of the House when the matter came up, to see that it was not brought up again before six o'clock.


Robert James Manion: I discussed the matter
with the former Minister of the Interior

Supply-Fiscal Policy

myself and he agreed there was nothing objectionable. However, I have no objection, if the right hon. gentleman objects to going on, to letting the motion stand.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask tbe acting minister when we may expect this bill to come up again?


Robert James Manion: I am quite prepared to go on with it now. What objection could the right hon. gentleman have to discussing the matter now?
Mr. MjACKENZIE KING: I have strong objection for the same reason as that mentioned by the acting minister. When he first spoke on the matter he said that he himself was unfamiliar with the changes, and I submit that we must not be rushed in this way in the case of such important legislation. My hon. friend will make no headway by trying to press matters unduly and not giving time for their consideration.


Robert James Manion: I would suggest to the right hon. gentleman that he adopt a little more courteous tone.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do not be
over-sensitive.


Robert James Manion: I have tried to show every consideration for my hon. friend's wishes and I do not think he needs to talk in any such threatening tone. That will not get him very far either.	i


Ernest Lapointe: Be conciliatory, Doctor.


Robert James Manion: We are not a bit worried about you at all.
Motion stands.


AMENDMENT RESPECTING FISCAL POLICY ENUNCIATED BY PRIME MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved that the House go into committee of Supply.
Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. Campbell rising at the same moment:
Hewitt Bostock: It is customary when
the.Speaker rises for hon. gentlemen who may be on their feet to resume their seats. That is simply a matter of ordinary courtesy. In seeing the right hon. leader of the opposition instead of the member for Mackenzie the Speaker is exercising the right conferred by parliamentary usage of extending the courtesy of recognition to one of the leaders.
Right Hon. (W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition): Throughout the general elections which returned to parlia-
IMr. Manion.]
ment the hon. members who are now in this House the present right hon. leader of the government repeatedly stated there was one issue before the country and one issue only, namely, the fiscal policy as enunciated by him on many occasions. Throughout the present session as leader of his party the present Prime Minister has continued to maintain the position taken iby him at the time of the general elections. I do not believe that such a fiscal policy has the approval of the majority of members of this House, and I therefore beg to move the following resolution, seconded by the Hon. Mr. Lapointe :
That the Speaker do not now leave the chair but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the fiscal .policy of the government, as enunciated by the present Prime Minister when leader of His Majesty's opposition would prove detrimental to the country's continued prosperity and prejudicial (to national unity.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the House ready for the question?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not rise for the purpose of making a long speech. I am sorry that my physical condition would not permit me to do that. I wish to say a word or two in support of this amendment,, in order to be consistent with the stand I have taken in this House during the present session and the stand I took before the electors of Canada, and especially of my own province, during the last general election. True the right hon. the absent leader of the-government was also absent from my province during the election. He seemed to have a peculiarity of eclipsing himself on certain occasions.


Mr. HANSON:: He will be there with the goods.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, I understand he
will be. That will be a change which I welcome. I do not like to fight at a distance.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, no.


Ernest Lapointe: 
Robert James Manion: Like the Turkish war.


Ernest Lapointe: And I claim that this issue, if raised in the way it was raised, is an issue which must be fought by all men who want moderation, peace and prosperity in Canada, instead of dissension and civil war. We on this side of the House who were representing the Liberals in that election, claimed that the peace and prosperity of Canada depended on uniting the minds and the wills of all Canadians, whether west or east of lake Superior. We claimed, and we still claim, that it was the duty of all public men as well as all the citizens of Canada, wherever they live, to consider and study the divergencies of interest in the various sections of the country, to try to find on what basis compromises may be affected, to try and strike the point which can unite all men of moderate opinion, all those who want to harmonize this country, instead of dividing it. We have urged that the policy as advocated by the acting leader of the government-not the one in the House, but the one outside of the House-and his proxy in Quebec, of increased protection in a general way, and a general increase of the tariff, was calculated to divide the country, instead of uniting it, and that is the reason we voted against that policy. To be consistent with the stand I took then, I am pleased to have this opportunity of seconding and supporting the motion by my right hon. leader.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Leader of the House). I desire to say at once that I sympathize very much with my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe). He referred to his not feeling very well. No one regrets that fact more than I do. It is a pleasure to hear my hon. friend. We have always liked him in this House and when I was across the floor I admired the manner in which he conducted the business of the government. I am only sorry to see the hon. gentleman to-day seizing an occasion like this to bring up such a question. My hon. friend is really too big a man to move a motion. Is there any doubt at all as to where any party in this House stands on this question? Imagine my
Supply-Fiscal Policy

hon. friend moving a vote of want of confidence in a government which is not yet formed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The strongest reason why such a motion should be made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely my right hon. friend knows that we had a right to bring the session to a dose. We are simply trying to keep intact the labours of parliament this session and to see that the country properly functions. We are trying to look after things, as the right hon. gentleman should have done before he resigned. Of all extraordinary exhibitions the resignation of the last government was the most remarkable. Not one word of advice was offered the opposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend expect that?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Usually a prime minister retiring under similar circumstances arranges with the Header of the opposition for the proper carrying on of public business.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My contention was that the business of the country could not be properly carried on without dissolution; that the' leader of the opposition could not carry on properly the business of the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the right hon. gentleman say that the business of the countiy cannot be carried on with parliament constituted?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Constituted as it at present is-


Henry Lumley Drayton: It took the right hon. gentleman a long time to find that out. He did not appreciate the welfare of the country at the commencement of the session; his one idea seems to have been that nothing could be property done except by himself. It is not a question of the interest of the country; it is a question whether the hon. gentleman is in or out of office. I repeat that one of the most extraordinary resignations ever witnessed was that of the right hon. gentleman. It is customary for outgoing governments to show some regard for public business. They usually have some concern about bringing the session then in progress to a satisfactory conclusion; they realize that it is necessary to vote supply. But this government Simply went out without making the slightest provision for the public service.


Mr. CANNON:: Wilt my hon. friend allow me a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Lucien Cannon: I will sit down if the minister's followers are less courteous than himself.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am perfectly willing to answer any question. I ask, however: has the public interest been considered by my hon. friends opposite on this occasion? That question surely answers itself. Did they have the interest of the public at heart or are they so much concerned about partisan politics-


Charles Avery Dunning: You have engaged in it for six months.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will repeat that question. Are hon. gentlemen so concerned with partisan .politics that public business amounts to nothing?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not expect anything but laughter and jeers from hon. gentlemen opposite. There is a type of partisan who can do nothing else than laugh and jeer.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish):: Satan
rebuking sin.


Henry Lumley Drayton: One lonely voice from the Maritimes.


Lucien Cannon: What about your own
supporters? Do they not count?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Most of the
people of the Maritime provinces have learned what has been going on. They have come to realize where their interests lie and they have acted accordingly. Is the memory of hon. gentlemen opposite so short that they cannot recollect, even amidst the
4 p.m. numerous excuses offered, what the real argument was in connection with the customs report? The argument of my hon. friends was this:	For
heaven's sake don't do anything that will turn this government out; otherwise, ail the business of the session will go by the board. All the legislation we have put through will go. Are hon. gentlemen's memories so short that they forget that? But practices change easily in some cases; principle amounts to very little occasionally. The very gentlemen who were making that statement last week- yes, even this week-now condemn this government for endeavouring to keep the country functioning and to bring the session to a close. They condemn us for trying to vote supply and to ensure 'that the legislation which has been passed shall not be lost.

Supply-Fiscal Policy
Do hon. gentlemen really think that this House has not heard the question of the respective trade policies of the panties sufficiently discussed this session? Is there the slightest doubt as to where anybody stands on the question? There is at any rate no doubt where some people stand; there is no doubt where this party stands. This party stands full square for a policy of such reasonable protection as will enable the country to function-that and nothing else. We hear a lot of prattle from time to time about higher taxes and higher tariffs and all that sort of thing; and to hear some hon. gentlemen talk one would fancy that we wanted a tariff up to the moon.


Mr. POULIOT:: Will the hon. gentleman
define "reasonable protection"?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member knows what reasonable protection is. Most of the people in his own fair province know as well just what it is. Of course, for political reasons my hon. friends keep their real convictions to themselves in their caucus rooms and never give expression to them on the floor of the House. But all right thinking people in Quebec-and there are very many of them-know exactly what reasonable protection. is. They know exactly what it is. What they Want-notwithstanding what they say here-is such a fiscal policy as will enable Quebec to function, not a fiscal policy which will allow the lazy man to get along without working, but something which will enable this country to function having regard to the standards of living in other countries. That is all. Everybody knows where we stand. What was the necessity of bringing up the question to-day? That is just exactly what hon. gentlemen who are interested in the legislation of this House being passed have got to ask themselves. They have to ask themselves whether they think this House should be closed in the regular way with supply voted and legislation properly passed, or whether on the other hand this House should stop now.


Charles Avery Dunning: How?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
asks, how? I said, now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what
we want.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The ex-Prime
Minister says, "That is what we want." That is what he thinks of his own work and the work of his party here for the past six months! He wants to scrap it all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not a bit of
it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon.
friend said just a moment ago, "We want to stop now." We know what happens if we stop now.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: It is going to happen, anyhow.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have a
murmur now from the authority on agriculture. I suppose he is going to tell us what will happen to certain bills if we stop now. I suppose he is going to tell us how we can make legal legislation which has not yet received the royal assent. I suppose he is going to tell us how we can look after his rural credits bill and other legislation. But he does not know. This question, Mr. Speaker, has been discussed time and time again. There is no useful business purpose to be served in discussing it to-day, not the slightest. We have discussed it not only in the budget debate, but all through this session. This motion is moved simply because the government to be made is not to be allowed-or rather the House itself is not to be allowed to get the benefit of its own labours. What are we trying to do for the House? We are sincerely trying to have the estimates put through properly. And they are my friends' estimates, not ours. We are adopting them and are going to put them through. We are not saying we will spend them all; we will see to it that they are all right before we spend any of them. But we are trying to put my hon. friends' estimates through this House so the public business can be carried on. We are anxious also that the legislative labours of this session, scanty as they are,
. be not thrown away.


Ernest Lapointe: I heard my hon. friend
speak of the "government to be made." Does-he suggest there is no government just now?.'


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, I notice, whatever it was, it was good enough and vigorous enough to pass through the House last night a most deserved vote of censure upon my hon. friends opposite by a majority of ten. After all, Mr. Speaker, governments are committees of the House. We know very well that my right hon. leader had the right to send us all away, to come back again perhaps in six weeks' time, or the right of prorogation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He has not
that right, I submit.
Supply-Fiscal Policy


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon.
friend says that my right hon. leader has not that right. My right hon. friend is long on protestation but he is very short on authority, and when he gets down to legal questions he is shorter still. We are simply trying to close the House properly, to look after supply and legislation and then prorogue. And it is for the House to say whether they want that done or not. Certainly, Sir, the whole idea of this motion is not to pass on any question of fiscal policy, it is just simply put forward with the idea that nothing shall be done to close the session properly.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is my hon. friend through with his dissertation on what constitutes reasonable protection?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I could give my hon. friend a lot more.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Regina): Mr. Speaker, it was refreshing to hear my hon. friend's frank admission that the present pro tern shadow government has no right to be on the treasury benches.	[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, if his first words meant anything they surely meant that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Avery Dunning: And later it was refreshing also to hear his threats that if this amendment carries, an amendment, which is in absolute accordance with the principles held by a majority of this House, all of the work of the last few months will go by the board, that none of the legislation will be finally passed. Surely my hon. friend assumes a great deal of power for a pro tern government-which he admits has no right to be where it is-when he makes those threats. I am authorized, Mr. Speaker, to say that my hon. friends opposite cannot control the conclusion of the proceedings in this House, they cannot hold their axe over our heads and say to us: If you vote in accordance with your consciences this House will close without passing certain legislation in which you are interested. The members of this House have something to say as to whether or not its proceedings will continue for a long enough time to put on the statute books the measures in which we are interested. It is time, Sir, that there should be some protest against the autocracy of an attitude such as that expressed by my hon. friend. If our friends opposite do not feel themselves in a position to carry on the proceedings of this House in such a manner as

to permit of the conclusion of the legislation now before us, we on this side can undertake to do so, and will do so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Why didn't you do it the other day?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friends are
surely very much disturbed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: They know perfectly well they are in office not on the basis of policy at all,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On the basis of honesty.


Charles Avery Dunning: -they were smuggled into office with the help of Moses Aziz. Now, Moses having served his turn and our friends being seated on that side of the House, we can consider the fundamental business of this country, which out of the mouths of my hon. friends opposite when they sat here we learned from day to day was the one great question of protection. Yes, for six months it was dinned into our ears by hon. gentlemen opposite that there was one question, and one question only, which divided the parties in this House. They shed crocodile tears for the young men that were being driven out of Canada because their policy was not being put into effect, and they told us on every conceivable occasion that Canada was being ruined by the late government. Why, Mr. Speaker, if Canada was being ruined by our policy is it not time that this House said something about it? If my hon. friends are right, surely it is not a matter upon which any hon. member, after all the talk we have heard about it, will hesitate to place himself on record. That threat of a dissolution 1 Why, Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that in spite of the undertakings given by hon. gentlemen opposite that there will be another session or two, they are planning dissolution right now, and anyone on this side of the House who is coerced into voting against his own principles in the hope that thereby he will be avoiding dissolution will be deceived indeed by the very men who tell him there will be another session or more.
I want to make it perfectly clear that, so far as the legislation now before the House is concerned, there is no doubt that this House is competent to remain in session until that legislation is placed upon the statute books. That threat need not deter men who believe sin-

Supply-Fiscal Policy
cerely in the principles which they profess. For my part I shall lose no opportunity, as hon. gentlemen opposite lost no opportunity, in setting forward my views on the fiscal policy of this country. From the bottom of my heart I believe that the fiscal policy enunciated by the present Prime Minister when leader of the opposition would prove detrimental to the country's continued prosperity, and especially do I believe that it would be prejudicial to national unity. Are they going to remain in office or partially in office-


Mr. SUTHERLAND (North Oxford):: Might I ask the hon. gentleman if he is still in favour of the fiscal policy enunciated under his direction in the Saskatchewan provincial legislature a few years ago?


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not direct the
enunciation of any fiscal policy at any time; my views in that connection are well known. I am now discussing what hon. gentlemen opposite intend doing, and in that there can be no mistake; it is on record in the debates of this session. It is well known that we could not discuss anything from the old age pensions to soldier settlement without having the tariff dragged in, and the plea was always for higher protection.


Robert James Manion: Nothing of the sort; we
never advocated anything of the kind.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can wait until my hon. friends are finished; there is no need for heat in this discussion. At every opportunity hon. gentlemen opposite pleaded individually and collectively for higher protection, and surely they cannot deny it now. If they do deny it let them vote for this amendment, and we will know where they stand.
My hon. friend who has just sat down made some reference to the manner in which the late government resigned office; he contended that some notice should have been given to the then leader of the opposition. It is rather late in the day to talk of the amenities of debate, when we had the spectacle only a week ago of an amendment to the motion to go into supply being moved absolutely as a surprise, admittedly so by the hon. gentlemen who made it. Might I also point out that there was no opportunity for the late Prime Minister to advise anyone of his intention to resign. The moment His Excellency refused the advice of the late Prime Minister to dissolve this parliament the right hon. gentleman's resignation was in order, and it was the only thing he could do. My hon. friends are partly in office, forming'a shadow government, by virtue
of the exercise of the royal prerogative. The advice of the late Prime Minister was that the people of Canada were entitled to settle the question of who should govern this country; that advice being declined there was only one dignified and proper course for the right hon. gentleman to follow. He placed his resignation in the hands of His Excellency the Governor General and came to this House one hour later to advise us of what he had done. Immediately an adjournment was moved in order to enable the situation to be dealt with by the representative of His Majesty in this countrv in any manner which he saw fit. That, I submit, was the proper course to take in this matter. Hon. members have smuggled themselves into office; believers in higher protection, they now control the government when, as a matter of fact, everyone knows that a majority of the representatives of the people in this House at present are not in harmony with such a policy. With a government smuggled into office in that manner-


Mr. CLARK:: And one smuggled out of office; do not forget that.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have the floor, I think.


Mr. HARRIS:: Will the hon. gentleman
permit a question?


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly, if it is a ques-lion.


Joseph Henry Harris: Does not the hon. gentleman think that he, along with the late government, was smuggled out of office? .


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend applies the word smuggling to the efforts which he and his confreres made to get into office, I am quite in agreement with him. The other day I mentioned some of the tactics pursued by my hon. friends opposite, and the episode which took place in another- place yesterday and to-day, with respect to one of these pieces of legislation which my hon. friends are now so anxious should not be hurt, confirmed what I then said. Let us face the question, Mr. Speaker. It may be said that it can wait until another session; can it?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, someone says "hear, hear," someone who does not want a dissolution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will take dissolution tomorrow.


Charles Avery Dunning: You took something else not so long ago. Even if there is no dissolution are we to accept the principle that a government supporting a policy out of har-
Supply-Fiscal Policy

mony with the majority of members of this House shall retain office for a year or more and be able, within the scope of present legislative authority, to put their policy into effect although it is not the will of the members of this House? When I say that what do I mean? I mean that a policy of higher protection can be put into effect to a limited extent at any rate, wiithin the powers of existing legislation, by a government which so desires. There are many ways in which my hon. friends can hand out favours to their special interest friends; they can raise the tariff indirectly and develop their policy although that policy does not command a majority support in this House. It is time, Sir, before this session closes, for men to stand up and say where they stand on this question which has been described all session by hon. members opposite as the most important matter before us. For my part I take the same stand, and I will vote for the amendment.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Speaker, the spectacle that we are witnessing to-day shows how the course of events has proved that we were perfectly right. We have opposite a so-called government representing, according to our constitution, absolutely nothing at all. We have the leader of the House (Sir Henry Drayton) telling U3 from his seat in this House that he really does not reprent a government, but a government to be named later. The situation is absurd; it is ridiculous, and the people of Canada will not stand for it. Notwithstanding the efforts of hon. gentlemen on the other side, efforts which are in some measure published, and efforts which are in a greater measure to be hidden, we know what has been going on; we know the methods adopted by the other side to get into the position in which they are to-day, and the public of this country is entitled to know the true story of the events of this week.
Are we as members of this House realizing our responsibilities? The leader of the House requests us to forget everything which was said this session in order to give a chance to the Tories to organize for the next election, which they will bring on in the fall. Are we, in order to help the Conservative party to put through their policy of protection, to abandon every principle which has been voiced in this House during this session and in former sessions? Are we, Mr. Speaker, because the leader of the House, or the supposed leader of the House, the representative of this embryo government, asks us to go home in order that they shall be rid of 
their troubles-are we going to listen to them and refuse to vote according to our principles on this very important question?
I address myself now particularly to the western representatives in this House. This government will either carry on or ask for a dissolution; there is no other course. If they are to carry on as they have pledged themselves to do, how wil they carry on? Will they change their policy? Is any man on the other side willing to get up at this stage of the debate and inform the House that the Conservative party have changed their policy on the tariff question? Will any man with authority get up in this House and give an assurance to the representatives of the western provinces or to the representatives of the eastern provinces that there has been any alteration in their tariff principles, or supposed principles? These gentlemen were either sincere when they spoke on tariff questions in the course of this session, or they were not. If they were sincere, there is not one man in the House who is in favour of a low tariff who can support them for a minute. There is not one man who through any process of mental activity could reach the conclusion that he can support these people if they are sincere in their tariff policy as they have announced it. If they were not sincere in stating their policy, that is a further and a stronger reason to put them out immediately.


Mr. KAISER:: Can this government raise the tariff without the House approving later?


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend has not been in office very long, but if he happens to remain in office a little longer he will find out that there is many a process that can be used by a government to change the tariff without coming to this House.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: Did you do it?


Lucien Cannon: I will tell this to hon. gentlemen opposite. I am sufficiently familiar with the laws and with the powers given to a government to know that there can be most serious changes in the tariff without the House being consulted at all.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: You know how to
evade the law, eh?


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend can give me pointers as to that. If he wishes to put the question on that ground, I am willing to discuss it with him, but I do not think he will insist.


George Brecken Nicholson: Go right ahead.

Supply-Fiscal Policy


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend tells me to go ahead, and I know why he says that. Here is a gentleman who has been a judge on a moral question, who would put us out of power because we were not worthy of running this country. I am perfectly willing to discuss moral questions with him at any time anywhere, but I do not think it will be to his advantage, and he knows it.
This fight, Mr. Speaker, is only beginning.-If there are members of this House who are under the impression that this shadow government is going to be allowed to run this country without our fighting, they are making a mistake. If the leader of the House is under the impression that by smiling away as he did this afternoon and asking us to pass legislation which was opposed by gentlemen on the other side all through the session, he will attain the one object his party have in mind, that is, the taking hold of the administration of public affairs in this country and putting through their policy, he is making a mistake. We are doing what we think is our duty, and we appeal to every member of this House to consider with great care the resolution which is now before the Chair. This resolution is of paramount importance, and no member can escape giving his opinion before the great tribunal, the people of this country, is appealed to. The eyes of Canada are upon this House, and now is the time for every member to show his sincerity. Now is the time for every member to state in no uncertain way where he stands, and I am very anxious to have the vote recorded on this question.


Mr. MALCOLM McLEAN (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I think on an occasion of this kind, when a change of administration) has taken place it is well that an announcement of the policy of the new administration should be given to this House and to the people of the country as early as possible. My reasons for saying that are many, and I think they are valid 'and weighty reasons. I am pleased to give my support to this motion moved by -the right hon. leader of the opposition which reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this House the fiscal policy of the government, as enunciated by the present Prime Minister when leader of His Majesty's opposition would prove detrimental to the country's continued prosperity and prejudicial to national unity.
Among the reasons I have for coming to that conclusion are the following: During the last campaign which preceded the general election statements were made by the present Prime Minister and by many of his acting (ministers as to their attitude on the tariff
issue. I am not going to quote them at length. I will not take up the time of the House by doing so. But I have before me part of a newspaper report of a meeting at Fort William on September 29, which was addressed by the then leader of the opposition, the present Prime Minister. The report goes on to say:
Dr. Manion, the Fort William candidate, and W. F. Langworthy, Conservative candidate in Port Arthur, also spoke at both meetings. They discussed local problems and urged the necessity for a higher protective tariff, quoting examples from local conditions.
I find that later on in this House the hon. member for Port William, who is now Acting Postmaster General, told us-I am not absolutely clear as to his actual words but the intention was unmistakable-that the tariff was a ruinous one to Canada, that the low tariff was ruining this country. He mentioned the tariff on automobiles and stated that it was lower than the tariff in any other country in the world where these vehicles are being manufactured. The hon. gentleman told us that he knew of no act of the then government that was tending to improve the condition of the people of Canada. *


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Malcolm McLean: I think the hon. gentleman will agree with me that if the previous government passed no act which tended to improve the condition of the people of Canada then the present administration, if it succeeds in retaining power, will be forced to rescind the acts passed by their predecessors in the past four or five years, particularly those dealing with the tariff.


Robert James Manion: They themselves rescinded the next year about half a dozen measures they passed.


Malcolm McLean: I should like
my hon. friend to put to me any questions he desires but I cannot understand the nature of his interruption.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the hon.
gentleman speak a little louder so that we at this end of the chamber may hear him?


Malcolm McLean: I shall be very
glad to accede to my hon. friend's request and speak a little louder. I submit that in view of the statement referred to by the hon. member for Fort William the present administration will have to repeal all the acts passed by its predecessors for the purpose of benefiting the people of Canada.
We were also told by the Acting Postmaster General on April 20 that no industrial leader dare invest his money in Canada today. We were told many other things about
Supply-Fiscal Policy

the tariff, including the statement that in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec two million farmers are selling their products to the industrial workers in those provinces and so getting a great deal of benefit from a protective tariff. I have no idea where the hon. gentleman got his figures that there were two million farmers in these two provinces, but the opinion of the farmers of Ontario and Quebec, as well as of the other provinces, as expressed by them on many occasions, is that a high protective tariff is not conducive to their welfare.
Another statement made by the Acting Postmaster General was that free trade and a lower tariff had ruined the farmers of Great Britain and forced them off the land. I want to assure my hon. friend that it was not free trade and a lower tariff that ruined the farmers of Great Britain but Tory landlordism plus the high tolls which the absentee rent collectors charged up against the land- as high as the land would bear-not to speak of the high tariff that was enforced prior to 1846, and the competition for land engaged in after that date and leased by absentee landlords in' many cases. We were further advised by hon. members opposite that the people of Canada should endeavour to build up their cities at the present time in order to secure a larger market for the products of the farms. I leave it to the imagination of any hon. members of this House to conceive if the time can possibly come within their own span of life when the people of Canada will be able to build cities sufficiently large and populate them to the extent required to consume the products of all the farms of the country. It is like another remedy that was proposed during the general elections by the then leader of the opposition, the present Prime Minister. He told the people of the Maritime provinces that his policy for remedying the grievances under which they suffered was to pay part of the cost of the freight on the products they raised in order to secure an entry for those products into the central markets of Ontario and Quebec, and that that policy would apply to the products of the western provinces as well-that in the case of the western provinces also he would be in favour of paying part of the freight on their products into the central markets of Ontario and Quebec. It would require a very vivid imagination indeed to see where the products of the Maritime provinces-such as lumber, fruit, poultry, beef, butter, and fish from the sea-could find an adequate market in the protected cities of the central provinces by securing lower freight 
rates, or where the farmer of western Canada could secure such a market for his livestock, his grain products, and his dairy products in the same provinces. That they could secure such a market by simply reducing the freight rates is absolutely unreasonable and out of the question and yet we are asked to believe that is the policy hon. gentlemen opposite would carry out as a set-off to high [DOT]protection on manufactured goods.
The amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition to-day goes on to say that the Conservative tariff policy would be prejudicial to national unity. As an illustration that such will foe its effect I need only quote from the headlines of papers published on October 18th last. Tor example one of these reads as follows:
Western farmer cartooned as "Carving alive struggling manufacturer, bound band and foot";
Then we find in the body of the article this statement:
While half a million is being spent on billboard advertising, proclaiming the virtues of higher protection, the offensive element does not appear in such places. Rather it is in the newspapers. In a recurrent series of cartoons, the dominant suggestion i6 that Premier Mackenzie King is under servility to the west.
In one of these productions the western fanner is pictured as carving alive a struggling manufacturer bound hand and foot, while Mackenzie King is looking on gleefully. In another it is Mr. King who is harnessed up, and a western farmer is shown with the reins cracking the whip over the leader.
What is being pictured in a way that is calculated to arouse prejudice against the King government and against the west is reflected also in the editorial columns of the press and in the speeches of Conservative leaders.
If the publication of news of that kind is necessary in order to secure higher tariff conditions in Canada, it is needless to say that the people of western Canada are not very strong for a higher tariff. But as to the effect of such statements on national unity there can be no question in the world that they are bound to work ill to the Dominion as a whole. I should like to contrast some of the things that have been said by the present Prime Minister and his acting ministers and supporters in this House with what a former great leader of the Conservative party had to say, and the principles in which ]he believed, in regard to tariff matters. Sir Robert Giffen, in his article on taxation an the Encyclopaedia Britannica says:
"Sir John A. Macdonald, the great protectionist Prime Minister of Canada, in a conversation with the present writer in 1882, avowed without hesitation that protectionist taxation in Canada was indefensible on economic grounds, and he defended it exclusively for political reasons."

Sup-ply-Fiscal Policy
That is not the attitude that our friends of the Conservative party have been taking for the past six months in the House and for the past few years throughout the country.
In the national policy resolution introduced into parliament by Sir John. A. Macdonald on March 12, 1878, one of the reasons given for the adoption of a national policy of protection is that, "moving, as it ought to do, in the direction of a reciprocity of tariffs with our neighbours, so far as the varied interests of Canada may demand, (it) will greatly tend to procure for this country eventually a reciprocity of trade.''
I submit that Sir John A. Macdonald was more farseeing in1 his day than his successors have been at any time. In order that reciprocity in trade might be secured between ourselves and other countries, it might be politically defensible that a tariff should be arranged between the two countries on certain commodities. But that is not the way the tariff has been used in late years. The claim has often been made in this House during the present session that the United States was the greatest, the wealthiest and the most prosperous and up-to-date country in the world. To much of that I take no exception, but we were told something to which I seriously object, namely that Canada was in a forlorn, dependent and poverty-stricken condition. We were told by the late leader of the opposition, now acting Prime Minister, that we had entered upon a period of depression in 1921, along with every other nation on the continent, and that we had remained in that period of depression 'longer than any other nation. I do not think it is fair that the statement should go out from this House that Canada has been in a state of depression and has remained longer in that state of depression than any other nation. I do not know what he meant by saying any other nation on the continent, but I take it that he intended to include Mexico, Panama, Bolivia, and all the other South American republics. It is not fair to state that we have remained in that period of depression longer than any other country on the continent. I remember last fall reading the report of a meeting in Vancouver addressed by the hon. member who is now acting Minister of Customs; at least I assume it was he, because the report stated that Mr. H. H. Stevens addressed the meeting and stated that if Canada did not wake up and get rid' of Mackenzie King and his government, in the next three months, the country would be on the road to bankruptcy in, four years. At a time when the railroads, the banks and the commercial institutions were telling the people of Canada that they were enjoying prosperity such as they had not enjoyed for many years, this was the kind of service that
was being rendered to Canada by gentlemen who are part of the shadow government in office at Ottawa at the present time. I have in my hand a piece of literature which was used to considerable effect throughout the country. It is headed, "Land values and protection", and it is issued under the auspices of an organization which has an advisory council and an executive committee. I notice that the president of that executive committee was quoted by the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker) as an up-to-date authority. This literature was used in the campaign and one statement reads:
We predicted in April, 1924, in our pamphlet "If Canada would prosper" that unless the tariff were raised our railroads would drift towards insolvency, and that this would react against the west. This is coming about much more rapidly than we anticipated.
We find that for the month of May past the net earnings of the Canadian National Railway were 706 per cent higher than a year ago. Under these conditions these prophets of evil told us that we were ruining Canada and driving our railroads into insolvency. That statement never was true. It is dangerous to prophesy unless you kn/ow what is going to happen.
For a few moments, I wish to look into the condition of the rich country to the south of us, with particular reference to tihie middle and western farming community. During the past few months, the condition of agriculture in the middle west and throughout the United States as a whole has caused grave concern to public men at Washington and leaders of public opinion elsewhere in that country. I hold in my hand an article written by Representative Dickinson, of Iowa, in which he says that the United States industrial structure is four-cornered. One corner, manufacturing, is protected by a .tariff wall, while another comer, .the railroads, is protected by the Interstate Commerce Commission which endeavours to see that the rates are so fixed as to give the railroads a .profit of 5 per oent. But some of them make much more than that. The third comer consists of labour, which is protected by the exclusion of immigration to that .country. But the fourth comer, represented by the farmers of the country, is not protected. That corner is extremely wobbly. There is nothing to hold it up. In the opinion of Mr. Dickinson, and in ithe opinion of the majority of the farmers in the middle west, there is no possible way in which a tariff prop can be placed under that fourth comer, and the only way to assure reasonable prosperity is that all the legs be knocked out of the structure, and that the structure be
Supply-Fiscal Policy

allowed, to rest where nature 'has provided it should rest, namely on the resources of the country, on the intelligence -and industry of the .people, and on their ability to find markets for their products throughout the countries of ithe would.


Mr. S. G. TOBIN (Wetaskiwin):: I am
glad that this resolution is before the House, as I washed to have an opportunity to express my attitude with regard to the fiscal policy of this country. I was elected in opposition to the fiscal policy of the Right Hon. Arthur iMeighen and the Conservative party as a whole. I represent a district in Alberta. In our province the one great thing we are interested in is the production of agricultural products, the selling of the same and the buying of implements and supplies of every kind and description at as low a price as possible. That is the life of our country and the only condition in which our country can prosper is where the taxes or the tariff on the goods they must purchase in large quantities are lowered. I remember when the. Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was speaking in his tour of the west he told us that the reduction of freight rates westward for the relief of the west was utterly unjustifiable, or "utterly indefensible," to use his exact words, and I made up my mind that I would go out before the people, and if the people elected me I would protest in parliament to the best of my ability, in the interests of the provinces of the west and therefore of all of Canada, against higher tariffs. If we help the western provinces we help all of Canada. I listened for three or four months to the speeches of the members of the then opposition, now on the government side, and they said. "We are losing money on grain shipped eastward. If the Crowsnest pass agreement were not in operation we could collect thirty millions more from the farmers of the west," and their policy was, "No more statutory freight rates." The people of western Canada must have reasonable freight rates, and we wish to put ourselves on record on 'this matter. Hon. members say, "We cannot do anything without the consent of parliament." I say we do not want to build up a party or organization which talks that kind of propaganda, and has such a fiscal policy. I want to go back to my constituency as having recorded my opposition to that policy. That is the attitude I took when I was elected and that is the attitude I take now'.
The government just retired met parliament in January and in sportsmanlike fashion they consulted the House on the question as to who should be Prime Minister. Parliament

decided by a majority that the right hon. gentleman now in opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) should be Prime Minister, and hon. members opposite refused at that time to grant an adjournment so that he might get his cabinet constituted. They voted supply piecemeal and generally did all that they could to embarrass the government. Now they want us to help them along. The late government brought down a budget which met with the approval of the Canadian people and they carried out the programme they outlined in the Speech from the Throne, including rural credits, which the people wanted, the West India treaty, and amendments to the Grain Act. The Tariff Advisory Board has also been appointed and the commission to inquire into Maritime rights has been set up. The question of freight rates is also being looked into. These are all matters in which the people are vitally interested and they were all undertaken by the late government.
I protest against the fiscal policy which the party opposite has advocated both in this House and in the country. Hon. gentlemen opposite told the government at the opening of the session that it could not function owing to the number of vacancies in the cabinet. To-day there is nothing but vacancies in the government which is attempting to conduct the business of the country. I do not want to prolong this debate, but I must decline to vote confidence in hon. gentlemen opposite unless they are prepared to assure this House that they stand for a different fiscal policy. This assurance they will not give us, and for that reason I must support the motion which has been brought forward.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not propose to discuss
the merits of the resolution but I want to state the position which wre must take in approaching a vote of this nature. Those of us who are not vitally concerned with the question of free trade or of higher, or lower tariff sometimes find ourselves in a quandary in facing a vote such as. this. In this particular instance the difficulty is even greater owing to the peculiar circumstances that surround the discussion. Personally I am not very much in favour of what might be termed "blocking tactics," motions intended simply to harass the government. Whichever party may be in power, I believe the government ought to be given a fair chance. From the standpoint of some of us, who, notwithstanding what some hon. gentlemen in this House may say, still regard ourselves as independent, and who have nothing to gain immediately

Supply-Fiscal Policy
from party conflict, I do not think there is any reason at any stage for lending ourselves to any blocking of the business of the House.
I must observe however that I cannot be blind to the fact that the present government is in power through no act of this House. I am not a constitutional authority, but from what little I have read I 'have always understood that in accordance with British practice the king should 'be advised by his ministers and should obey their voice. I do not see why British practice should be departed from in Canada. I recognize that all along Canada has been in a position somewhat different from that of Great Britain. Hon. gentlemen opposite have told us again and again, when we have referred to the necessity for defining our status in this country, that it was quite unnecessary to do so inasmuch as undoubtedly we had autonomy in Ganad'a. They have 'assured us that we were equal with the Motherland in all respects. Now I submit that the decision given the other day by His Excellency the Governor General absolutely demonstrated that there is no such equality.


George Halsey Perley: I rise to a point of order. There is a distinct rule forbidding any references to the crown such as the hon. member is making. The rule reads:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty, nor of any of the royal family; nor of the governor or person administering the government of Canada.
The rule is quite clear and it has always been understood that no criticism should be made of the King or of the Governor General. I submit that the hon. member should not proceed further with such criticism.


James Shaver Woodsworth: On the point of ordeT, may I say that there is not one word I have used which by the widest construction can be considered to be in the slightest degree disrespectful of the King or of the Governor General. I am speaking on a strictly constitutional point as I have a right to do. If I have no right to discuss such a point then I 'have no right to sit in this House. I submit on this point of order that if we as members elected to this House are to be debarred from discussing a constitutional question We may as well not come here.


Ernest Lapointe: I quite agree with my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Sir George Perley)-or rather the acting minister of many departments-that no member has a right to speak disrespectfully in this House of His Excellency the Governor General or of the crown. But from what I have heard of the remarks
of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) I fail to see that he has uttered one word of such a character. Let me point out however that for any act of the crown the Prime Minister of 5 p.m. the day must take responsibility;
and when an hon. member of this House accepted the invitation to form a cabinet he assumed responsibility for His Excellency's declining to grant a dissolution to the then Prime Minister. Any discussion that takes place on the subject, any reference that is made to the matter, has relation to the conduct of the Prime Minister of Canada who in this instance, I claim, assumed responsibility for what I consider a breach of the constitution.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not going to make as long a speech as my hon. friend has made, but I assure the House that we accept responsibility to the full. What is more, [DOT] this House only last night declared that the late government were unworthy of office, that they had not the confidence of parliament, and that they were in fact endeavouring to escape just retribution.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not a point of order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend was not making a point of order at all.


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I will say just exactly the reverse of what he was saying. He was talking about what was done-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, if the discussion is going on I would remind you that I have the floor. I thought it was a point of order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps that is right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker the point of order raised had reference to the right of an hon. member to make reference to His Excellency the Governor General.


An hon. MEMBER:: Criticize.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: An hon. gentleman opposite says, " criticize." I say the rule is that there should be no disrespectful word spoken of His Excellency, and criticism dealing with His Excellency in any disrespectful way would certainly be entirely out of order in this House. No hon. member has the .right to criticize the crown in a disrespectful way. But I submit it iis an entirely different thing for hon members to 9peak of their constitutional right to sit in this House, and
518S
Supply-Fiscal Policy

also of their right to sit either to the right or the left of the Speaker. May I say, Sir, in reference to what the hon. member has just been referring to, .that the question of His Excellency's right-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Order. My right hon. friend now is departing from the point of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.
The hon. member was speaking of His Excellency's right to take the course he had taken in not accepting the advice of the then Prime Minister and sending for another member of this House to give him advice. That of itself may be a perfectly constitutional position in certain contingencies. I want to make it dear from His Excellency's point of view, because I desire to see justice done to His Excellency in this matter, that His Excellency-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely I have the right to proceed.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I desire to raise a point of order


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a point of order now before the Chair to which I am speaking.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has a right to raise a point of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When we are speaking on a point of order?


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member has
raised a point of order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend now is proceeding to discuss what was done by His Excellency, while the point of order that had 'been taken was that the reference made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was not in order. My right hon. friend has a right to speak to that point of order, but on the pretence of so doing he has no right to make a speech or to refer to what His Excellency did. I was called' to order in dealing with it, but my hon. friend the former Minister of Justice dealt with it without being called to order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when His Excellency is brought into discussion in this House it 'becomes the

duty Of any leader in parliament to see that no injustice is done to His Excellency or to any act of his, and this more particularly where one has been in the position of Prime Minister and has been an adviser to His Excellency. When one so situated sees that His Excellency's position is being or is liable to be wrongly placed before this House, it becomes not only his right but his highest duty to see that His Excellency is not misunderstood and put in a wrong position.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I
rise to a point of order. I am asking for Your Honour's ruling.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely, Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly in order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon.
friend is again attempting to make a speech. He hias a perfect right to defend his position-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -but not now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
the point of order is that fiis Excellency is being criticized, and I am endeavouring to point out that so far from permitting criticism I am here to defend for the time being, if you wrish, the position taken by His Excellency. But I want to make perfectly clear what my understanding of His Excellency's position is, that he may not be placed1 in any false position. When I advised Bis Excellency that I thought dissolution was essential, my advice was not taken-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and His Excellency sent for another adviser-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I want your
ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: What is the point of
order?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That my right hon. friend is not speaking to the point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the right hon. gentleman is speaking on the point of order. I do not like references to the head of the state-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I heartily agree, Sir.

Supply-Fiscal Policy
'Mr. SPEAKER: -and I should like to have the point well stated so that I may make my ruling.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I submit that this House has not the right to speak in any way disrespectfully of His Excellency. I think all of us are absolutely agreed upon that point.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But in any
possible criticism of His Excellency it becomes, from my point of view, the duty of His Excellency's advisers, past or present, to see that His Excellency is not misrepresented by any statement made in this House. I say I am the only person at 'the moment in this House who can state as I understand it His Excellency's position with reference to myself as the former Prime Minister, I therefore stand here to make clear, so there can be no mistake throughout the country as to His Excellency, what I conceive to be his position. I conceive it to be this: His Excellency does not wish to have this parliament dissolved if it is possible to carry on the business in the way in which it should be carried on without dissolution, and inasmuch as I advised His Excellency to dissolve parliament, and as His Excellency believed that all reasonable expedients should be tried before dissolution took place, he was prepared to send for another hon. member of this House, the leader of the then opposition, and ask him whether he was in a position to carry on the business of the country and, if so, to give him an opportunity so to do, that is, to carry on the business of parliament constitutionally. In accepting office the present Prime Minister took the responsibility of being able to carry on the business of this House without a dissolution. Now if it is found he cannot carry on the business of this House without a dissolution, it becomes the constitutional duty-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have the
right to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Has the hon. gentleman a point of order to raise?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I
would be the last one to desire to shut off any hon. member who was speaking in order, but I submit to Your Honour that the right hon. gentleman has exceeded his right in
discussing the point of order, and is in fact discussing matters which under the motion before the House do not properly come up for discussion. While I have not the rule under my hand, I am certain that Your Honour can readily see that the right hon. gentleman is not in order in making the statements he has just made on a point of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to continue a debate at this moment. At the proper time I will bring up the constitutional question myself. But let me make it perfectly clear that it is not His Excellency that is being discussed in this matter, it is the present Prime Minister who has assumed the responsibility of carrying on the business of this House without a dissolution, and I say before we can finally pronounce any definite opinion as to His Excellency's act, we must wait to see whether or aot the present Prime Minister can fulfil the mdertaking which he.then gave and what His Excellency may do in the circumstance.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Does any other hon. gentleman desire to speak on the point of order?


An hon. MEMBER:: Number one or number two?


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the principle well known to every member is that the crown can do no wrong. Why is that principle laid down? Because there is always in the House somebody to take responsibility for the acts of the crown. Therefore we never discuss what the crown did, but we can always discuss what the advisers of the crown did. I think nobody will contend that at this juncture a member of the House is deprived of the right of discussing whether it was a good or bad thing, according to our constitution, that a change of government should have taken place and that a dissolution should have been denied. But when we are discussing this the crown is not in question at all-the king can do nowrong-His Excellency is not in question, but those on the other side who assume responsibility for the decision of the crown are being criticized.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the whole question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rise to a question, of privilege. I would point out that I was not discussing whether or not His Excellency had done something good or bad, and I want to make 'that dear; my argument was altogether different. If I caught the hon. member
Supply-Fiscal Policy

correctly it was implied tihat I had been criticizing His Excellency, and I want it clearly understood that that is not so.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend is not at
liberty to discuss that question; my hon. friend who raised the point of order said that no member had a right to criticize the crown. There is no doubt about' that, but we can always discuss the conduct of a government which has assumed responsibility for the crown.


George Halsey Perley: The point I raised was -that there should be no disrespectful reference to the Governor General.
Mr, CAHILL: Do you withdraw that objection?


Mr. McGIBBON:: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth)-


Lucien Cannon: The point of order is withdrawn.


George Halsey Perley: It is not withdrawn.


Hewitt Bostock: Might I remind hon.
gentlemen that to-morrow is Dominion Day, and therefore we should be united as good Canadians, and should proceed as such. Do I understand now that the point of order is withdrawn?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Hewitt Bostock: 
George Halsey Perley: I did not propose to withdraw the point of order, but Your Honour has settled it in the remarks you have just made.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I could not hear
the hon. gentleman.


George Halsey Perley: I said His Honour had settled the point of order in the remarks he just made.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, if I can at
all recall the points that I wished to make when this very lengthy point of order was raised I would remind the House that I was suggesting that whilst I was not at all in favour of anything in the nature of mere blocking tactics, at the same time we ought to recognize the very peculiar situation prevailing in this House. The provisional government is there through no act of this House, and I went on to discuss the way an which^ that provisional government had come to occupy .their seats. I am not discussing nor do I propose to discuss the propriety or impropriety of any act of His Excellency.


Hewitt Bostock: That would be clearly out of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quite understand that, and I have no intention of so doing. It seems rather strange that there are certain hon. members of this House-I do not refer to the gentleman who challenged me-who always run ahead and think something I will say is going to be out of order. Curiously enough, in the great majority of cases the Speaker has seen fit to sustain me. I want to make it quite clear again that I am not discussing the propriety or impropriety of anything the Governor General has done, but I was pointing out that in the Motherland the king always accepts the advice of his responsible ministers, and has done so for the past hundred years.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I am rising to another
point of order. Should not the hon. member speak to the question before the House?


Hewitt Bostock: I think so. The hon.
gentleman should make relevant remarks. The motion before the House purports .to condemn the fiscal policy of the party in office, as enunciated by the Prime Minister, whilst leader of the opposition, as detrimental to the welfare of the country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am leading to
that.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not see the relevancy of the hon. member's last remarks.

Supply-Fiscal Policy


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the Speaker will have patience-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: So far I do not see the relevancy of the hon. member's remarks as between the relations of the crown and cabinet in England when the question before the Chair concerns the fiscal policy of Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not wonder,
Mr. Speaker, because I led up to that in my opening remarks, and I have since been interrupted for about twenty minutes. I began by stating that I did not intend to discuss the merits of the question before the House but rather to indicate the reason which would lead the Independent members to vote one way or the other. We are in a difficult position, and I was proceeding to show the reasons which must underlie our decision in voting. I was pointing out the practice in England with regard to the advice which must be taken by the king, and I was going on to state that since in Canada that practice has not grown into law we are in rather a peculiar position. Apparently we have not as yet attained the full status of nationhood, but I suggest that while that may be true we are still under nothing like a dictatorship. We are organized to-day under the forms of representative government, and we have a perfect right to proceed in accordance with the well recognized principles of representative government. The Governor General has seen fit to ask Mr. Meighen to form a government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there anything
wrong with that?


Mr. MacLAREN:: I again ask whether the hon. gentleman is in order. I do not see that nis remarks have any bearing on the fiscal policy.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member had
just commenced a phrase when he was interrupted; I did not hear it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When again interrupted I was saying that the Governor General had seen fit to ask Mr. Meighen to form a government, but I take it that any action of that kind is based upon some very definite principles. I think the Governor General would be the last to take arbitrary action, and the only principle that I can think of is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) might probably be in a position to carry on the government of this country, that is, that he would be supported by the majority of the members of this House. I can see no other principle than that.


Hewitt Bostock: Might I remind the hon. gentleman that by ministerial declaration yesterday in the House, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), through his spokesman in the House of Commons, the right hon. leader of the House (Sir Henry Drayton), took full responsibility for the action of His Excellency the Governor General. Therefore I do not see that it is permissible for the hon. gentleman to introduce the name of the Governor General into this debate. He may within the rules, attack the government or attack the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister having fully accepted the responsibility for the action of the Governor General, I rule, and on this point I am supported by Bourinot, that the name of the Governor General should not be introduced in this debate.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would pass
directly then, Mr. Speaker, to the question of responsibility, and here again, not being well versed in constitutional law, I confess that I am a little bit puzzled to know just how the Acting Prime Minister, or the gentleman who here to-day acts for the Prime Minister can accept responsibility under the circumstances. I do not understand it at all, and I would ask to have an explanation before very long from the government, from those members who know constitutional law, as to the constitutional principle under which, under these circumstances, the Prime Minister can claim to have responsibility for advising the Governor General.
The position that our group takes with regard to such matters, I will remind the House, is that there ought to be some way in which there could be condemnation of the government without such condemnation necessarily involving a change of government. I think we are just coming to the difficulty of which I tried to warn the House a week ago. May I quote, or give the substance at least, of my remarks on that occasion. I said:
I want to be clearly understood. We must insist upon being free to condemn certain actions of the government without necessarily replacing the government by any party or group in the House.
I went on to point out:
Now government has to do with a great variety of subjects; government policy covens a very wide field indeed. We have been spending, I suppose almost half the time of the House this session discussing the question of lower or higher tariffs. As I have said before, I do not believe that either free trade or protection or higher protection will solve the economic problems that face this countiy. But I would ask hon. members whether a great question such as free trade or protection, or higher ot lower protection, is to be set aside without consideration merely because a certain individual named Moses Aziz did something

Supply-Fiscal Policy

that was wrong, or because a minister in dealing with that case took an action which some do not regard as justifiable.
This is the position in which the House now finds itself. There has been a condemnation of the government. I do not think anyone will question that. The vote last night clearly showed condemnation of the government, but side by side with that, I would point out that such condemnation dealt with only one particular question, and we must remember that there is a great variety of questions which must be dealt with 'by a government, and this country has not decided, and this House has not decided, that it wishes the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite to prevail in this country. I had expected that there would be a statement of policy from the provisional government ; I think we were entitled to that. When parliament assembles it is customary for the government to give a statement of its policy in what is known as the Governor General's Speech. In that Speech the government of the day announces the general policy which it proposes to pursue. The policy that is being pursued at the present time presumably is that announced in the Governor General's Speech six months ago. Do hon. gentlemen opposite intend to follow out that policy? Are they prepared to follow it out to the limit? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that no other policy has been announced on the floor of this House. If hon. gentlemen opposite propose to carry out that policy in detail, sincerely and honestly, I would have to give them my support because I am not concerned primarily with the individuals who happen to be in office. But I want to know, and I have a right to know, whether they intend to carry out that policy. If they do not, then this House has a right to know what alternate policy they propose. I had expected a statement of the government's policy*-perhaps hardly immediately, since their leader is not in the House and they have had but a short time to prepare-but I would have expected a general statement, and since that has not been given it seems to me that gentlemen on this side of the House are justified in introducing motions of this character in order to draw out what is the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite.
In my speech in the recent debate a week ago I referred not merely to questions of the tariff, but to other questions-to our imperial relations, for instance. I am reminded that this fall we are holding an Imperial conference. Will any hon. gentleman in this House say that the group opposite has any mandate whatever from Canada or any right what-

ever to speak for Canada at that conference? The fact that certain Progressive members joined with the Conservatives in condemning laxity on the part of the government does not mean at all that the Conservative party has any right to go over to England and announce an Imperial policy which has not been before this House. I called attention, I notice, to other questions in which the country is interested. One was mentioned here to-day- rural credits. Then there is the Crowsnest pass agreement, and the building of the Hudson Bay railway; the proposals regarding soldier settlement and advances to settlers on crown lands; the question that our group are particularly interested in, old age pensions; the question of the amendment of the Immigration Act, and the amendment to the Criminal Code, both of which passed this House but have been rejected by the Senate. These involve policies that are of great interest to us, and we have a right to know at this stage what is the attitude of the party that advises the Governor General on these matters.
There is just one other consideration that I should like to advance, Mr. Speaker. We have been here for almost six months, and we have as yet accomplished practically nothing. I think hon. gentlemen opposite ought to have applauded that, because I am sure they agree. Perhaps however they do not, because the practical thing accomplished is that we have substituted one party for the other. Perhaps that is what they have been aiming at. But the fact is that for six long months we have done comparatively little but play for position, and apparently the strategists on that side have been better than the strategists on the ex-government side, and so we have the situation we find here to-day. I did not come here to represent the Liberal party or the Conservative party. I was opposed by both, as a matter of fact, in my election. But I came here to try to get certain business of the country done; and now at the end of six months I do not think we have any right, simply because one group has been substituted for the other, to say that because the warm weather is here, and we are all tired, and this proceeding is getting on our nerves, we will pack our trunks and go home to-morrow. Personally I have every desire to facilitate the business of the country; but there are certain policies involved in the estimates which I cannot agree should be passed over without discussion. It is suggested that we could do all this business in a day but I cannot agree-and I think I can speak also for my colleagues in saying this-I cannot agree

Supply-Fiscal Policy
to allow millions of dollars of the money of the people to be voted in that fashion. The fact that these estimates have been drawn up or proposed by one party, and that the responsibility for them now devolves on another party, does not obviate my difficulties with regard to the matter. And then there are other questions. To-day I have been calling attention to important public measures that are before this House. More than that, this very day somebody called me into a lobby only a short time ago and asked if there was any chance of dealing with the claims of the Indian tribes of this country.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am using that
as an illustration and I do not think that I am out of order in doing so.


James Dew Chaplin: Stick to the
subject that is under discussion.


Charles Avery Dunning: Speaking to the point of order: If the introduction of Australian butter into the discussion of every other subject discussed this session has been in order, then the illustration my hon. friend (Mr. Woods-worth) is giving is quite to the point.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was simply using it as an illustration. I say that somebody pointed out to me that there wa,s a petition before the House from certain Indian tribes of this country involving the constitutional right of Canadians to come to parliament with their grievances, and he made this appeal to me: Are we to go away, after waiting for six months, without having any chance to present our grievances to parliament? As far as I am concerned this is a minor matter compared with some of the other questions that are before the country; nevertheless are we simply to go away and say: We will have nothing to do with these things?
I do not think we can interpret our duty in that fashion, and it seems to me that we we quite justified in voting for a motion of this kind, not in order to hold the House in session for a longer period, but in order to insist on the principle that the group that assumes to advise His Excellency and that occupies the government's position to-day should let the country know clearly what their policy really is on important issues.


Alan Webster Neill: I shall not detain the House for any length of time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alan Webster Neill: Hon. gentlemen opposite are pleased to be facetious. I do not wish to 14011-3295
give a silent vote on this important matter. I intend to vote for the amendment but not as expressing absolute adherence to the doctrine that a tariff is undesirable in Canada. In British Columbia we are not unfriendly to some measure of protection; the principal objection to it is the manner in which it is divided. We find that the present conception of protection is that 90 per cent of it shall go to the eastern manufacturers and 10 per cent to those industries of British Columbia which need protection. That is not the form of protection that we idolize in British Columbia. Nevertheless while we are not so strong-we are not strong at all-for the high protection ideas of hon. gentlemen opposite, yet we are not prepared to commit ourselves to the very low tariff ideas of hon. members from the prairies as those ideas have been so often expressed here by hon. gentlemen from those provinces. But he would be a bold man indeed, after the experience of the last few days, who would say he knew what the convictions of some representatives of the prairie provinces really are. In this connection I know that my own political reputation has been entirely ruined. I told my constituents during the election that if there was one thing of which I was sure it was that no matter what would happen, a prairie province representative would not be found voting for the right hon. gentleman who is now the leader of the government because of his well known principles of high protection. My reason for saying that was based on the experience of the past four years during which I have heard-day alfter day, month after month, year after year-hon. members from the prairie provinces, with almost complete unanimity, echo and re-echo the idea that they stood for nothing but a low tariff form of fiscal policy. But how different do we find the situation in the last few days?
Now, there are two reasons why I am voting for this amendment, and I want to state them very briefly. First of all I want to demonstrate to the House and to the country -shall I say rather prove to the country?- whether certain hon. members in placing the present party in power were actuated by the high altruistic principles to which they gave expression and whether, having placed the former opposition in power, they are prepared to revert to their original principles on which they were elected, or whether they will for partisan purposes maintain the present government in power by voting against or abstaining from voting altogether on this amendment, which, after all, is a very simple and very modest echo indeed of the prin-
Supply-Fiscal Policy

ciples which they have so vociferously outlined in this House for the last four years.
My second motive in voting for this amendment is to demonstrate if I can to the right hon. leader of the government, or to his deputy for the moment in the House the absolute need, I think, of an appeal to the country and of a general election before this House meets again. There have been rumours -I suppose I aim in order in mentioning this; they have been mentioned in the press, let alone in the corridors-that in some way the right hon. gentleman who leads the present government is committed to the principle that he must carry on in this House and will be unable to go to the country. I hope that is a mistake; I hope there is no truth in these rumours at all. I am convinced that both sides-the best elements of them at any rate-the most intelligent and thoughtful men in both the great political parties have been convinced for months that the only possible solution of the existing situation is an appeal to the country, and a great deal of what we have witnessed lately has been mere jockeying for position to settle which side would 'have the benefits of holding the reins of power When an election came.
There was no difficulty on the part of the Conservatives in framing an amendment expressing want of confidence in the Liberal government which would be satisfactory to their followers, because a Conservative has no confidence in a Liberal government at any time; but when it came to a question of enlisting the support of other groups in the House it was necessary to present something more than a mere declaration of want of confidence. And so a melange was prepared containing a varied and weird mixture of incoherent political crimes. We had Senator Bureau offered to us if we liked to vote in condemnation of wrongdoing on his part, although he was only mildly censured in the formal report. Then we had the case of the ex-Minister of Customs and Excise suggested for attack if we liked to go in that direction. Then there was the suggestion that a great deal Of liquor was being consumed in the country; and finally there was the suggestion-not so much in the House as in the corridors-that certain dark and mysterious revelations could be and had been made in connection with the Duncan report. Allusion was made in particular to a certain diary which would shock humanity if it were made public. Now, I took the trouble to go downstairs to the office where all reports of such a nature are filed and where I am told the Duncan report was filed, and I find nothing at all to bear out the suggestion or reference 
to this mysterious diary-which I believe, if not actually successful, at least was the means by which an attempt was made to obtain the support of one or two members. As nearly as I can find out, that diary never had any existence, and if it was produced, it was in an utterly unauthorized way and for an ignoble purpose.
I said I wanted to try to convince the leader of the government of the urgent necessity for an election. I would ask him, can he proceed and meet the House next year, relying on what has proved to be such unreliable support in the past? Do we want a continuation of the situation which we have to-day? The recent votes in the House present enough evidence of contradiction without anything else. It may be said, "Well after all, there was no harm in co-operation." Hon. members of the Progressive group told us last night that they had co-operated with the late government. That was perfectly correct and proper, and I have nothing to find fault with in that remark. I myself indulged in a form of co-operation with the government of the day, and submitted certain legislation and certain administrative policies that I wanted adopted, in return for which I would assist the government through the session. I have no shame in that confession. It was cooperation of a distinct type, and a great portion of our desired legislation I received. I am not going into the conduct of other hon. members; I Will only speak for myself Having made an arrangement of that kind, whether right or wrong, that is my responsibility; but if after having made that arrangement I then voted for the resolution or the form of censure, which contained no greater principle than a desire to turn out the Liberal party, the position I would have put myself in would have been very untenable from the ordinary man's point of view. The reason I took that action is that, member of parliament as I am, and politician as I have been accused of being, I still have some lingering remains of the honour involved in an agreement, even if not expressed in legal terms. I still think that if a man makes an honourable agreement with anybody, and it is carried out honourably by the other party, it does behoove a gentleman to comply with the terms of it as he understands them. If I had not done so, I would have held myself to have broken faith in an honourable agreement, to have betrayed the government, and to have betrayed myself, and taken shelter under the excuse that the hon. ex-Minister .of Customs bad done something which I would have asked him to do under exactly similar cir-

Sup-ply-Fiscal Policy
cumstances. I want to warn the right hon. leader of the government, do not go in for co-operation, have no truck or trade with the sons of Amalek, whose conception of co-operation is, as was so wittily expressed the other day by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird), to get all the benefits they can and let someone else take the responsibility. I want to warn the government against that course.
It is against my personal interest to have an election before holding another session. Nevertheless I am hoping that this motion will carry, or if defeated, that it will be defeated by such a close vote that it will convince the leader of the government that it is impossible for him to carry on. In either case my object will be obtained, and an election will be brought on. I believe it is the only thing to save the country in the present situation.


John Evans: I do not intend to give a silent vote upon this important question. At the beginning of this session we agreed to support the government on a programme of legislation, and while they may not have done all we would like them to have done, I was not going to break faith before one session at least was concluded. Last night, through indisposition, I did not remain in the House, and did not give my grounds for the vote I cast. Many votes have been brought on this session with no other object than to divide the little group in this corner, who have had the responsibility of deciding on most important matters, and on questions of policy between the two parties in this House. I must say that there were many influences at work which divided this group as it did last evening. One of these was the Alberta natural resources question. When this new government took office we thought some policy would be enunciated, both on the tariff and on these questions that now stand on the order paper. Not one word has come from the government benches since they have taken office. I must say that I felt very keenly last night and was tempted to vote along with some of my Alberta friends who were much interested in this great question. I feel very keenly regarding any question of privilege regarding class, creeds, nationalities, provincial or vocational, in this whole Dominion. I want to see these two great provinces put on an equal footing with every other province, and I did expect that when this matter was on the order paper our friends who have now taken office would pronounce some policy in regard to it. The fact is that they have been afraid to do so, for some reason or other. What their policy is we do not know.
Then again we have the fact that the leader of the government (Mr. Meighen) says we should uphold the government now to carry out the legislation of the session and that the business of the country should go on. We have been here, Mr. Speaker, six months, and three months of that time has been wasted by those who are now occupying the government benches. During that time the business of the country might have been put through, and by this time most of us would have been enjoying the comfort of our homes.
I have been in this city since January 5;
I have not seen my home since, because it is too far to travel back and forth. Three full months have been wasted by those who are appealing now to this little group to enable them to carry on the business of the country.
This group is the deciding body on all questions at the present time. It is a terrible responsibility to assume, but the fact that there are a number of Progressives sitting in this corner to-day is evidence that a large section of the people in the Dominion are not content with present conditions. Parties are playing politics for political expediency and not for the country's welfare. Year after year this proceeding has gone on, and I am happy to say that, although an election was called last year-said to be called for the purpose of eliminating the third party-the third party will not be eliminated. You may kill the body, but the spirit is still there. The reason for the mess we are in to-day, the reason for the spectacle we are presenting before the country and before the whole world-enough to humiliate any Canadian patriot and make him ashamed of his own country and his countrymen-is that the Conservative party at the beginning of the session were not willing to accept a majority vote. They determined to oust the government by any means whatsoever, and since they could not do so on policy they expected to do it by abuse. It was no common thing to hear members of the Conservative party on this side shouting, "If you don't get out, we will push you out. Why don't you get out? Resign; you cannot function." The fact is that they were bad losers; they could not accept the majority vote, and now we find ourselves still here with the country's business unfinished.
I could not either yesterday or on any previous occasion vote for the party opposite to bring about what has been freely referred to in the last few days as political purity. I was asked in common with others to vote, for the purpose of bringing about political
Supply-Fiscal Policy

purity, for a party who still harbour among their numbers men who crucified their brothers at the front during the war by sending them worthless supplies at profiteering prices. I was asked to vote to bring about political purity through the instrumentality of a party who, during their last administration, were guilty of the most heinous crimes in carrying out their policy of privilege and favouritism, and the granting to certain people of some of the country's hard earnings for which no return was given. Class privilege, favouritism and corruption have existed to an extent that knew no bounds and such as, in my opinion, no country in the world has ever known.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Evans: Mr. Speaker, before six
o'clock I was dealing with the cause of the crisis facing this House at present and the responsibility of the government which is now appealing to the Progressive party to support it so that the business of the country may go on.
Being a representative of the agriculturists of Saskatchewan, I cannot see my way clear to support the present government. I pointed out this afternoon that that party when in power on a former occasion has been guilty of some of the greatest crimes that could be committed against certain classes in this country-crimes which they committed in the carrying out of their policy of favoritism, class privilege and corruption. During the years of the war they allowed profiteering to go on unhindered throughout the manufacturing centres of the Dominion, while the farmers had to suffer confiscation of their products at prices sometimes below the cost of production. At a time when wheat would have fetched a price to give us something for cur trouble, it was commandeered at $2.21 a bushel, and we had to pay the freight to Fort William, which freight was increased by over 30 per cent, for during their term of *office the government stole from the farmers the statutory protection which we then enjoyed under what is known as the Crowsnesfc pass agreement. That agreement was worth about $25,000,000 a year to the people of western Canada. Its suspension was continued from year to year, but in 1921 the government promised to restore the agreement in time for the new crop to be hauled at the rates therein provided. However, by order in council, or some other autocratic means,
fMr. Fvanf.l
the Crowsnest pass rates were not restored at that time and the farmers of the west lost another $25,000,000. I say the government confiscated our products at that time at prices which did not allow the cost of production to be reaped by the farmer, while profiteering in all lines of manufactured goods took place, even in munitions and other supplies for the front as well as in foodstuffs and other commodities that were needed in this country. At the same time a per cent higher duty was placed on all our supplies.
When dealing with these great questions of political purity and political policy, Mr. Speaker, I ask this House to-day: Does the customs investigation reveal anything to equal the Home Bank scandal of those days, when for seven years, from 1916 onwards, the very Finance department itself was prostituted to keep going a defunct institution that should have been closed out? It has now cost this country some millions of dollars to reimburse, only partially, those depositors who lost their all in that institution. Broken homes and broken lives, and even suicides, are to be found to-day along the trail from the door of the Finance department to the door of the defunct Home Bank. Again, during the years that the Conservatives were in power they inaugurated a most systematic and tyrannical application of the dumping clause, which practically closed out some of our best cooperative companies in western Canada, making it impossible for them to distribute goods on a co-operative basis.
Taking all these things into account, Sir, I cannot support the present government. The whole debacle of corruption in the Customs department to-day is due to the policy of the Tory party. Favoritism and privilege have been the means of farming the workers during the last forty years in this country; large concerns have been allowed to settle their profiteering balances by promissory notes, while farmers in western Canada have been sent to prison for not making income tax returns when the poor beggars had nothing on which to pay income tax. Promissory notes of these big corporations have been taken in settlement of taxes, some for a3 much as $800,000. Talk about loss of revenue! Who is responsible for that; to what is the present debacle due? It is due to the maintenance of the rankest kind of feudalistic bondage the world has ever seen. You have a combination of evils here; trade restrictions for one thing, robbing the public of their earnings and of their right to buy and sell. When you couple this with the debasing liquor traffic it makes a combination of evils

Supply-Fiscal Policy
with which no nation can cope. We place a number of men in the position of administering an evil law and expect them to be clean; can it be done? I am afraid our professional politicians on both sides of the House have been guilty of receiving doles from these distillers for election campaign funds, so how can we expect clean politics where this sort of thing takes place?
The smuggling evil to-day is simply a backwash of the flow which we have allowed to go freely into a friendly country, without much effort at prevention. That, together with the effort to prevent workers from exercising their rights, is the cause of all our trouble to-day, and speeches in this House during the past six months have shown that it is the intention of the Conservative party to carry on the same policy, which I cannot support. When I look at the mad race for power made by that party, and the sort of thing that has been appearing on the Conservative press throughout the country I find a spectacle humiliating to any patriotic Canadian. While our own group may be divided, our very presence here is an evidence that the people of Canada long for something better. I have said before, and I will say again, that I do not believe this thing can be cleaned up by those who have been connected with the bondage of the past, and I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. EDWARDS (South Waterloo):: I was paired with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the
hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BRISTOL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the main motion.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I desire just to make one remark. During the course of this session, when we on this side of the House were the government of the country, we received abuse of all kinds, not only in. the House but in the press supporting hon. gentlemen opposite, because we had co-operation with the hon. gentlemen of the Progressive party. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we are proud of their cooperation. It was an honourable co-operation, open, uncovered, and before the eyes of the

whole people of Canada. We have nothing to be ashamed of in that regard. We are pleased indeed to have had that co-operation and support from the hon. gentlemen led by my good friend the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). But what I desire to ask the leader of the House (Sir Henry Drayton), before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, is what sort of co-operation he is having with some gentlemen?


An hon. MEMBER:: Be a sport.


An hon. MEMBER:: Poor loser.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my hon. friend's question I am very, very happy to find that there are some gentlemen in this House who have got still enough common sense to know what the right thing is, and to do it; that there are still some gentlemen in the House who believe that this House ought to be closed decently and properly, and that we should proceed with our business,


Charles A. Stewart: When did
the change take place?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friends are unduly excited. I think I have said all that the occasion requires, and I hope that some day my hon. friends opposite will be able to face facts a little more quietly and courageously.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Regina): Mr. Speaker, surely the House is entitled to-a plainer answer than that. We have had, as the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) has said, an honourable co-operation with certain other members of this House in endeavouring to put through legislation which we mutually believed in and supported. That co-operation was open and aboveboard. We had part of that co-operation extended to the principles contained in the budget which passed this House, and which is regarded as the most popular budget in many years in Canada-a budget more in the interests of the common people of this country than any other budget we have had for many years, a budget based upon principles directly opposite to the principles referred to in the amendment which has just been dealt with by the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My point of
order is simply-

Supply-Fiscal Policy


An hon. MEMBER:: Hurry up, we want
to get away.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -that the hon. gentleman has already spoken.
Mr, BOIVIN:	He spoke on the amendment, not on the main motion.


Lucien Cannon: Learn the rules before
you attempt to lead the House.


Hewitt Bostock: In Bourinot, at page 421, I find the following:
When an amendment has been moved to the question for the Speaker to leave the chair, discussion should be properly confined to its subject matter. When an amendment is negatived, a debate may be raised when the Speaker again puts the question, on the general policy of the government, or on some other subject, not embraced within the exceptions just mentioned. This question arose in the session of 1876. An amendment having been negatived, it was urged by a member that no further debate could take place on the original question; but Mr. Speaker Anglin observed- "The House has not yet resolved that I leave the chair, and that question is consequently stillil before the House; and gentlemen who have not yet spoken are in order, and are permitted to sipeak on almost every question."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hewitt Bostock: I hope, however, that
hon. members will continue the discussion in a dignified and calm manner.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that if an
hon. member speaks upon an amendment after it has been moved to a main motion he cannot afterwards speak on the main motion.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a new doctrine.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know why my
hon. friends should be so anxious to prevent me from speaking.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are wasting time.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am never unkind to
hon. gentlemen opposite. But, Mr. Speaker, alluding again to that co-operation to which I was referring a moment ago, we heard certain expressions from the then opposition, and the word "bribery" was used frequently and by the right hon. gentleman who now, from outside the curtains of this chamber, pretends to lead this government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is untrue.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish to say simply
this-that the hon. members who in the past have co-operated wdth the government, have frequently resented the use of that word as applied to that co-operation. They have refuted it by stating plainly on more than one occasion the basis and the procedure of the co-operation between the two groups;
and when we see, on occasions of this kind, a considerable section of those who have been co-operating with the late government voting so directly in contradiction to their known principles-principles which I admit they hold now just as strongly as they did before the vote-


Mr. MEWBURN:: They have seen the
light.


Charles Avery Dunning: They have seen no light of high protection, I guarantee that- then, Sir, the House has a right to know what form of co-operation has been entered into between the hon. members who now occupy the treasury benches and the members to whom I am referring.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: Honest government.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): Apparently the government do not propose to answer the hon. member for Regina.


An hon. MEMBER:: Look behind you.


Ernest Lapointe: Is that the government?


Mr. CAHILL:: He has put a question to the government somewhat in the form in which I proposed to put it. I know the present government of ministers without portfolio will be only too anxious to answer my question, but first, I want to see if I am right in the foundation I am laying for that question. I understood hon. gentlemen opposite when they were sitting on this side of the House to state emphatically, both in the House and on the platform during the elections, that they were in favour of adequate protection.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank S. Cahill: Some hon. gentlemen opposite say "hear, hear*. Is that still the policy of the government of to-day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They have no
policy.


Ernest Lapointe: And no government.


Frank S. Cahill: If that is the policy of the government, we find hon. gentlemen to my left, particularly from Alberta, Co-operating with the present so-called government, although on some occasions they could not support the Liberal party on their tariff policy because it was not low enough. It is also rumoured in the corridors, Mr. Speaker, that an arrangement has been made whereby the present government, if they are able to elect their ministers, have agreed to have another
Supply-Fiscal Policy

session of parliament, in fact one or two more sessions. If there is such an agreement it must have been entered into as a result of some understanding. What is that understanding? That is a fair question to ask.


An hon. MEMBER:: Honest government.


Frank S. Cahill: Some hon. gentlemen opposite do well to talk of honest government, particularly some of the members I hear interrupting. If they wiant to discuss honesty in government and in public life, I am prepared to discuss that subject not merely with one or two in particular but with any of them. So I will ask them to kindly have a little patience for a few moments. It is suggested in the corridors and about the House that there is an understanding between hon. gentlemen opposite and hon. members in the comer of the chamber to my left that there is to be another session. Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the country well understood that the policy of the Conservative party in the last election, and during this session until yesterday, was a policy of adequate protection.


An hon. MEMBER:: Higher protection.


Frank S. Cahill: Not only higher protection but adequate protection, which is practically a prohibitive tariff.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank S. Cahill: It is either that or nothing. Now that was the policy of hon. members opposite.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Kent):: It eleoted 116.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend states the
case well. There were 116 members elected on that policy and 129 elected on the opposite policy. Then where do hon. gentlemen opposite propose to get sufficient support to carry on the government of the country?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
majority?


Frank S. Cahill: That is what I want to ask my hon. friends opposite. How did they get the majority? What is the bargain?


An hon. MEMBER:: We do not work like you.


An hon. MEMBER:: You do not work at all.


Frank S. Cahill: Hon. gentlemen opposite
have said to their old friends, "We are in favour of adequate protection." What have they said to their new friends in the comer of the House to my left?


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask them.


Frank S. Cahill: I want to ask my hon.
friends in the other end of the chamber if the leader of the present government has agreed with them that there will be another session, and if so what the terms of that agreement are? It is well understood that one of the parties to this compact is in favour of adequate protection. The other party is in favour of even a lower tariff than the one in force when the present opposition were in power. We took a vote on that matter only a few days ago. The question I want to ask is this: to whom do they propose to be traitors, their own party or the other party?


William Richard Motherwell: As I have never had the opportunity of addressing any house from the opposition benches-


Frank S. Cahill: I understood the government to say they were going to give me an answer to that question.


William Richard Motherwell: -I think it would be too bad for me to miss this opportunity of making a few observations. I notice there has been a certain disposition to plead for an opportunity for this government to get on its feet. Under ordinary circumstances I think that plea should be responded to by every hon. member in this House, and if the government has come into existence naturally, normally and bom properly we would be so disposed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take your licking.


William Richard Motherwell: They are spoken
of as a shadow government, an embryo government, and a temporary government, but I speak of them as a still-born government, a government which has had its vital cords cut out too closely to be able to survive. At five o'clock yesterday, just three hours and fifteen minutes after my hon. friend's government was born, they received a staggering blow.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, just the same kind of blow we received.


Robert James Manion: You have had a few since.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
should have been in front of a looking glass, so that he could have seen by their own photographs just what they looked like.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have not been
there long.


William Richard Motherwell: I have been told
that there is far more fun on the side of the House to the left of the Speaker. After

Supply-Fiscal Policy
yesterday's experience on the first ground I am disposed to believe that my statement is correct. After having had the privilege of sitting on the other side for over twenty years, it seems to be my turn to say something on this side, and I hope to render some service in my present capacity. The question before the House is in regard to the tariff. What has been the history of the tariff when we on this side were on the government benches? What have we done?


An hon. MEMBER:: Nothing.


William Richard Motherwell: That just shows
about how much my hon. friend knows.


An hon. MEMBER:: Forget about it.


William Richard Motherwell: From the first session we came into power, in 1922, we commenced to carry out our promises in respect to the tariff, not in large strides, but by easy stages. In 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 and again in 1926 we did something. What about the Australian treaty? What about the West India treaty?
Referring to my Progressive friends, the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) paid a splendid tribute to the Liberal party on this side of the House last night, and I want to express my appreciation of it by saying that, with the exception of one little slip, the government had co-operated honourably with the party of which she is a member. I say that without even one slip -because I do not call this a slip, in our cooperative arrangement-hon. members in that corner of the House have always been at liberty to take whatever stand they chose on any given subject; so that I am willing to take the stand that just as we are cooperating honourably with them they should co-operate honourably with us.


Robert James Manion: I rise to a point of order. An amendment has been moved by the leader of the opposition to the effect that our tariff policy was not satisfactory to the House- putting it in my own words. In other words, it was a tariff amendment. The whole discussion was or should have been upon the tariff. Bourinot at page 421 says:
When an amendment has ibeen moved to the question for the Speaker to leave the chair, discussion should be property confined to its subject matter.
The tariff question was the one on which the amendment was moved.
When an amendment is negatived, a debate may be raised when the speaker again puts the question, on the general policy of the government, or on some other subject, not embraced within the exceptions just mentioned.
The tariff is the exception just mentioned.
I submit the debate at the present time by members on the other side of the House dealing with the tariff is absolutely out of order.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend would be perfectly right if this were an ordinary motion; but this is a motion to go into supply, and when the question is put we can talk on anything we desire to discuss.


Robert James Manion: The question is on the amendment moved on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, no.


Frank S. Cahill: It must be appalling to hon. members to see such ignorance displayed by members on the other side, who, having sat in the opposition, should know something about the rules. When hon. members make the suggestion which has been made two or three times on the other side, it is evident that they know nothing about the rules.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member should speak to the point of order.


Edward Joseph Garland: On the
point of order, by no stretch of the imagination can the hon. member who has just resumed his seat claim that the motion which [DOT] has just been made deals with the fiscal policy of the country. It cannot deal with the fiscal policy of the country when moved as a political motion.


Ernest Lapointe: What are we here for, if not to talk about politics? We are here to settle the politics of the country.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: In answer to what my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Labour and Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Manion) tells us ,1 refer, on the point of order, to Bourinot'^ Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, page 419.


An hon. MEMBER:: I want to go home.


John Campbell Elliott: An hon. member says he wants to go home. He cannot go home before this matter is settled. Bourinot says:
Before the House goes actually into committee of supply, the Finance minister will bring down the estimates by message from the Governor General, and when the message has been read in English and French by Mr. Speaker, or by the clerk at the table, the minister will move "that the said message, together with the estimates accompanying the same, be referred to the committee of supply. "The order of the day for the House to go into committee of supply having been read, the Speaker will put the question-"That I do now leave the chair." The same question is always
Supply-Fiscal Policy

put whenever the House is to go into committee of supply in order to afford an opportunity to members to -propose amendments.
On this point it is observed by an eminent authority that the ancient constitutional doctrine that the redress of grievances is to be considered before the granting of supplies, is now represented by the practice of permitting every description of amendment to be moved on the question for the speaker leaving the chair, before going into committee of supply or ways and means. Upon other orders of the day, such amendments must be relevant, but here they are permitted to relate to every question upon which a member may desire to offer a motion; the same practice is now followed very extensively in the Canadian Commons; but there are certain limitations to this right. Only one amendment can be moved to the question, "that Mr. Speaker do now ieave the Chair. If that amendment is negatived, a discussion on other questions may be raised but no other motion can be proposed.
On this authority I submit that any question may be debated.


Robert James Manion: Will tihe hon. member read the first paragraph on the following
page?
Mr.	ELLIOTT:	On page	421?Mr.	MANION:	Yes.Mr.	ELLIOTT:	It does	not	touch	thepoint raised by my hon. friend.	This	is	the
paragraph:
When an amendment has been moved to the question for the Speaker to leave the Chair, discussion should be properly confined to its subject matter. When an amendment is negatived, a debate may be iraised when the Speaker again puts the question, on the general policy of the government, or on some other subject, not embraced within the exceptions just mentioned.
This does not bear on what my hon. friend contends.


Hewitt Bostock: Having listened to the arguments on both sides, I should think that it would be an easy matter, even though the question is rather technical, for hon. members to conform themselves to the practice as indicated in Bourinot. As Bourinot observes, only one amendment is permissible to the motion that the Speaker leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of supply. In the event of such amendment being negatived, Bourinot, at page 420, says that a discussion on other questions may be raised but that no other motion shall be proposed. At page 421 he says further:
When an amendment has been moved to the Question for the Speaker to leave the Chair, discussion should be properly confined to its subject matter. When an amendment is negatived, a debate may be raised when the Speaker again puts the question, on the general policy of the government, or on some other subjeot, not embraced within the exceptions just mentioned.
I have not by me the amendment which was voted down a moment ago, but as I 
recollect it has reference to past declarations on the part of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) who formerly led the opposition, from which declarations it is argued that it would be dangerous, in the interest of the country, to support the right hon. gentleman's fiscal policy. The amendment embodying that contention having been rejected, I take it that this retrospective feature of the tariff declarations of the present Prime Minister may not be 'further debated That is clearly inferred from Bourinot. i quote again the precedent cited by Bourinot at page 421:
This question arose in the session of 1876. An amendment having been negatived, it was urged by a member that no further debate could take place on the original question; but Mr. Speaker Anglin observed- "The House has not yet resolved that I leave the chair, and that question is consequently still before the House; and gentlemen who have not yet spoken are in order, and are permitted to speak on almost every question.''
That is to say, they could speak "on almost every question " except the one just then disposed of by the House. I rule therefore that hon. members must confine themselves to other issues and refrain from any further discussion of the particular question upon which the House has just voted. May I observe at this juncture that it would facilitate matters and would make for greater celerity if hon. members on both sides would abstain from unnecessary interruptions.


William Richard Motherwell: I have no fear of disregarding your ruling, Mr. Speaker, for I have no intention whatever of discussing the tariff. I merely want to pay my respects to this new pupa government which is emerging into the chrysalis stage.


An hon. MEMBER:: The chrysalis comes first.


William Richard Motherwell: I would suggest
that my hon, friend go and take some lessons in entomology. Now if my hon. friends in the Progressive party consider that they are justified in transferring their allegiance from us to the high tariff group, it is no business of ours so long as they can satisfy their constituencies of the soundness of their position.
This question which we have been discussing is apparently associated with the probability or the improbability of a dissolution. There is no reason why the two things should be associated but inasmuch as the Speaker has ruled that we may discuss almost any subject at all apart from the tariff I want to emphasize the fact that no matter how we vote or when we prorogue a dissolution is bound to come. How do I know? Well, I know the feelings of hon. gentlemen who have

Supply-Fiscal Policy
to sit opposite. We ourselves have gone through six months of more or less excruciating agony, wondering at every moment what was going to happen next, and the only gratifying feature of that trial has been the knowledge that during that time, with the aid of our associates, we have been able to put a good deal of first class legislation on the statutes of Canada. We have made reductions in taxation, we have restored the penny postage, and we have done other things for which the country will be grateful. That, as I say, is the gratifying feature of the situation so far as we are concerned; and because of what we suffered, because of my own experience, I feel a certain amount of sympathy for hon. gentlemen opposite now that they are starting to sweat, so to speak. Just as we could not stand indefinitely the humiliation of being over there, neither can they. By the time they prorogue and get out of this House they will know what it is to occupy those benches. No doubt they are wishing that that time were here already. But so long as they are here they will be subject to criticism not half as bad as they levelled at us, and I feel they will allow themselves to be' forced into a dissolution just as soon as prorogation takes place.
Is there any hon. gentleman in this House who is so simple as to think that by voting for the government he is going to escape a dissolution? Well, I have a lot of sympathy for him. It would seem to indicate that certain promises have been held out. That would do no harm to those to whom the promises were given, but I would ask my hon. friends opposite, how are they going to carry out those promises? Public sentiment is superior to their wishes. The whole country is crying out for a showdown-for a general election. I am not such an extreme party man that I do not think there is a place for Independents in this parliament, but I do think the public affairs of the country cannot continue to be deadlocked as they are at the present time. Already a crisis of tremendous gravity has grown out of this situation from the bringing into existence of this government by means of a most unnatural birth, which was brought about as the result of the deception that the present Prime Minister must have practised on the crown in convincing the crown that he and his party could carry on the national affairs satisfactorily and for a reasonable length of time. There must have been deception, otherwise the crown would not have taken his advice and refused dissolution, thus bringing this government into existence, believing they could carry on better than wo
could. The responsibility for that act does not, as has already been said, devolve on the crown but on its advisers. But in my estimation there will be an election before the snow flies, and I am sure every hon. gentleman who has the cause of good government and the interest of Canada at heart will welcome that day.
It may be that those who voted-unnaturally under ordinary circumstances-with the present government, felt that they had one of two choices: either to help kill themselves or to help kill this government; and, incidentally, to make sure of not having a dissolution by voting against the government* This side of the House has already put itself on record as being in favour of a dissolution. When the former Prime Minister advised His Excellency to dissolve this House, everybody knew our views on the question. We have no formal -declaration from the other side of the House what their views are, and undoubtedly the hope is that by retaining this government in power there will be another session of this parliament. Well, I have too much respect for the historic traditions of my opponents on the other side of the House to think they would stand the humiliation which they would certainly have to submit to if they attempt to carry on for another year. That is why I think we will have an election before the snow flies.
There is another question in the offing, Mr. Speaker, and that is the tremendous constitutional question which has been raised as the result of the birth of this government under such extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. That is a question of paramount gravity, and there is far more involved in it than there is in the question of tariff. Something has happened in this country that has not happened in the British Isles for a hundred years, something that has not happened in Canada since confederation. What is going to be done about it?


Edward Joseph Garland: Let the
hon. member or some of his colleagues introduce that question as a separate issue, and let us fight it.


William Richard Motherwell: I am simply
cogitating on the question in advance. The Prime Minister has intimated that a resolution will likely be introduced if an opportunity of' going into supply is again given, and I expect it will be. That will be the proper time to go into it. In the meantime sufficient has been said to-day to indicate the danger of giving birth to a government under the circumstances to which I have alluded.
Supply-Fiscal Policy


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was out of the House at the time the debate on the amendment to go into supply came to a conclusion, and I wish to speak for a moment on that amendment. This House has been in session for practically six months. As a matter of fact it is six months to-day since I left my home to come to Ottawa. I do not know how the other members feel, Sir, but I feel tihat I have earned my indemnity already. As the hon. ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) has just said, I should like to go home. I do not think I can be blamed for that desire.
The motion before the House when the amendment was moved was that the House should go into committee of Supply. I think it is the duty of this House to vote supply. In my opinion the amendment was moved, for possibly two purposes:	First, to prevent
the House granting His Majesty supply; and, second, to put some of us who want to expedite the business of the House in an unpleasant position. That is the misfortune of any member who comes to this House to try to transact the business of the country and not to play politics. There is always somebody on one side of the House or the other whose chief concern is to get some of us in bad with the people we are trying to represent and serve. I say without any hesitation whatever that that is the prime motive behind the amendment moved to the motion to go into committee of Supply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What does the hon. member say was the prime motive of the amendment?


George Gibson Coote: To put in an uncomfortable position any members who wish that the House should go into committee of Supply.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend seems to
be in a particular hurry to go home. Why did he ask suspension of the rules in order that he might move an amendment himself?


George Gibson Coote: Simply so we would not be put in the position that in the last seven business days the House would automatically go into committee of Supply, which would prevent any member moving an amendment to voice any grievance that he might have.


Lucien Cannon: Then why deprive us of
that right?


George Gibson Coote: I am not depriving any hon. member of that right.


Lucien Cannon: You surely are.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Speaker, the business of this House should be concluded. The former government resigned, leaving considerable business unfinished. Certainly those measures which had passed this House, and had been amended by the Senate, should be given a chance to be brought before this House again to be discussed and if thought fit, given third reading. Otherwise the work of this session would be wasted. I am very tired of the party warfare which is carried on in this House. Hon. members to my right will admit, I think, that it was carried on by the members opposite for five months, but since their transfer to the other side of the chamber the party warfare is carried on just the same by those who now form the official opposition. So far as I can see we are between the devil and the deep sea. The ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) said to-night, as I understood him at least, that there was more fun on this side of the House. I think he is right. But, Mr. Speaker, is that what he came here for? I want to know if the members of this House are justified in drawing $4,000 a year just for fun.


Mr. FAEARD:: He is not asking to go
home.


Lucien Cannon: You want your indemnity and then to go home without working at all.


William Richard Motherwell: Cannot my hon.
friend appreciate the fact that you can have fun out of your work? Work is drudgery without the fun associated with it.


George Gibson Coote: Yes, I can appreciate that all right, but I have heard people outside of this House say, "What is the use of paying 60 cents to get into Keith's theatre when you can see a better vaudeville Aow in the House of Commons?"


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon.
friend think he makes a contribution?


George Gibson Coote: This is very funny to some
of my hon. friends. Now may I say that when we came to Ottawa six months ago some gentlemen sitting to my right, who are very fond of interrupting me just now, were very anxious to secure the support of hon. members sitting in this comer of the House.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend is referring to me I would ask him to give one single instance when I even spoke to him.


George Gibson Coote: At that time this group wrote both the then Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition asking their attitude in regard to certain questions in which they were very much interested, one of which was the

Supply-Fiscal Policy
tariff. May I now draw to the attention of the House a few words from the letter of the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition:
May I add, though, that on the subject of the tariff I could not in a few words better define our historic and present policy than to quote what the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King on September 8, in the county of Peel, in the province of Ontario, declared to be [the policy of the Liberal party, namely-"a tariff which will help to give us what we need in the way of revenue, and, at the same time safeguard industrial development."
This is the declaration we had from the leader of the present so-called government when we had to consider the question of cooperating with either of the old parties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon.
friend understand from that letter that the leader of the present government accepted the tariff policy of the Liberal government, and is that why he and his party voted against the amendment?


George Gibson Coote: No. I would say that the
tariff policy of either party did not influence my vote to-night one iota.


Frank S. Cahill: It would be very interesting
to know what did influence my hon. friend in his vote.


George Gibson Coote: I told my hon. friend a few moments ago; if he had not been asleep he might have 'heard me. I voted against that amendment because I think we should attend to the business of the House and get supply voted.


Frank S. Cahill: That is childish.


George Gibson Coote: I suppose it is childish, but
among all the politicians in this House I consider myself a child. I do not want to take up the time of the House; we should get to business, although I doubt very much if we will. I should like to say, however, that we seem to be fast approaching the time when the Governor General should seriously consider calling on certain members of this House to form a coalition government.


Hewitt Bostock: Under rule 19 the hon.
gentleman should not bring into a debate the name of His Excellency. I know he has no sinister motive, but it is not proper to refer to the Governor General in a political discussion.


Mr COOTE:: I am very sorry to have
transgressed the rules of the House. I feel that possibly what we need, and need soon, is a coalition government in which all groups -a co-operative government, I do not care what you call it-may be represented.


Frank S. Cahill: Is that the answer to my
question? It sounds like it.


George Gibson Coote: Then possibly party warfare
may cease long enough to allow the business of the session to be concluded. Now I have a word to say to the low tariff men in this House, of whom I hope some are still my friends in spite of my recent vote. My views on the tariff have not changed at all; regardless of how many votes I may give against amendments on motions to go into supply, I do not think my tariff views will change very much. I would still be co-operating with the party which claims to be the low tariff party, and which does contain a number of low tariff men, had it not been for an unfortunate occurrence in one department of that government. I am sorry that in this country we have a system of government under which, if serious trouble occurs in one department, the result seems to be that the whole government must be upset. I wish some members of the late government were still in office, but there is no use in going back and rewashing old linen. I do regret the fact, however, that governments are put out of office in this country because of the misdemeanors of one or two of their members.
There are many other things I would like to say along this line, but I will not be responsible for longer delaying the business of the House; if that business is further delayed the responsibility must be on someone else. As I said last night, physically I am almost at the end of my endurance; if this party warfare is carried on much longer I may be compelled to go home and leave those party warriors to fight it out.


James Alexander Robb: On the first vote taken yesterday,
after this government assumed the treasury benches, on an appeal from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, the government were defeated by a majority of one. On a subsequent vote they received a majority of twelve; later they had a majority of ten and to-night that majority has been reduced to seven. The hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat, speaking I presume for the group in that corner of the House who saved the government-because you must keep in mind, Sir, the fact that had that group not voted with the government to-night they would have been defeated-said that the only solution now apparent is a coalition government. I submit that that cannot be posted up to-morrow as a verdict in favour of the government; we have it from the hon. gentleman who speaks for that group that he has so little confidence in this government that he suggests a coalition.
520S
Supply-Fiscal Policy

As the hon. gentleman has said, we have worked hard during a long session, I think one of the longest sessions I have attended during the eighteen years I have been in parliament. The independent press of the country, as well as the Tory press, have been telling the country from early in this session that the only solution for Canada to-day is a general election, so that the people may determine what is best. Now having in mind that the government of which I had the honour to be a member had a larger majority in this House than this government has ever registered, having in mind also the difficulties that we had in carrying on, knowing the conditions, and knowing what the Acting Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) will be up against, I submit that they can neither satisfy their friends who financed the advertising which hon. gentlemen opposite profited by during the last election, nor can they satisfy the group to my left under existing conditions, and I submit that the sooner the hon. gentleman to whom His Excellency now looks for advice advises him that he is not able to carry on without certain negotiations, the better. I make this statement so that hon. members may know whether it is true or not, and if not true, may Tefute it:	I
have been told only recently in the lobby that there is a bargain that there shall be two more sessions. Well, I want to know what is going to be the policy of the government during those two sessions, and I think the people of Canada are entitled to know what is going to be their policy. I believe that the gentlemen who financed the advertising which hon. gentlemen opposite enjoyed last fall are also entitled to know that, and what is more, the electors who sent to this parliament the hon. gentlemen who saved this government from defeat to-night are entitled to know it. I am not much interested in what hon. gentlemen down to my left may think, but I am interested in knowing what their electors will think to-morrow morning, and I am interested in knowing what those who throughout this session have been advocating a higher and a higher tariff and their friends who have been urging upon them a higher and a higher tariff will think, and also what the general public of Canada will think. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the only possible solution of this difficulty is not a coalition, but a return to the people, and let the people decide.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, what are the terms of this cooperation? That question has been asked by several hon. gentlemen to my right. It is
(Mr. Robb.]
true that from the beginning of this session almost up to to-day, certainly up until the end of last week, a most full and honourable and open system of co-operation has existed between the late government and hon. gentlemen in this party, and it has been admitted on both sides that both groups have lived up to the terms of that co-operation. I am here to say that that is the case. There was perhaps a falling off on the question of the natural resources of Alberta, due to complications affecting the provincial government in Alberta, which possibly provided hon. gentlemen to my right with some meagre excuse for the position in which they found themselves. Let me say, though, that when the late government sat over there and ran away from *its own duty and its own responsibility, it ceased from that moment to have any further claim upon the co-operation of hon. gentlemen in this group. I regret deeply to say that, and I hope that in the future cooperation can again be restored, not only with that group, but with any group that will co-operate with us. We are always willing and open to co-operate, but the day last week on which the Prime Minister of this country decided to fly away from his responsibilities, to fly from possible defeat, to fly from the carrying through of his legislation and his estimates, from that moment on we were placed in an entirely different relation towards him and his ministry.
I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that the parliamentary institutions of this country, as practised at the present time, are utterly impossible in view of the situation in this House, and there must be a modification of that situation. I think there has been a recognition of that by several hon. members who have thought deeply upon this subject, and it was so stated in no uncertain terms at the outset of this session by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird), and other hon. members in this group, who have constantly indicated to the House their complete dissatisfaction and lack of confidence in the present parliamentary institutions. There has got to be a change of alignment, a change of the method of appointing governments, and of accepting votes upon certain questions.
Let me say definitely at this stage that I for one do not intend to be tricked into voting for any merely political motion. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) said that we were here to discuss political questions. We are not here to discuss political questions. We are here to carry on the business of Canada. Let the hon. gentle-

Supply-Fiscal Policy
man take his political discussions to the hustings; there perhaps they may receive a hearing and may have some influence, but political questions such as this motion raises at this stage certainly have no reasonable bearing upon the vote of any hon. gentleman.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that to my personal knowledge there is absolutely no cooperation, nor co-operative understanding, nor negotiation, nor arrangment, nor anything of that kind whatever, between the hon. members of this group and the hon. gentlemen who now sit on the government benches. [ personally have not entered into any negotiations with them with respect to this vote, or with respect to my vote on any other question. I go further, and I say that before this group-I speak advisedly, and hon. gentlemen around me can contradict me if I am wrong-can afford to enter into any cooperative arrangement with hon. gentlemen opposite, we shall know what their policy is; we must know it, just as we asked hon. gentlemen now to our right what their policy was. The day we enter into any co-operative arrangement with hon. gentlemen who now sit on the government benches, on that day hon. gentlemen to my right and the public will know it. That arrangement will be just as open and above-board and honourable as the arrangement we had with hon. gentlemen to my right. That day may never come but I tell hon. gentlemen frankly that when it does come they will know it, and there will be no backstairs intrigue to my knowledge and with my consent.
On the particular amendment which has just been voted on, the fiscal policy of this country was absolutely not at stake. If you wish to discuss the fiscal policy of this country -I know I am verging here upon the point of being out of order-I would remind hon. gentlemen to my right that the party to my right, which.now preaches low tariffs, and did under the pressure of the group in this corner of the House and of that able and eloquent little group from Saskatchewan, grant certain reductions in the tariff this year, just as was done last year on agricultural implements, yet in one session in the last four years it brought in a budget announcing the death knell of protection, and the very next year established a policy of tariff stability. In the face of that, what can we think? Can we be expected to get anywhere on such a vague, academic, theoretical question as has been put to us tonight? We do not know, we cannot know, what we are voting on. But as soon as we vote on an 14011-330
issue, we shall record our votes intelligently, and I hope consistently.
One word more, and I am through. I am satisfied that this motion was introduced today, as other motions may be introduced subsequently, for one purpose and one purpose only. The Liberal party is now so anxious to gain control of the election machinery in view of what they hope will be an appeal to the country that they are willing to go to any extreme to get that control. I speak as one from the province of Alberta and for myself I have nothing to fear from an election. I have never personally spent one cent on an election campaign, and I will not. My people have subscribed for my election campaign and they have elected me, and I owed allegiance to no party, to no corporation; no one has any strings on me but my U.F.A.
The United Farmers of Alberta has just completed one of the most successful campaigns that has ever been carried on in that province. We have been swept back again into office, and I have nothing to fear, nor have hon. gentlemen from the province of Alberta sitting around me anything to fear from an election; so I am in a position to be able to say, when charges of an evil and objectionable character are being levelled against me, that the country does not want an election to-day. No one knows that better than hon. gentlemen to my right, and hon. gentlemen who are in touch with business circles in eastern Canada. Those in high authority who have the power to pass the control from one party to another know that just as well as hon. gentlemen in this House know it. That being the case, I say that we would be ill advised indeed to fall into any trap that may be set for us by hon. gentlemen to my right just as we would have been ill advised to fall into the trap set by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Davis), or by any other hon. member who moves a political motion. So far as I personally am concerned, I will weigh every question on its merits, and if I detect in it a single trace of political motive, distinct altogether from the interests of the country, I shall have no hesitation in voting against it.
It might just happen that in spite of the common sense of some of the members in this House-most of us have some sense but some have a political sense that exceeds their business sense-a situation may arise where even then it may not be possible to carry on. In that case there is but one thing possible, as I view the matter, and that is that some form of co-operative government, just as the hon. member for Macleod suggested,

Supply-Fiscal Policy

should be arranged for and carried on so that the election machinery may be taken out of the hands of political parties, and a disgraceful influence upon the votes of the people of this country be removed from partisan hands for all time. And in entering into a co-operative arrangement of that kind, let Colonel Biggar, the Chief Electoral Officer at the present time, or whoever may be the chief electoral officer at the moment, conduct the federal election. In each constituency each little group or each little party will have its own organization, but as far as the present national control of political machinery is concerned, it is wrong in principle. It is absolutely unsound that political parties- either Liberals, Conservatives or Progressives -should have anything whatever to say about-it.
I have now, I hope, given to my hon. friend the member for Pontiac, and to other hon. gentlemen, my answer to their questions. And may I say in conclusion that it ill becomes these hon. gentlemen who know us, who have known us for four years, and who have co-operated with us, to suggest or to attempt to suggest, as they have done tonight, that we have in any way done anything dishonourable. I will tell my hon. friend everything when there is anything to disclose.


Frank S. Cahill: Will my hon. friend permit a question? He has made a statement which I take it is correct. I know him and I believe he is absolutely honest in his statement. But he also said that, as I understood it, we should hurry through this session, prorogue, go home, and then come back here next session in the same state of confusion that now exists without any understanding. If we are to come back, if this parliament is to meet again, we should have some understanding. This country should not be left in the state of chaos it is in to-day without some such understanding. How does my hon. friend think the country is going to accept the position in which it is left to-night if there is no understanding that there is to be another session? If there is an understanding, the nature of it certainly should be explained, although I believe there is no understanding so far as my hon. friend himself is concerned.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not
in a position to solve the horrible problem which is worrying me just as much as it is my hon. friend. I have simply stated the position as it is at this moment. I presume that if it is the desire of my hon. friends to carry on they can do so; but the suggestions

I have made appeal at least to myself, and I hope to every honourable person, as reasonable suggestions for dealing with the situation.
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette):	I only
want to say a few words in answer to my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) and my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland). These two gentlemen know that I hold them in high esteem, as I also hold in high esteem all members of the Progressive party and all members . of this House. However, it seems to me that in their utterances to-night there is sudh variance and such a lack of logic that I could not let them pass unchallenged. I see the hon. member for Macleod walking out of the House. He is quite free to do so, but I have told him that I was going to reply to some of his statements and he would do me a great favour by remaining. The hon. member says, "I have earned my indemnity already." With all due deference to the hon. member, foi whom I have every consideration, I ask him: Is that a principle? Hon., members of the Progressive party, and I have no fault to find with them on that score, have come here and contended that they are men of principle; that the two old parties changed their principles but that they themselves adhere to principle. Is it a matter of principle for an hon. member to say, "Once I have earned my indemnity I can go home"?


George Gibson Coote: Will the hon. member permit me to say that I am quite ready to stay here another month or two months if there is business to be done, but I do not like to remain at this stage of the -proceedings and listen to party warfare. That is the point I thought I was making when I spoke.


Jean-Joseph Denis: My hon. friend,
perhaps, has not had very much experience in politics. Does he know that since confederation and prior to that time there has never been anything else in the Canadian parliament but party warfare? Does he know that in England at the present time there is party warfare in politics, and that the same condition prevails in every civilized country where there is a parliament?


George Gibson Coote: Is the hon. gentleman not
aware that a great many of us in this comer of the House came down here to try to get away from party warfare, and that we do not want to see politics introduced into the carrying on of the business of the country?


Jean-Joseph Denis: My hon. friend is
cherishing an illusion. As long as there is a parliament in Canada there will be party warfare-that is, if such an expression is ap-

Supply-Fiscal Policy
propriate, and I do not think it is proper. I know what my hon. friend means. What he objects to is one party fighting against another. My hon. friend will live many years and die an old man I hqpe, but when he reaches an advanced age he will still find the same conditions as to party warfare existing in this parliament that he sees now.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
gentleman is too pessimistic.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Long before my
hon. friend was born there was party warfare in this Dominion. Let them read the debates before and since confederation and they will see there has been nothing else but party warfare. Of course when a government has a majority of thirty, forty or fifty, there is ijot very much party warfare; but each time the political parties are divided as they are at the present moment, when there is but a small majority on one side or the other, you will have political warfare; that is inevitable. But do not let us call it party warfare; let us consider it the efforts of two parties working in different directions, both of them having at heart the good of the country and both doing their best to accomplish that desired result. I want to attribute proper motives to the members of every party; but if you insist upon calling the struggles between the parties party warfare you will see bitter fights in this House under present conditions, as well as under altogether different conditions.


George Gibson Coote: Will the hon. member tell us what the bitter fights are all about?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I want to discuss this matter with my hon. friend in a polite and friendly manner, and for that reason I will not answer his last question but I will tell him this: If he wants to be logical and wants to act in accordance with principle He cannot claim that he wants to go home, because by voting with hon. gentlemen on this side he will bring about that result sooner than he would if he voted with hon. gentlemen opposite. My hon. friend said the amendment this afternoon was purely a political amendment. Let us be frank when we are discussing this matter. Every time a resolution is brought in for political purposes, according to his notion, is he at liberty to vote diametrically opposite to his principles? It is impossible to accept that.
My hon. friends have spoken of co-operation. It is true there has been co-operation between the Liberal and Progressive parties, and had the Liberals of the province of Quebec not been willing to co-operate with the Progressive party, co-operation would have 14011-330J
been impossible. We did co-operate with them, and I am not sorry for it. If we had it to do all over again I would co-operate. But both sides must co-operate. We Liberals from the province of Quebec could live very well without co-operation, and if we did cooperate it was for the reason that I stated at the opening of parliament, that throughout the length and breadth of Canada our party should co-operate with all independent groups and work together for the welfaj-e of our country. That was our object, and in order to attain it I am not ashamed to state to-night that I have voted for more than one measure which in my estimation might have been doubtful if I had considered my province only. But that was not my object. I considered the whole of Canada; I realized that two or three thousand miles from here there were provinces with which we should co-operate, and for that reason I supported those measures. My friends having obtained what they were after, apparently they say, "Now that we have crossed the river, we take our hats and are going home."


George Gibson Coote: The only reason I have voted as I have is that one department of the government had got into such a state-and I ielt that some members of the government knew it-that I could not support the then government. I was sorry that the co-operation could not be further carried out.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I want to be very modest in my words and speech, but I will go further; do my hon. friends of the Progressive party think-their principles being known and recorded; in this House-that co-operation would be easier with the present government than with the group on this side of the House? If there is one hon. member who is of that opinion, I should like to know his name. They cannot contend that, because it would be illogical. I do not want to blame them for their action; they are perfectly free and they have my consideration, esteem and respect, but notwithstanding all that I cannot bring myself to the belief that co-operation is easier with the Tory party than with the Liberal party. Co-operation with the Tory party is impossible; and that has been demonstrated during the present session. Just think of the logic of these estimable gentlemen. They want co-operation, but in the meantime, while they are claiming co-operation, they are supporting a party with which they cannot co-operate.
My hon. friend said they would like to have coalition. I do not know if it is new to my hon. friend, but it is not new to others. I am going to tell my hon. friends something to take with them to Saskatchewan and Al-
Supply-Secretary of State

berta. Referring to coalition, do my hon. friends from the Progressive party know, or do they ignore the fact, fhat for two or three years at least, and perhaps more, very prominent people belonging to both parties in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario have claimed that those two provinces should go hand in hand and co-operate in order to govern this country? If my hon. friends do not know that, they do not know very much, because it is no secret. I am not divulging any secret, and moreover I was not a party to it. I am simply repeating what I have heard time and time again, and no one can go to Toronto or Montreal without meeting among the business men of those two largest cities in this Dominion many who will tell my Conservative friends on the one hand and the Liberals on the other that they should co-operate, and that there must not be any feud between Quebec and Ontario. If there is any misunderstanding between those provinces, remember that our interests are identical and that they should join hands and work together. Do my hon. friends know that Quebec has 65 members and Ontario 82? My hon. friends should make the addition and find out what it represents. They ask for cooperation and coalition. If we ever have coalition between Ontario and Quebec, the Progressives might not see their policy advanced very much. I do not want to threaten anybody, but, in common with my hon. friends from Macleod (Mr. Coote) and Bow River (Mr. Garland) I want the business of the country carried on and am willing to let politics go in order to gain that end. I hope my hon. friend will not think for one moment that I was speaking of him in a personal way. Although I do not know him very well personally, he knows I have a great deal of esteem for him. To-night I am speaking with a purpose. I want him to consider my statement, not because it comes from me, but because I am voicing the opinion of many who think as I do. I advise the hon. gentleman to read Hansard before he goes home and consider once more what I have just said concerning Quebec and more particularly Ontario.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.
SECRETARY OP STATE To provide for the purchase of 650 copies of the Canadian Parliamentary Guide $1,950.


Mr. BOTVIN:: Has there been any increase in the price of the Guide?


George Halsey Perley: There has been no increase. This is the annual vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
fMr. J. J. Denis.]
Governor General's Secretary's Office-
Salaries, including Governor General's secretary additional to salary authorized by R.S., c. 4, $3,600; John Guy at $1,500 and George
Johnson at $1,380	$35,370
Contingencies	 66 000
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
salary of the Governor General's secretary?


George Halsey Perley: It is $2,400.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
additional amount for?


George Halsey Perley: These are my
right hon. friend's estimates. I suppose he considered that the additional amount was warranted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the additional amount?


George Halsey Perley: It is $3,600.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a total of $6,000 for the Governor General's secret tary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Defence-Militia services-Cadet services, $400,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a courtesy of the new administration? One of our hon. members who has had this question under consideration for some years desires to address the House on it.


The CHAIRMAN:: Item stands.
Non-permanent active militia, $1,660,000.


Mr. RINFRET:: I wish to congratulate
the new government on their spirit of economy in decreasing this item by $50,000. I believe they have inherited that spirit from the former government, and I merely express the hope that when the estimates are brought down next year-and very likely they will be brought down by this side of the House -it will be found possible to further reduce this amount.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not want my
hon. friend to be misled. The former government reduced the amount, but found it necessary to restore the $50,000 in the supplementary estimates.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does my hon. friend contend that the amount is required for training camps for the non-permanent militia?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is my hon. friend seeking
to pass this estimate upon assurances that he has received from some official in his department, or does he verily believe that it is required?

Supply-Formation oj Ministry


Hugh Guthrie: I have some familiarity with the department, but, speaking generally, I have not had time to examine the items. We are taking the items as prepared by the former government, of which my hon. friend was a member. In the short time I have had to examine this estimate I think the amount will be required.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is all very well for the leader of the government to rise in his place and with a gesture to the gallery say, "Gentlemen, you will certainly piass these estimates, because they are yours." I have not had time to examine the supptementanies, but I take the hon. member's word that the same condition exists in connection with them. So far as the main estimates are concerned, there is no doubt we take full responsibility for their preparation, and we hope the country will give us credit for the estimates as they are presented to the House. I ask my hon. friend now and the other hon. members of the newly formed government sitting around him, whether or not they will undertake to spend the money that we are voting to them to-night? That is a question to which the people of Canada are entitled to have an affirmative or negative reply. Therefore I think before we proceed further in rushing these estimates through at the rate of millions of dollars per hour we should have some assurance that the government is going to use every reasonable effort to expend the money voted according to the wishes of this House. Without that assurance I do not think we should continue at this headlong pace passing estimates which may never be expended.


Hugh Guthrie: I certainly will not undertake that this amount is to be expended. I had no part in the preparation of the estimate, but I will undertake that so much of it as is absolutely essential and necessary shall be expended. If it is possible to make a saving on that amount I will undertake that it shall be made. But as the estimate has been prepared by careful officers of the department who have examined closely into the situation, I do not think the criticism is well taken by my hon. friend, who was a member of the government which prepared and submitted this, together -with the other estimates, to this House wih the approval of his Excellency.


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend is wrong.
There is no criticism of the estimate, nor of the official who prepared it.


Hugh Guthrie: I have given the undertaking.


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend has given
an undertaking to spend just as little as possible of the estimates voted. I am not referring to this particular estimate; I realize that military training camps have existed for years. They existed under previous Conservative regimes and under Liberal regimes; there has been a laudable effort to reduce the amount expended in this way each year, but there are a great many other items in these estimates which the government considered absolutely necessary to the welfare of Canada. If they had not been absolutely essential they would not have been included. As my hon. friend says, they were recommended by responsible officers of the different departments, and every estimate in the blue book was approved of by the late government after that recommendation. I am not criticising the officers; I think they did their duty in preparing the estimates, but I would like to know whether the opinions of these responsible officers will be carried out or whether my hon. friends are merely voting these estimates in order to close parliament at the earliest possible opportunity and get back to their homes, leaving perhaps for another year the real expenditure of money required for the public service, in order that they may get the benefit of having placed the amounts in the estimates and in order that they may tell the people of Canada. "Oh, well, the Liberals prepared the estimates and we are not going to spend the money." I think my hon. friend was quite wrong when he criticized me for blaming any official, because that was not at all my intention. All I wanted was an assurance from this government that they would endeavour to carry out the wishes expressed by parliament in the voting of these estimates.


Hugh Guthrie: Certainly, and those
wishes will be carried out as carefully and as economically as possible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are now
voting large sums of public money to different hon. gentlemen opposite who are supposed to be administering several departments of the government. Before we proceed any further I would like to discover from those hon. gentlemen to w'hat extent they have complied with constitutional practice in the matter of assuming office. I would like to ask my hon. friend who is leading the House whether he has taken any oath of office of any kind since he undertook to lead the House, or even before doing so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Each of the
different formalities prescribed in the office

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
of the Privy Council has been observed; I am quite frank in saying that I do not know how many there are.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want this
information before we vote public money to hon. gentlemen who, in our opinion, are not entitled to spend one five-cent piece of the public money. I ask my hon. friend who is now leading the House whether he has taken any oath of office this year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend tell me what departments he is administering?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think this is somewhat irregular, Mr. Chairman, but I am quite willing to give my hon. friend the information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are discussing supply at present. If my hon. friend hesitates to give an answer to any of the questions I am asking I will see to it that we do not proceed with supply. Supply, as my hon. friend knows, is the stage at which the people's representatives in parliament have a right to question the administration as to their right to administer public funds.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Absolutely; I am not making the slightest objection to it; I am not even throwing the slightest doubt upon the honesty and accuracy of the previous administration who prepared these very estimates. So far as this is concerned I have taken all the oaths which go with the administration and with the standing one has as a member of the king's Privy Council. In addition to that I have been regularly appointed by order in council as a member of the king's Privy Council to act in the present occasion in the Department of Finance and the Department of Railways and Canals.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend tell me when that order in council was passed, and if he will lay a copy on the table?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, there is no trouble about it. One was sent me to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I see the copy?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has told me that he has taken no oath this year. May I ask the hon. member for Argen-teuil (Sir George Perley) what departments he is administering?


George Halsey Perley: I am Acting
Secretary of State and Acting Minister of Public Works.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend if he has taken any oath of office this year?


George Halsey Perley: No. I took my oath as a Privy Councillor a great many years ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Those of us
sitting on this side who composed the former government have taken the oath as privy councillors, but that does not entitle us to administer departments of the government at present. I want to make the position quite clear to hon. gentlemen opposite. I observe ministers in this government are former Privy Councillors, men who have taken the oath as councillors, men who have taken the oath as privy councillors many years ago.


George Halsey Perley: Except the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black).


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will have a special word in regard to him a little later All the other acting ministers have taken the oath as privy councillors at some previous time, but that gives them no right whatever to sit in this House as ministers. What I am concerned about now is the oath taken when one becomes a minister of the crown.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not the oath we have taken; none of us are ministers of departments, but merely acting ministers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to ask the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) what departments he is administering.


Robert James Manion: I have the Departments of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, Immigration, Labour, Health, and Postmaster General.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has my hon. friend taken any oath of office?


Robert James Manion: No, not since I took the privy councillor's oath about the same time my hon. friend took it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now will the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) tell us what departments he is administering?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is an interesting interrogation, but it is quite proper for the right hon. gentleman to have all the information available. I am Acting Minister of Agriculture, Trade and Commerce, Customs and Excise, and Interior, which, of course, includes Indian Affairs and Mines.

Supply-Formation of Ministry


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has my hon. friend taken the oath of office with respect to the administration of any of these departments?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I took the oath as privy councillor some years ago, also the oath as administrator of the Department of Trade and Commerce at that time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When was that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will probably recall.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend himself mentioned it; he evidently regards it as having some bearing. When did he take that oath?


Henry Herbert Stevens: So far as I can recall, it would be early in September of 1921, about the fifth or tenth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government of which he was a member at that time went out of office shortly afterwards, did it not?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the hon. member for South Wellington kindly tell us what departments he administers?


Hugh Guthrie: I became a privy councillor for Canada in July, 1919. I have taken no oath of office. I am appointed by order in council, and am acting minister for the Department of National Defence and the Department of Justice. The order in council appointing me is similar in form to that presented by my hon. friend from West York.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I
could shorten the questions by asking my hon. friend whether all of the acting ministers have been appointed acting ministers by order in council.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The practice has been the same, I think, in every case. The fact is, as was stated in the House the other day, the right hon. the Prime Minister was sworn in and has taken the office of Prime Minister. He is not acting, he is real-


Lucien Cannon: The real thing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He is the real thing, and I think the House recognized that; my hon. friend is quite right. He also has taken the portfolio of External Affairs, and is President of the Privy Council. In connection with the others, what was done was this-I am not speaking of the hon. member
for Halifax (Mr. Black), who took the appropriate oaths on that day-but in connection with the others they were all formerly sworn, and, of course, still are members of the Privy Council, and are ex-cabinet ministers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend mean sworn since the present administration took office?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Prior to the
time the preceding administration was in office.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has not yet answered the question whether all the acting ministers were appointed acting ministers by order in council.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can my hon. friend tell me the dates of the orders in council?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have given my hon. friend a copy of the order in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were all the same date as this one?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can my hon. friend be sure of that?


Robert James Manion: Mine is dated June 29.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would ask
my hon. friend from Argenteuil if he was appointed by order in council, and would he undertake to have the order in council laid on the table of the House, if not tonight, at least to-morrow when the House assembles.


George Halsey Perley: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre appointed by order in council?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will he undertake to have a copy of the order in council laid on the table to-morrow?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend from Fort William was appointed by order in council? Will he undertake to have a copy of the order in council laid on the table to-morrow?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend from South Wellington undertake to

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
have a copy of the order in council appointing him laid on the table to-morrow?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black) is a minister without portfolio?


Henry Lumley Drayton: He is Acting
Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He was made a minister without portfolio as a privy councillor.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was that done by order in council?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no doubt it was.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. gentleman took the oath as privy councillor on the 29th of June, and was appointed Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries by order in council. I have here a copy of the order in council appointing Mr. Manion, Mr. Black (Halifax) and myself.
*


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would my hon friend let me have that? I wanted to ask whether the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black) was appointed a privy councillor by order in council.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He was sworn
in in the ordinary way.


Robert James Manion: A man cannot be appointed privy councillor by order in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon.
. friend say there was no order in council in connection with the appointment of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black) as privy councillor?


Robert James Manion: He took the oath of office as privy councillor.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend say that there was no order in council passed creating the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black) a privy councillor?


Robert James Manion: I do not know whether
there was or not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the leader of this administration that has been formed by order in council tell us whether there was an order in council in that case?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend should not gibe at order in council administration ; he knows all about it. At the moment I cannot for the life of me tell him what the 
exact procedure was, but I do know that everything that was said to be necessary was done, and I have given my hon. friend what was given to me. As to what was given to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black), I do not know what was given to him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can my hon,
friend tell me where the new privy councillor is?


Henry Lumley Drayton: He was in the
House until a short time ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can he come
into the House this evening?


Henry Lumley Drayton: He is not very well, as my hon. friend knows. He has his arm in a sling.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry
to hear it. I did not know it until this moment. I would ask my hon. friend if he will be in a position to advise me first thing when the House meets to-morrow whether there was an order in council appointing him privy councillor, and when it was passed, and if he will please have a copy of the order laid on the table.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I shall be
pleased to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend who is leading the House says that these orders in council appointing himself and several other gentlemen who are sitting beside him were passed in council. Who were in council at the time these orders were passed, may I ask?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is now asking a question which he himself on previous occasions said could not be answered. It is a matter of privy council oath. I have a very vivid recollection of the stand taken by my right hon. friend in the Murdock case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend may think that by evasions of that kind, he wall get away from informing the House as to how, with respect to the creation of this so-called ministry, the constitutional requirements have been complied with, but I wish to tell him at once that he will not get away from it by evading. The country is entitled to know by what authority hon. gentlemen opposite are asking this country to vote millions of dollars for them to administer. It happens to be part of my duty as leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition to ease the country's mind as to where there is any doubt on that question.

Supply-Formation oj Ministry


An hon. MEMBER:: You eased the country's mind the other day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mighit as well come to the point that I have very much m mind at the moment. My hon. friend the leader of the House says that everything was done in a constitutional and proper manner. It is not a secret in any way of the Privy Council that an order in council to be regular, to have any force, must be carried by a quorum of the cabinet, and that at least four are necessary to form a quorum. I can understand how the right hon. the Prime Minister may have taken his oaths and been sworn in as a minister, but he was then, as I would understand it, the sole member of council entitled to act in an executive capacity. What I would like my hon. friend to tell the House, if he will, is how, when the right hon. gentleman assumed the position of Prime Minister and undertook to form a ministry, he complied with the constitutional rule which requires a quorum of four to enable any order in council to be passed to appoint any minister or to do any public business.
Sir HENR'i DRAYTON: Mr. Chairman, I am quite sincere when I tell the committee that I did not count how many were present, but my recollection is, and I think it is correct, that there were six members of the Privy Council present. There has to be a start made, and the start was made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Privy councillors are not permitted to walk into the council chamber, sit around the table, and pass whatever orders they may like, to give each other official positions. If that were the case there is no reason why my erstwhile colleagues and myself should not have walked into the council chamber and sat down at the table with whoever was prepared to assume the position of Prime Minister of this country and assign positions to ourselves that would enable us to control the expenditure of public moneys to the extent necessary to carry on the administration of public affairs for a year.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would it not all depend on whether my right hon. friend and those who sit about him were invited to do so by a .privy councillor who had been Called upon by His Excellency the Governor General to form an administration?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I am afraid it does not. I think my hon. friend will find that there are two oaths which everyone takes who is called upon to perform the duties of a minister of the crown. One oath taken
is that- of Privy Councillor, which a number of us in this chamber this evening have taken.' But the fact that we are members of His Majesty's Privy Council gives us no right whatever to be ministers of the crown or to be acting as ministers of the crown. There are gentlemen in the other House who have taken the oath as privy councillors and are privy councillors, but they have no right by virtue of that oath to be ministers or acting ministers. It was never contemplated that the government of the country should be carried on by gentlemen who had not taken the oath of office with respect to the administration of the departments with which they were concerned. It was never contemplated that one single individual could take an oath as Prime Minister and president of the Privy Council, and any other portfolio he wished, and by virtue of that one solitary oath be able to place in office immediately a number of his fellow members of the House of Commons, members of his own political party, and thus carry on the government of the country.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Has not tl\e Prime Minister from time immemorial been entitled to call upon other members of the Privy Council to administer temporarily the affairs of a particular department without such member taking an oath with respect to that department?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: After a government has been formed and ministers of the crown have taken the oath to administer the departments to Which they are assigned, certainly an acting minister may be appointed to act in the place of a minister already entrusted with a portfolio and properly sworn in. But what I want to make clear to the House and to the country this evening is that of this entire cabinet there is not a single member who has taken any oath to administer a single department of the government; and yet these gentlemen come before us with estimates and ask us to vote hundreds of millions of dollars. We have voted some thousands of dollars already just to see how calmly they would take the process, and how rapidly they are prepared to vote millions of dollars to themselves without having any authority whatever to a^k this House for a single dollar. I say there is not a single minister of this .administration sitting in his seat to-night who is entitled to ask this House to vote him a single dollar.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Has the right hon. gentleman ever heard in the history of parliamentary proceedings of a minister asking for a vote to


S216 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Formation of Ministry
.himself? Is not every vote recommended by the crown, and is not that money voted to His Excellency?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is quite apart from the matter which we are discussing. I was not arguing that hon. gentlemen opposite were asking for the money for themselves. I hope my hon. friend does not think I regard hon. gentlemen opposite as being quite as bad as that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That was the whole tenor
of your argument.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite
prepared to admit they are ready to go to a certain limit; I did not think my hon. friend would assume I was arguing that they were seeking to get this money for their own personal use. I had no idea of the kind. What I do say is that they are seeking to get this money in order to expend it on the public services of the country.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In order that the money
may be properly and efficiently spent in carrying on the government of the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will see
how proper the procedure is. My hon. friend has referred to the annals of parliamentary history. I venture to say that he can search the pages of history in all ages of the world and he will find no single instance where a government was ever formed in the manner in which this government has been formed. Furthermore, he will not find a single instance where the expenditure of the entire supplies of the country weTe handed over to a group of gentlemen with no responsibility whatever. If my hon. friends opposite have an idea that we propose, as members of this House, to allow the House to prorogue under these circumstances without a pretty full explanation they are very much mistaken.


George Halsey Perley: I think I may
be able to relieve the anxiety of my right hon. friend a little. I doubt if there is any member of this House who has had as much experience as a minister without portfolio as the member for Argenteuil. In 1911, when the government of Sir Robert Borden was formed, I was selected as a minister without portfolio, sworn in as a privy councillor and continued to sit in this House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can correct my hon. friend. I do not think the order followed was the one he has described. He was not sworn in as a minister without
portfolio and then as a member of the privy council; he was sworn first of the privy coun-

icil, and afterwards became a minister without portfolio.


George Halsey Perley: I was sworn of
the Privy Council and afterwards became minister without portfolio.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: I administered
quite a number of the government departments from time to time as minister without portfolio, and without taking any special oath in administering those departments. I came into this House years ago and passed estimates for departments of the government when I was a minister without portfolio and there was never any question raised by anyone as to the propriety of my doing so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope my
hon. friend will not think I am guilty of any impropriety in asking him questions; I am trying to discharge a public duty.


George Halsey Perley: Before my right
hon. friend continues, I may add that I was appointed minister without portfolio on the present occasion in exactly the same way as I was in 1911.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Quite so. I
appreciate that fact, and I think my hon. friend probably will have the experience of being minister without portfolio again before very long. I cannot say, of course, what curious methods may have been adopted by a previous Conservative administration, but I will say this:	I do not think Sir Robert
Borden, whom I regard very highly as a constitutional authority, would ever have thought under present circumstances of asking my hon. friend to administer the affairs of a department, without having in the first instance appointed him to administer that department and caused him to take the oath of office required in such a case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In case a portfolio is
vacated by death, in every instance the records show that some other member of the cabinet, with or without portfolio, was designated temporarily to administer the department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is speaking of ministers who have died. I am speaking of ministers who have never been born and I am speaking not only of ministers who have never been bom, but a government which has never been bom, according to the statement we heard this afternoon. I ask hon. members opposite-they

Supply-Formation of Ministry
have a sense of humour I hope-did they ever in their lives witness a spectacle as ludicrous as this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad all the members agree. May I say to my hon. friend who is interested in tihe ministers who are dead-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was speaking in regard to the point of the prime minister taking office and then appointing a member of the privy council as acting minister to fulfil the duties of that office temporarily. But when my hon. friend is searching for precedents, in the history of responsible government where will you find a prime minister who established a precedent such as he has done?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have the floor. The
precedent of proving recreant to his public trust, of resigning, as the right hon. gentleman did, from the office of prime minister, resigning on behalf of his entire government, without having the sense of honour, shali I say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -resigning without considering the interest of the country which demanded that he should have offered to see that the departments of government should be temporarily administered pending the selection of his successors.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend I .admit is very learned in the law, but I am afraid constitutional law and practice are not his forte. I hope he will not think I am speaking disrespectfully, because I respect his years and his great ability, but since he makes the kind of charge which I understand he does make against me at the moment, I think he will have to listen to what I have to say about constitutional practice in changing ministries. The practice with respect to resignation, as I understand it-and perhaps my hon. friend will tell me if I am wrong-is that if the Prime Minister is of the opinion there should be a dissolution of parliament his duty is so to advise His Excellency the Governor General, just as he advises His Excellency the Governor General in regard to other matters [DOT]of concern to the state. He might assume that something less than a dissolution would be sufficient to meet the needs of the state, in which event he would advise His Excellency in accord with his belief. May I say, in considering what I was called upon as prime minister to consider, that after noting the
proceedings in this House last week I came to the conclusion that this House could not with dignity and honour to itself continue to carry on the public business of the country. I came to the conclusion that to attempt to carry on public business with a condition such as we were witnessing towards the end of last week would be to bring the great and honourable institution of parliament more or less into disrepute; and having that view I was obliged to consider whether it was desirable to attempt any longer to carry on parliament. I went to His Excellency and said I would not longer take the responsibility of carrying on as prime minister, believing that the best interests of the state were not being served by any government attempting to carry on under the circumstances which now exist, and I advised His Excellency as to the next step to be taken which in the circumstances seemed to me should be dissolution.
Under different circumstances I might have advised His Excellency to send for some other hon. member of this House to form an administration, had I believed any other hon. member of this House could form an administration and be able to carry on better than I was able to do. But I did not honestly believe that. The only person I could think of whom it would be at all fitting and proper for me to ask His Excellency to call on, if His Excellency was to be asked to call on any hon. member, was the right hon. leader of the opposition of the day. Well the right hon. leader of the opposition of the day had had no support from this House of Commons from the moment it came into being up to the moment I sought to advise His Excellency, and the main question that was discussed all through the session, the main issue in the election, the issue that decided whether hon. members were to be returned to this House, and as to which side they were to sit on when they were returned, vas according to the present Prime Minister the great fiscal issue on which on an amendment to go into supply, we had a discussion this afternoon. In those circumstances how, when the majority of hon. members in this House differed from the Prime Minister on fiscal policies, the most important of all policies, could I possibly advise His Excellency that the right hon. gentleman was capable of forming a ministry and carrying on? It was impossible, just as my hon. friend says, honestly to advise His Excellency that I believed any other member of this House should carry on the government of the country, and I had to consider that. I am frank to say-well it is not for me to relate

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
what I did say to His Excellency. I can however say to this House what was my conviction-that it was not possible for any hon. member to carry on the business of this House; and I submit that what has been disclosed to-night bears out what I said at the time I first decided to advise dissolution, and so advised His Excellency-that what was needed in order that the public business might be carried on in the dignified and proper manner in which it should be carried on was a dissolution of parliament which would permit the people to say who was to control the government of this country from now on.
A prime minister may 'have a feeling that there are certain policies he is not in a position to carry through which possibly other groups in the House are in a position to put through, and that in the public interest should be carried through. In cases of that kind a prime minister might go to the crown or its representative and say, I am not in a position to carry this policy through; I cannot carry on the business of this country myself, but I believe that so and so, whoever he may be, would be able to carry on, and I would ask Your Excellency, or Your Majesty -as the case might be-to call on him. In that event His Excellency would take the course, I presume, of calling on whoever was named. But I could not advise His Excellency to call on the right hon. leader of the opposition to carry on the business of this country with any belief that he could carry it on with dignity and honour. I had in my mind, when I was considering the question, a vision of precisely the spectacle we see here to-night.


An hon. MEMBER:: What spectacle?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: An attempt
to carry on the government without a prime minister in the House and without-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to hon. members opposite that I made use ol that situation at this moment to hear them laugh. That is what they were saying could not be done. I never said it, and hon. members on this side never said it, but the gentleman who to-day is prime minister said it.


James Dew Chaplin: You were not elected.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Apart from
that I would direct my hon. friend's attention to the fact, that, while I personally may not have been elected, the government of which I was the head has continued in office from

1921 up to the moment I resigned the other day, without sustaining a single defeat.


Robert James Manion: Quite a few members short-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the fact that there were a few members short was the reason why His Excellency should not have permitted my government to carry on, I wonder what becomes of the effect of that reason when it is applied to the present so-called government. A few members short?


Robert James Manion: After two months.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: After twomonths, yes. But what is the position today?


Robert James Manion: So far we have had only twenty-four hours.	[DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How many
members short is this government at the present time?


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. gentleman; I will answer his question when he sits down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sitting,
down.


Robert James Manion: Then you are through.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not by any
means.


Robert James Manion: Finish your speech then.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I may put the question in another form. The hon. member asks, how many ministers short is his government? I would ask, how many ministers long are they?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, heai.


Robert James Manion: We have all we need to-get a majority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This country
to-day is being governed, with all the great responsibilities of government, by a cabinet in which there is not a single minister of the crown in parliament and in which there is no Prime Minister w'ith a seat in the House, with such a sequence of events I say that if ever a Prime Minister w'as justified in tendering advice urging that the conditions demanded dissolution, I have been justified in this instance. We find the affairs of the country being administered by a group of gentlemen not one of whom is a minister of the crown-and this while parliament is in session.


Peter McGibbon: Don't take it so badly.

Supply-Formation of Ministry


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The whole
struggle throughout the centuries has been to bring about a system of responsible government whereby every executive act of the crown should be performed upon the advice of a responsible ministry. Do hon. gentlemen [DOT]opposite pretend to be such a ministry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Sure! It only shows how ignorant hon. gentlemen are of the nature of responsible government. Does my hon. friend who is leading the House (Sir Henry Drayton) think that the people of Canada, the men and women who are paying the taxes to carry on the business of the country, will be satisfied for one moment with a government constituted as this is?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I can only say
to my right hon. friend that I should like the .-sensible people of this country to see him at this moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not quite *catch the hon. gentleman's remark, but I shall proceed to conclude my answer to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) with reference to what he sees fit to describe as discourtesy on my part in not advising hon. gentlemen opposite of my intention to resign.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not suggest that it was discourtesy; I did describe it as an unparalleled dereliction of duty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are not
permitted to introduce the name of His Excellency into this discussion


Some hon. MEMBERS:: V/hy do so then?


George Brecken Nicholson: That is what you have been doing all evening.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not done 50. I have been discussing the ministers who have been advising His Excellency.


Ernest Lapointe: Keep cool, boys, it is [DOT]only beginning.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point I am making is this. When a Prime Minister advises the crowm or its representative of the necessity for calling upon someone else to succeed him he does just what my hon. friend suggests; he seeks to have arrangements made whereby his successor may carry on.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But I did not go to Has Excellency to tender His Excellency any such advice. My advice to His Excellency was that in my opinion dissolution was 'imperative.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was not for me, when His Excellency declined to accept my advice, to suggest that I would continue in office any longer.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Leave His Excellency out of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not
speaking of His Excellency personally; I am referring to my relations with the representative of His Majesty. I repeat, when I tender advice to the sovereign's representative and that advice is not accepted, it is impossible for me thereafter to advise His Excellency in respect of any matter whatever. The moment His Excellency declines to receive my advice I cease to be his adviser.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are discovering the views of hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to the obligations of responsible government. My hon. friends have not the remotest idea of what should be the relationship of a responsible ministry to the crown. Now I hope I have set at rest the anxiety of my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I trust I shall have an opportunity of replying to the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and when the hon. member does so I hope he will put himself in my place-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh no.


George Brecken Nicholson: Never will.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want the hon. gentleman to be leader of the opposition, but I Should be pleased to see him at least a member of the present phantom ministry. I should be glad to see some representative from the city of Montreal sitting opposite.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Don't worry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If such a representative were in the cabinet it would help to fill out the picture. May I say this to my hon. friend who is leading the government. Assuming that he had the responsibility of advising the crown, and that his advice was not accepted: would'he feel that it was his duty then to persist in tendering advice as to how matters were to be arranged, or would he wait until he was asked to give such advice? I ask the hon. gentleman that question. Let me say that I was quite prepared to do anything His Excellency might have asked me to do.

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
Without disclosing anything which should not be revealed I think I may go so far as to say that I indicated very clearly to His Excellency that I was prepared to have my resignation withheld at His Excellency's request. But when I offer advice and it is not accepted then I say that the only duty, the only dignified course that remains-indeed, the only thing that could possibly be done under the circumstances-is to cease to advise on any matter. That question, I hope, is cleared up.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Having regard to the
state of affairs in which we find ourselves now, does the right hon. gentleman not consider that he should have co-operated with his successor in carrying on the business of the House to a conclusion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I never anticipated having a successor who would attempt to carry on under the present conditions. If I believed that a dissolution was unavoidable it was my duty so to advise His Excellency, and I certainly never would have offered that advice had I felt that as at present constituted parliament could function with dignity and with honour to itself.
From the day this session began until the moment I tendered my resignation to His Evcellency, hon. gentlemen opposite, who were then on this side of the House, levelled against me and my colleagues the charge that we were co-operating with the Progressive group and that the Liberal party and that group were part and parcel of one organization working together-as though there were something wholly improper in a relationship of that kind. They spoke of our alliance as an unholy, unnatural alliance, as something discreditable to the Liberal party and to the Progressive group, and they said that that alliance should be ended. Then when we saw it ending through the intrigue that was going on in the two houses of parliament, when we saw-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -when we saw conditions had come-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Order nothing. I repeat what I have said.


Robert James Manion: I rise to a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. I .submit it is against the rules of this House for any hon. member to pass severe strictures upon the other House. The right hon. gentleman has just used ths word "intrigue" in regard to both Houses. I submit he should be made to retract it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend
is very sensitive in the matter of strictures.


Robert James Manion: I want a ruling from the
Chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon.
friend allow me a chance to make a reply?


Robert James Manion: Make your reply to the
Chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am doing
so. Mr. Chairman, may I say that my hon. friend is very sensitive with respect to strictures. Does he object to my having used the word "stricture" against the other House? May I quickly and immediately take back that expression-if I used it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It so happens, however, that it was not "stricture" that I used, but "intrigue". It just shows how excited my hon. friends opposite are that they did not notice what I had said. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I had not the slightest desire to reflect upon the other House. It is this House I am talking about.


Robert James Manion: You are talking a long
time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and I tell my hon. friend that I am going to talk a very much longer time. If hon. gentlemen opposite think they are going to run off to the country with the treasury under conditions such as this, they are very much mistaken. Conditions have very much changed in this country from what they were in days preceding confederation if a Tory government formed, as this government is, of so-called ministers, not one of whom has taken the oath of office, can come into the House of Commons and, through the questionable support that they have secured by the methods that they have adopted, vote themselves the supplies necessary to carry on all the departments of government-


An hon. MEMBER:: You are thinking of '37.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I am
thinking of '37, and I tell my hon. friend that I was never prouder in my life than to have the privilege of standing in this parliament to-night and on behalf of British parliamentary institutions denouncing the irresponsible government of his party. Do hon. gentlemen opposite advocate that we

Supply-Formation of Ministry
shall go back to a condition of affairs in Canada worse than anything that existed in 1837?


An hon. MEMBER:: We have had it for
the last eight months.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1837 was bad
enough, but it was not a circumstance on the present condition of affairs. If at the instance of one individual a prime minister can be put into office and with a ministry which is not yet formed be permitted to vote all the supplies necessary to carry on the government of Canada for a year, we have reached a condition in this country that threatens constitutional liberty, freedom and right in all parts of the world.


Mr. LADNER:: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


William Duff: Order.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the right hon. gentleman state frankly and directly to the House who that individual is? Has he the courage to do so?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The courage
to do what?


Leon Johnson Ladner: To state the individual
to whom he has referred in the last sentence of his remarks?


Lucien Cannon: That is Arthur Meighen.
Didn't you understand?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said, and I
repeat it, that a prime minister does not come into office by virtue of the will or the wish of any individual. A .prime minister oomes into office by virtue of having the confidence of the people's representatives in the House of Commons.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the right hon. gentleman for once answer a question directly?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I repeat what
I have said.


Leon Johnson Ladner: You are saying it differently now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What did I
say before?


An hon. MEMBER:: Nothing.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am not afraid to repeat
what he said. The right hon. gentleman stated that at the instance of one individual a government was able to be placed in power and to vote to themselves supplies for a year.
and then he proceeded in a somewhat bumptious manner to describe the iniquities which might follow. His reflection was upon a person whom he must know he could not refer to, and whom he is ashamed to name.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg my
hon. friend's pardon. I ask him, how does the present Prime Minister of Canada come to be in office?


Leon Johnson Ladner: By a proper constitutional course.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
court?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Course. Owing to the
lack of confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Commons, due to the dereliction of duty of the former government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend is entirely mistaken. The government of which I had the honour to be the head never met with defeat from the day that it came into office to the day that it resigned.


Mr. BURY:: Mr. Chairman


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. Sit down.


William Duff: Order.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The right hon, leader of the
opposition said a minute ago that the Prime Minister at the instance of one individual was allowed to get into power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: He did.


An hon. MEMBER:: Listen again. You
are dreaming.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: May I ask the right hon.
leader of the opposition, who was the individual?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I repeat what I have said. The Prime Minister is in office to-day-


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: At the instance of one individual.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that is
correct.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Who?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If hon. gentlemen opposite will not get so excited-


An hon. MEMBER:: Name the individual.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
that the individual to whom I refer has, I believe, acted according to his conscience, honestly, sincerely, truly. I have nothing

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
disrespectful to say of him in any particular. I have the greatest admiration for him.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The right hon. leader of the opposition is referring to the action of His Excellency, and I do not think he has any right to discuss it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend was seeking to have me name an individual, and I am replying. The rules of this House do not say that individuals cannot be named; the rules say that individuals in certain ipositions cannot be spoken of disrespectfully. May I say that the individual of whom I am speaking is a gentleman for whom I have the greatest regard it is possible for one man to have for another. The individual of whom I am .speaking is a gentleman for whom I have the greatest affection possible, and may I say further that the individual of whom I am speaking is, I believe, a gentleman who would never commit am act of any kind which he did not think right and proper in every particular. Let me make that clear. Hon. gentlemen opposite cannot bring his name or office into this discussion.


John Arthur Clark: Who is doing it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking -of myself as to the advice I tendered as Prime Minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: But you are not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In order that there may be no misrepresentation of the position, I ask any one on the other side of the House to stand up and tell hon. members, in the presence of those who have heard me speak, of one single utterance of mine "which has been disrespectful in any particular in respect to the Governor General.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The obj ection of some of us -on this side of the House is that the right hon. leader of the opposition has no right to discuss the conduct of His Excellency.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have made no reference to the conduct of His Excellency I would' like to know when we arrived at the time in the affairs of this country, when the constitutionality of any act of any governor general cannot be discussed. I am discussing the constitutionality of a course of procedure, and nothing more. I would not for one moment be discussing the parti-[DOT]cukr phase of this question if it did not lie

at the root of the whole question of where power comes from. I ask my hon. friends opposite: Do they think the power of a prime minister is derived from above or that it comes from the people through their representatives in parliament, who extend their confidence to a ministry that is able to retain the confidence of the House? Now, I just want to say this. I tendered certain advice, which was declined.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have told us
that ten times already.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know, and I am going to state it many more times. But I want to tell my hon. friends that what the country is witnessing at this present moment-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -is the best evidence of the fact that the advice tendered was sound, and I am glad to hear bon. gentlemen opposite applaud. Now, in order to avoid any mistake may I say something which I tried1 to say two or three times this afternoon when I was interrupted, but which I think I am free to say now? In being declined the right of dissolution I believe I was declined that right because His Excellency had the honest belief that gome other member of this House could be found1 who as prime minister could carry on the business of government in this country in the way it should be carried on, befitting the dignity and honour of parliament, and which would therefore avoid the necessity of a general election.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is being carried on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment. I am prepared to say this, that until I find out just whether or not it is going to be possible for any individual chosen from the ranks of hon. gentlemen opposite to carry on the business of the country in the manner the country will think right and proper, having regard to the honour and dignity of parliament ; and until I see what action His Excellency takes in those circumstances, for my part I am quite prepared to withhold any kind of expression of view as to the constitutionality of the action taken in not accepting my advice. I have no objection that the right hon. gentleman who is to-day Prime Minister of Canada should be given his chance, if you wish to call it such, to carry on the business of this country at present. I do say, however, that when he took the responsibility of His Excellency'3 refusal to

Supply-Formation of Ministry
grant a dissolution he put himself under the necessity of making very clear to this country that in doing so he was capable of doing all that it involved, and which was that he would be able to conduct the affairs of this country in this parliament in a manner, as I have already said, befitting the honour and dignity of the venerable institution of parliament. If he is unable to do that, it is then his duty to return to His Excellency and tell His Excellency that he has not been able to carry out his undertaking. Then, when the present Prime Minister of this country returns to His Excellency and informs His Excellency that he finds it impossible to carry on the business of the country in the manner I have already described; that he regrets to find that his experience has been similar to mine, I will wait and see what His Excellency does before I judge of the motive which governed with Respect to the non-acceptance of the advice which I tendered and which motive up to this moment I have never questioned.
May I say this, that I believe it has been represented to His Excellency by the present Prime Minister that he is able to carry on the business of this House in a manner which is dignified and proper. He could not possibly be Prime Minister to-day on any other score; he must have told His Excellency that, or His Excellency would never have asked him to be Prime Minister. But having said that to the crown representative he owes it to the honour of the crown to implement his words, and I say it is not to the honour of the crown that he should seek to put into the seats of the ministry a group of gentlemen not one of whom has taken any oath of office, and call that the responsible ministry which is to advise His Excellency the Governor General with respect to all the affairs of this country. I say I cannot think of any act more irresponsible or unconstitutional than that. When the present Prime Minister went to His Excellency and said, as he must have said, "I am prepared to take the responsibility of Your Excellency having refused dissolution to Mr. King", he had to pledge himself to His Excellency by his word that he was able to carry on where I was unable to carry on. Now let me repeat that. If I had believed that the present Prime Minister could do anything of the kind I would have so advised His Excellency, and would have been very glad to have had His Excellency send for my right hon. friend and give him a chance.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.
.	14011-331


Edward Joseph Garland: When the right hon. gentleman was refused the right to dissolve parliament, was he requested to carry on until the ministry could be formed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. I want to say to my hon. friend that I was not so requested, and that is the point I was trying to make to my hon. friend from St. Lawrence

St. George (Mr. Cahan).


Edward Joseph Garland: Is not that the constitutional practice in Great Britain?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I make this clear to my hon. friend? It depends entirely upon the nature of the advice tendered. The advice I tendered was not that the present Prime Minister should be sent for; I could not honestly advise His Excellency to send for the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Because
throughout this parliament, from the day the members of this House were elected until the moment I went to His Excellency, I was the only one who had the confidence of this House, and having regard to the issue on which hon. members were returned had a right to believe I was the only one able to retain that confidence.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, ohl


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite may laugh, but I would ask them to look over the division lists.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did the former Prime Minister, the right hon. gentleman representing Prince Albert, tender his resignation to His Excellency because he thought he had lost the confidence of this House, or was it because he had lost confidence in himself?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can tell my hon. friend that it was not either, but that he had come to the conclusion that there was not any human being living who could command the confidence of this House at this time in a manner that would do credit to the administration of affairs in this country. That was the conclusion I had come to.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it not
true that on a similar occasion in Great Britain, when the Ramsay MacDonald government was faced with a situation somewhat similar, but not quite, Mr. MacDonald did not resign, but he was requested by the king to carry on until Mr. Baldwin formed his administration? And was not that possible in this case?



Supply-Formation oj Ministry


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The parallel
that my hon. friend suggests was not at the beginning of the MacDonald administration, but at the close. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald went to His Majesty the King and asked for a dissolution after he had been in office only part of one session, and he got a dissolution. My position, and I take it in the interest of this country, as a self-governing Dominion, is that the Prime Minister of Canada advising His Excellency the Governor General is in precisely the same position as the Prime Minister of England advising His Majesty the King. May I say to my hon. friend who has just spoken that any other theory of government reduces this Dominion of Canada from the status of a selfgoverning Dominion to the status of a crown colony. What has been the evolution of our political institutions?


An hon. MEMBER:: Are we going to have a lot more?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, you are
going to have a lot more. Hon. gentlemen opposite need a good deal of education in the matter of political freedom. I want to make clear the principles for which I have been standing. What is the position of a crown colony? Governors go out from Britain with instructions from the Colonial Office, and they exercise authority which is more or less discretionary with themselves. They call upon individuals to become members of .their councils; they have the appointing to office, and the dismissing from office in certain cases. That was the condition we were in in parts of Canada about a century ago. But since that time there has been a political evolution of considerable proportions in all parts of the British Empire, and what to-day are known as the self-governing Dominions are to my mind, in precisely the same position in the management of their own domestic affairs as is the government of Great Britain with respect to its domestic affairs.


An hon. MEMBER:: We all know .that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, you don't know it, or you would not be sitting where you are. The difference between a crown colony and a self-governing Dominion is that the Governor General of a self-governing Dominion acts upon the advice of his responsible ministers. May I say this, Mr. Chairman:	For one hundred years in Great
Britain there is not .a single instance of a Prime Minister having asked for a dissolution and having been refused it. May I add this further, that since this Dominion was formed, since confederation in 1867, there is not a
[Mr. E. J. Garland.)
single instance where a Prime Minister has advised a dissolution and has been refused it. Is there then no constitutional issue at stake?


John Arthur Clark: We have never had a
usurper before.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You have certainly got one now in the seat of the Prime Minister, and one who is more or less of an expert as a usurper. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the issue that we are face to face with at the present time is one which affects all parts of the British Empire, and it is amongst other reasons because of my belief in and my love for the British Empire that I take the stand that I do in this matter. It is only by a recognition of the fact that the British Empire rests upon the corner stone of responsible self-government in each of the Dominions and in the Mother Country that this great empire can endure; and that is why I feel we are called upon at this time to see that the principle of responsible self-government is fully carried out. I say, Mr. Chairman, that at this time we have at heart the interests not only of Canada, but of South Africa, of Australia, of New Zealand, of Newfoundland, of the Irish Free State, of India, yes, and of the British Isles themselves.


Mr. CANTLEY:: The United States too.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, not the United States. That shows again how ignorant my hon. friend is. The United States have an entirely different form of government, and a little study of comparative institutions would not do my hon. friend opposite any harm. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up very much more time-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I will go on. I want to make this position clear, so that there can be no mistake as to my attitude in relation to His Excellency the Governor General and the advice which I have tendered. I ask hon. members to listen very carefully to what I am now saying.
I believe that His Excellency the Governor General sincerely believed that the present Prime Minister would be able to carry on the government of this country in a manner befitting and in accordance with British traditions, in a manner which would accord with the recognized principles of responsible government; and believing that, His Excellency undoubtedly asked the present Prime Minister whether he was prepared to assume office on those conditions. Now if the right hon. gentleman can demonstrate to the country,

Supply-Formation of Ministry
if he has demonstrated to this House and this parliament, that he is able to do that, after what we have seen and are witnessing in this so-called ministry presented to us to-night, then I say that His Excellency's judgment in the matter has been sound and right, and there is no criticism to offer. But I do say this, that if-and this is subject to something further I shall have to say-if by any chance it should appear that we have another day of the character we have had to-day, when the government can only be carried on by ministers not one of whom has taken an oath of office, then I think it would be time for His Excellency to ask himself the question whether the right hon. gentleman who assumed to carry on this House has carried out his undertaking. If he has not carried it out, then, as I have already said, it is the duty of the present Prime Minister not to wait until His Excellency is obliged to send for him but to return to His Excellency the Governor General and relieve His Excellency of the tremendous responsibility which he is carrying at this hour. I say that it is the duty of the right hon. the Prime Minister at this moment to lose no time in returning to His Excellency the Governor General and telling His Excellency that he has attempted to carry on but that he finds he is confronted with a situation, parliament being in session, which does not allow him to carry on in a manner which will help to maintain respect and regard for parliamentary institutions, and that therefore he asks to be relieved of tendering to His Excellency further advice. It will then be for His Excellency to say what course he will take. Until His Excellency has had that opportunity, and until I see what course His Excellency takes as a consequence of it, I for one do not intend to offer any criticism whatever of the constitutionality of the course taken up to the present time. I do not think I can make ihy position clearer than that.
Now, may I return again to the situation with which we are confronted? I asked hon. gentlemen opposite a moment ago whether any of them had taken the oath of office. Not one has. I asked them how they were appointed? They said they were all appointed by order in council. Now look at the situation: We have a Prime Minister who has taken an oath. I ask hon. members to remember this-the Prime Minister has taken an oath. He has not, given a mere promise or undertaking to do something, but has taken a solemn oath which relates to the crown itself, with all that pertains to the sacredness of parliamentary institutions. That oath obliges him to see that the crown's name 14011-3311
in all particulars is protected; that the crown or its representative shall not by any act of his be brought into public discussion. May I say that is only through the act of the present Prime Minister that any mention has come to be made of His Excellency the Governor General at the present time-only through his act. He has taken his oath to see that the government of this country is carried on in a manner which will not reflect upon the crown and all that the crown stands for in conserving the liberties and freedom of the people under responsible government. Now, I shall give the Prime Minister the opportunity to-night of thinking over the position in which he has placed His Excellency the Governor General, over the position in which he has placed His Majesty's representative in this country, over the position in which he has placed the King himself,-because he is acting as one who is advising the crown through its representative- and I say to him that if he will read my words in the morning, if perchance he cannot hear them now, he should consider very carefully how much longer he is going to keep His Excellency in the position of great suspense which he must be in at the present time with respect to whether or not his act has been constitutional or justified, and for what he does in that regard the present Prime Minister will be judged by the people of this country and by posterity itself.
Now that right hon. gentleman, having taken the oath of office, proceeds to appoint his ministry. May I again recall to hon. gentlemen opposite what I said a moment ago about the manner in which orders in council are passed and what is essential in that regard. Four members of the cabinet are supposed to constitute a quorum. How was the first order in council passed, appointing hon. gentlemen opposite? I suppose the hon. gentleman who is leading the House at the moment was appointed by the first order in council. Therefore I ask my hon. friend who were present at the cabinet meeting when he was appointed? What was the quorum that enabled the Prime Minister to pass an order in council and present it to His Excellency? I say that if the Prime Minister of this country went to His Excellency the Governor General with an order in his hand appointing certain gentlemen opposite ministers of state or acting ministers of state, when there was only himself to sit in council and pass it, and asked His Excellency to sign that order, he committed the most autocratic and unconstitutional act t'. H any individual in this country could commit.
5226	COMMONS
Supply-Formation of Ministry


Robert James Manion: By what right does the
leader of the opposition charge the right hon. the Prime Minister with sudh an act as he is practically accusing him of at the moment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was only
taking the words of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Robert James Manion: They did not say anything of the sort.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, they say they were appointed by order in council.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman has been told that there were at least six ministers present when the orders were passed.
, Mr. MACKENZIE KING: Just let us get at the truth of the whole matter. Let my hon. friend repeat his statement.


Robert James Manion: I do not intend to repeat anything.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do not let
there be any mistake. What was said was that my hon friend was one of a number of six who had been appointed to the Privy Council. 1 asked him when they were appointed privy councillors, and with the exception of one they were all appointed even before the late government came into office; 'the one remaining has been appointed since we w'ent out.


Robert James Manion: Once a privy councillor always a privy councillor.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The fact that one was formerly a privy councillor does not give him the right to go into the Privy Council and do what he pleases with the affairs of the state. I tell my hon. friend that these gentlemen to my right and left are privy councillors. If his doctrine is correct, we have just as much authority as hon. gentlemen opposite to walk into the Privy Council and take our seats.


Robert James Manion: Not unless you are invited.


Hugh Guthrie: You would have a right
to go there if you were summoned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, my hon.
friend was summoned, but was it as a minister of the crown? We are now trying to discover by what authority hon. gentlemen opposite come before this House and seek to put through estimates.


Hugh Guthrie: Give me about five minutes and I will show you.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will have the opportunity to do that a little later. What I wish to point out is this: Hon. members opposite say that they are acting as

ministers by virtue of orders in council which were passed. They sit in their seats as acting ministers and it is as acting ministers that they come before us. But I say that so far as ministers are concerned the first acting minister could only have been appointed by order in council, if he was so appointed, by an order which the Prime Minister, sitting alone in state, put through.


Robert James Manion: Why could he not do that? I ask my hon. friend a question: Why could not the right hon. the Prime Minister call in any privy councillors whom he chose so long as they had been sworn as privy councillors as we all have been? Why could he not call them in and pass his orders in council?	.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The constitution of the
country specifically provides for that.


Georges Parent: Where do you find that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have in my hand, and I will ask the House to notice it, an order in council which my hon. friend opposite has just sent me, I mean the hon. gentleman who is leading the House. This order is P.C. 1044. I ask the House to look at this P.C. 1044, which is certified to be a true copy of a minute of a committee of the Privy Council approved by His Excellency the Governor General, on the 20th June, 1926. The order in council reads:
The committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable Arthur Meighen, the Prime Minister, advise that the Honourable Sir Henry L. Drayton, a member of the King's Privy Council for Canada be Acting Minister of Finance and Acting Minister of Railways and Canals.
E. J. Lemairb,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
That was quite evidently the first order that was passed. When that order was passed it must have been presented to council by the Prime Minister and he had not seated around him any colleague who had taken the oath of office-any colleague who was a minister- not one; yet he goes to His Excellency the Governor General with this order and advises His Excellency to sign it, so that he can have a leader in the House. Did hon. members ever hear of a procedure of the kind being called constitutional?
Then we have P.C. No. 1047. There are two or three orders between these. I would like my hon. friend to produce them tomorrow, so that we can see what they are; I will ask him to lay on the table orders in council 1045 and 1046. This order in council No. 1047, reads:
*

Supply-Formation of Ministry
The committee of the Privy Council on the recommendation of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, the Prime Minister, advise that-
The Hon. R. J. Manion, a member of the King's Privy Council for Canada be acting Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and Acting Minister in charge of the Department o,f Health, Acting Postmaster Generali, Immigration and Colonization, and Labour;
That the hon. Sir George Perley, a member of the King's Privy Council for Canada, be Acting Secretary of State and Acting Minister of Public Works;
That the hon. William Anderson Bilack, a member of the King's Privy Council for Canada, be Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
E. J. Lemaire,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
Look at the spectacle. Here you have all these gentlemen being made acting ministers, and how have they been made acting ministers? By themselves, all sitting there around one table, not one of them sworn to office. Look at the procedure. The Prime Minister gets his appointment, takes his oath, walks into the council room, sits down at the head of the table all alone, and says, "I must begin to form a government."


Robert James Manion: Why all alone?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Because he is
the only one who has a right to go there to discharge an executive act.


Robert James Manion: Have not all the privy
councillors a right to go into the council chamber?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Robert James Manion: They are summoned by
the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
will hear more of the legal aspect of this to-morrow. I want to present the case tonight sufficiently to enable His Excellency to learn through the one who has assumed responsibility to advise him just what is being done in this parliament, so that the one who to-day pretends to act as Prime Minister will have an opportunity to think of the seriousness of the situation into which he is bringing both himself and the crown's representatives.
I have demonstrated how these gentlemen found their way back into the House of Commons and began to vote themselves supplies. Do you think, Mr. Chairman, after all the struggle there has been through the years to bring about a condition where the ministry of the day will be responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, that any parliament -worthy of such a name can permit this kind of conduct to go unchallenged and uncensured? If this be
permitted to pass, we may have one Prime Minister exercising authority in this extraordinary manner to-day, and who may we not have attempting to exercise it another year hence, or two or three years or twenty years hence? I ask hon. gentlemen to recall the fact that all the acts of this parliament that are countenanced become precedents for some future occasion, and if we in 1926 permit one gentleman, who is asked by His Excellency whether he will undertake a great trust and who says to His Excellency that he is prepared to undertake it and can undertake it -if we permit him to proceed as was done in this case, what is certain to result? If simply to assume office and promise to tender advice is all that is needed in the way of undertaking to enable one gentleman to surround himself by a number of others and to give them positions and powers as ministers of the crown, albeit only acting ministers, and if these gentlemen are permitted to draw from the treasury the millions of dollars they are asking us to vote to-night and have the right to carry on the government of the country for another year at least, what guarantee have we of future liberty and freedom in this country?
I hope I have said enough; but I will say in conclusion that I think the only thing befitting the dignity and the honour of the House at the moment is that the hon. member opposite who is leading the House should not attempt to proceed further with the putting through of any supply, but that I should move now that the House adjourn in order that His Excellency through his adviser may have an opportunity to take account of to-day's proceedings. I would first move that the chairman do now leave the chair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member moved that the House adjourn, and it is not in order.


George Halsey Perley: I have only a
few words to say.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motion is not debatable.


George Halsey Perley: I want to say
before the motion is put-[DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not
debatable.


George Halsey Perley: I do not think the right hon. member, notwithstanding his long speech, wishes to be unfair in this matter. I simply want to say, regarding the appointments which have been made and which the right hon. gentleman criticized, that I am informed by Mr. Lemaire, the clerk of the
5228	COMMONS
Supply-Formation of Ministry
Privy Council, that they were made in the same way exactly as has been the custom for years, and as has been done in the case of other ministers without portfolio. If the right hon. member will cast his mind back he will remember that he himself appointed ministers without portfolio, and that they were appointed by being summoned by the Prime Minister, and that he had cases himself where a minister without portfolio administered a department of government. I am quite sure he will remember that himself. As for saying that a minister without portfolio cannot properly represent a department unless there is an actual minister of it, I know myself of cases where, after the death of a minister, the department was for some time administered by a minister without portfolio, although there was no actual minister of the department at the time. I myself administered the Department of Public Works for some time under those conditions. I simply wanted the right hon. gentleman to understand that the procedure in this case is exactly the same as that followed for years.
When it comes to the point the right hon. gentleman makes of the Prime Minister sitting in state, all alone, and passing an order in council, I wish to bring to mind what happened in his own case when he was called by the Governor General to be Prime Minister. What happened was, I think, that he selected the men who were going to be his colleagues. They were sworn in by the Governor General; then they went back to the council chamber, sat down and passed an order appointing themselves. My right hon. friend tries to make out that the present Prime Minister could not be appointed by order in council because he was all alone. How was the leader of the opposition appointed Prime Minister? He was appointed Prime Minister by order in council after the cabinet got back and appointed him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has been courteous in his presentation of the statement regarding the manner in which the cabinet of which I had the honour to be the leader was formed. He said that the Prime Minister and his colleagues in that cabinet took the oath of office. That is precisely what hon. gentlemen opposite have not done. Not one member of the cabinet of which I was the head walked into the council chamber until he had taken the oath of office. There are two oaths to be taken before any hon. gentleman has the right to administer the affairs of a department: he must first take the oath of a privy councillor and then the oath of minister of the particular depart-
ment to which he may be assigned. Hon. gentlemen will see that, with big interests concerned-


James Dew Chaplin: Rockefeller.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is not a single contract signed by hon. gentlemen opposite to-day which will stand for an hour in a court of law. Are we going to allow the business of the country-the railways, the banks, other financial institutions and such other institutions such as the wheat pool, and the grain exchange, about which we have been hearing so much during the last few days-* are we going to allow these big interests to be imperilled, in matters in which they are vitally concerned, because of the fact that contracts signed from day to day in the name of the crown are signed by persons not one of whom are ministers who have taken the oath of office which entitles them to sign in His Majesty's name? Was it, Mr. Chairman, ever intended that ministers should act on behalf of and in the name of the crown without having taken an oath of office?


Robert James Manion: We are not king's ministers; we are acting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not king's
ministers? You never said a truer word. And Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hurrah 1


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hurrah 1


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say-
Some lion. MEMBERS: Hurrah 1


Ernest Lapointe: That will not expedite
the session.


Robert James Manion: We can stay as long as you can.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say that
when we have from the lips of a member of the cabinet the statement that he and his colleagues are not king's ministers it is time His Excellency the Governor General sent for the present Prime Minister and asked the question, who are the responsible ministers by whom through you, I am being advised? Until that question is asked, I for one propose to see that this parliament if I can effect it, shall not be permitted to vote another dollar of supply. I move that the chairman leave the chair.


William Duff: 
Leslie Gordon Bell: Mr. Chairman, I
have seen two hon. gentlemen opposite voting who I am sure are paired. One hon. gentleman behind the ex-Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) is paired to my knowledge.


Ernest Lapointe: I would suggest that the
whips confer and that we start all over again.


Mr. BOYS:: I do not want to make any
trouble, but we should understand just where we are. I am glad to see the Liberal whip in his place because I think he will agree with me that the terms of the signed lists of pairs which both he and I possess include votes in committee as well as in the House.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I agree with the hon.
member.


William Alves Boys: But hon. gentlemen opposite
have voted whose signed pairs I have in my possession.


Ernest Lapointe: We will start all over
again.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Your men have been counted; others have come in since.


Ernest Lapointe: They did so honestly.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) negatived: Yeas, 80; nays, 101.


An hon. MEMBER:: The same number.


William Duff: I declare the motion lost.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, the speech that has just been delivered by the right hon. leader of the opposition is one of the most eloquent and convincing that I have ever listened to in my life, and the Liberal party may well be proud of its leader. My reason for voting as I did was because I do not believe in the policy of refusing to opponents the right of reply. That is all I wish to give them. I am satisfied that they shall have the right to adjourn the debate, and I suggest to them in all courtesy that as the hour is late-and I have voted with them on this occasion as have several of my colleagues for exactly the same purpose-they adjourn the debate. We will usten to their reply to-morrow as attentively as we have to what was said by the opposition to-night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend at once that if I thought I was being guilty of any discourtesy to hon. gentlemen opposite I would not have made the motion.


Robert James Manion: That was the purpose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. In the circumstances it seemed fitting to me that we should not continue the proceedings.


Edward Joseph Garland: I accept the right hon. gentleman's statement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I think it is only due to my right hon. leader that I should review the situation in a very few sentences. By the act of the ex-Prime Minister the position of leader of the government was vacated. His Excellency then called in the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen to form a government. He had to consider whether he would ask the House to adjourn for a few weeks in order to allow him time to form a ministry and meet the House, or whether in view of the dying hours of the session, admitted by all, it would not be advisable to ask the House to allow the legislation on the order paper to pass, together with the estimates, and prorogue parliament. In doing that he stated to the House-in what I think was a courteous message delivered by my hon. friend who is leading the House in his name, a message presented within twenty-four hours after his Excellency had requested the right hon. gentleman to form a ministry- the situation, and closed with these words:
So soon aa prorogation takes effect Mr. Meighen will immediately address himself to the task of constituting a government in the method established by custom.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You cannot do that while the House is in session.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The presemt plan is merely to meet an unusual,.if not unprecedented, sitiuation.
Had the House at that time or on two subsequent occasions rejected the Prime Minister's suggestion, it would have made a great difference. Last night there was offered1 a resolution from the opposition benches which wa3 ,a challenge to the government's authority. ,The House sustained the government on that occasion by a majority of 12 and subsequently by a majority of 10. To-day we met the House, and the right hon. gentleman himself, leading the opposition, offered a direct vote of want of confidence in the government. That resolution was debated at length and was finally rejected by a majority of 7.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I submit that my right hon. friend is going beyond his right of criticism when he interprets the opinion of the House. I say the House can only interpret its opinion by its registered vote, and by its registered vote up to this minute the House has sustained the government, admittedly, as
5230	COMMONS
Supply-Formation of Ministry
frankly stated in the written message from the Prime Minister himself, merely a temporary government formed for the purpose of carrying on the business of this House and finishing it in order to give the Prime Minister time to form a permanent ministry. I submit that the decision of the House in these votes shows that the Prime Minister of Canada enjoys the confidence of this House to that extent.


Edward Joseph Garland: Constitutionally, would it not have been much more proper if the then existing ministry had continued to wind up the business of the session-


Robert James Manion: But they refused.


Ernest Lapointe: They did not refuse; they were not called upon.


Edward Joseph Garland: -instead of my hon. friends opposite undertaking to do so?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is absolutely right. I am not going to offer what I fl.m about to say in criticism of the ex-Prime Minister. It will be recalled that when he tendered his resignation-most unexpectedly I think to us all so far as the moment was .concerned-the suggestion was made by my right hon. leader that under the extraordinary circumstances a conference would be advisable between the right hon. gentleman now leading the opposition and himself as to the best method of carrying on the business of the House with the least inconvenience to all members concerned. Through a difference of opinion between the right hon. gentleman that offer was not accepted. But I wish to draw to the attention of hon. gentlemen what I think will convince them that our procedure has been quite constitutional in every respect. The present Prime Minister having presented his address to the House, and having been sustained in these two votes, is, I submit, quite entitled to carry on. The right hon. leader of the opposition calls in question the .orders in council appointing the acting ministers. This procedure was carefully considered by the law officers of the crown and by those who advise the ministers in these matters, and every constitutional requirement was observed.
One other thing I desire to say, His Excellency may call into council others besides privy councillors, and then swear them in but in this case it was his right to call in certain persons. He called on the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, then leader of the opposition, to form a government. That was one call. Certain other privy councillors already
[Mr. Stevens.J
sworn in were then called into council for the purpose of doing the very things which constitutionally it was proper for a privy councillor to do. The outcome of that is the present government, admittedly carrying on temporarily, frankly so stated to the House and well known and thoroughly understood by the country. We are merely asking that the business of a session admittedly drawing to a close, most of which-


Frank S. Cahill: Just beginning.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am really serious in
this, and I do not wish to burlesque it. I say this long, arduous, tedious session is admittedly drawing to a close; the business is completed with the exception of one or two non-contentious bills and a portion of the estimates. We say this:	We are ready to
accept the estimates as already prepared; we will carry out the mandate of the House in the expenditure of these moneys with one reservation, that we purpose to be as economical as possible in the administration of these estimates, and we will try to bring the business of the House to a close. That is all we are asking at present. I admit that it is quite within the right of hon. gentlemen opposite, and quite within the right of my right hon. friend, to challenge the government whenever they see fit. But I do call into question the logic or fairness of his argument when he seeks to lead the House to believe that there was something unconstitutional in the act either of His Excellency or of the present Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have a right to reply, I think.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have the floor, I believe


William Duff: Did you wish to ask a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wanted to
reply to a point raised by my hon. friend.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am only going to take a
few moments. The right hon. leader of the opposition has detailed to us the circumstances under which he offered the resignation of himself and his colleagues to His Excellency the Governor General, and he has stated very clearly that in offering his resignation he did not advise His Excellency to call upon any member of this House to form an administration. The reason he did not so advise His Excellency was that he did not believe any member of this House to be competent to fill that high office, with the exception of himself. He left His Excellency the Governor General without advice; he left the country without a government except as

Supply

Formation oj Ministry
represented by His Excellency the Governor General. There may be no interregnum in the government of a country such as this, with a constitution such as we possess, and therefore His Excellency had to exercise his own discretion in calling upon a member of this House to form an administration, and, in the exercise of that discretion, he called upon the then leader of the opposition.
Now, what are the prerogatives of His Excellency, and who are to advise him under the constitution of the country? I read section 11 of the British North America Act, and I cite it now so that hon. gentlemen may give it their attention before we again meet to-morrow. Section 11 says:
There shall be a council to aid and advise the government of Canada, to be styled the Queen's Privy Council for Canada; and the persons who are to be members of that council shall be from time to time chosen and summoned by the Governor General and sworn in as Privy Councillors, and members thereof may be from time to time removed by the Governor General.
Therefore the Governor General, left without advice, even if there were no privy councillor living in Canada, would have the right to appoint privy councillors to advise him, but he also had the right to ask any existing ,privy councillors to come in and advise him in a crisis such as confronted him when the then Prime Minister of this country tendered his resignation and insisted upon its immediate acceptance.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not answering questions just now. Then section 12 of the British North America Act provides:
All powers, authorities and functions which under any act of the parliament of Great Britain, or of the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, oc of the legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, are at the Union vested in or exerciseable by the respective Governors or Lieutenant-Governors of those provinces, with the advice, or with the advice and consent, of the respective executive councils thereof, or in conjunction with those councils, or with any number of members thereof, or by -those Governors or Lieutenant-Governors individually, shall, as far as the same con-hinue in existence and capable of being exercised after the Union in relation to the government of Canada, be vested in and exerciseable by the Governor General, with the advice or with the advice and consent of or in conjunction with the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, or any members thereof, or by the Governor-General individually, as the case requires. . .
So if some calamity had wiped out every privy councillor in Canada or had taken away the life of every member of the existing cabinet, under this constitution His Excellency had the right there and then to appoint new privy councillors, if he saw fit, to assemble
and advise him in such a crisis, in order that the country might not be left without a government. But according to the statement made here to-night, His Excellency, being left without official advisers, by reason of the resignation of the present right hon. leader of the opposition, called in a certain number -I do not know how many-of privy councillors, who had previously taken the oath of office and who had continued to be members of the Privy Council, and asked for their advice. He also had with him the present Prime Minister, who is not now a member of this House, whom he had selected and appointed as Prime Minister, and who had. been nominated to occupy the portfolios of Minister of External Affairs and President of the Privy Council. The Governor General had a perfect right to take the advice of the Prime Minister, whom he had selected, as to what members of the Privy Council of Canada, who are numerous, should be called in to form a committee of the Privy Council for the purpose of attending to these matters of administration which demanded immediate attention. So they assembled and proceeded correctly under the constitution, and there was no other alternative than to take the measures which were taken by them to give the country a temporary government. The right hon. leader of the opposition disclosed by his speech to-night, and it is a fair criticism to say that he desired to force this parliament into dissolution, that he took the means that he did at the time in order to force a dissolution of parliament, which His Excellency in the exercise of his discretion refused to grant to him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am told that my hon. friend said I had refused to carry on.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was not discussing that at
present.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But my hon.
friend discussed it before.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: When I asked the hon.
gentleman, a question about an hour ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not hear it, and I want to say-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You answered it then.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not
refuse to carry on. May I say further that after tendering my resignation I distinctly stated to His Excellency, and stated it in writing, that I was prepared, if His Excellency so desired and should ask me, to
o232	COMMONS
Supply-Formation of Ministry
keep my resignation in abeyance until he had had the opportunity to take such further steps as he might wish to take.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not wish to raise the
question, but unfortunately His Excellency cannot be present to give his testimony as to what took place.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Fortunately I have a copy of the letter in which I tendered my resignation. May I sav to my hon. friend that when I spoke first to His Excellency on the matter of resignation, it was on Saturday. I had several interviews with him before the _ final resignation was accepted.


Frank S. Cahill: I rise to a point of order,
Mr. Chairman, and it is that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, in using the language he did, that it was unfortunate His Excellency could not be present to give his evidence, was directly challenging the integrity of the leader of the opposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I do not think His Excellency will differ in any particular from anything I have said this evening?


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back.


Finlay MacDonald: My
hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George has undertaken to speak for His Excellency in this House-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not at all.


Finlay MacDonald: -and
to intimate directly and indirectly that His Excellency, if he could speak, would say something contrary to what my right hon. leader has said, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, [DOT]that he has no right to make any such statement.


Frank S. Cahill: Take it back.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You sit down.


Frank S. Cahill: He will take the statement back or he will not speak. The hon. gentleman cannot come into this House and run the whole House by himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Frank S. Cahill: I will not sit down until he withdraws the statement.


William Duff: I think the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, while perhaps not exactly out of order, certainly went a little bit too far in the implication which was contained in his statement, and in order to maintain decorum of debate I would ask him to withdraw that expression.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I withdraw it. I am perfectly willing, if in the heat of debate I go beyond the proper line, to apologize to the Chairman and to the committee. What I was about to say is this, that the former Prime Minister, the present leader of the opposition, handed in his resignation under very peculiar circumstances, circumstances unprecedented, except for one occasion in the history of this country. He had challenged this House on the matter of the Customs report, but he avoided a direct and final vote upon the amendment offered to that report, which amendment he was opposing. He lost confidence in himself and felt, no doubt, that he could not further command the support and confidence of this House. Before that report and' the 'Stevens amendment to it, which reflected upon the then Prime Minister and his administration, could come before this House for final decision, his courage oozed out at his finger tips or at his toes- I do not know which-and he rushed off to tender his resignation to the Governor General.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not rush. I went down on Saturday, and we discussed the matter calmly from Saturday until Monday.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suppose he did discuss it, but anyway the final rush I think was made somewhere about twelve o'clock noon on Monday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The final meeting with His Excellency was on Monday by appointment which had been made on the Sunday previous, the appointment being so arranged in order that His Excellency might take whatever steps he desired to take with reference to accepting my resignation at that time.
Mr. 'CAHAN: Whether the resignation was tendered on Saturday or on the following Monday, and accepted' then, the obvious object of the advice given by the Prime Minister at that time for a dissolution of this parliament was to prevent this parliament from exercising its duty and its responsibility of passing upon the conduct of the late administration in connection with the Customs report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I deny that statement absolutely.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The circumstances under
which, admittedly, the Prime Minister on Saturday or on Monday offered his resignation convey that fair inference, because, in

Supply-Formation of Ministry
the very act of advising a dissolution, if he really desired a dissolution, he knew that, if dissolution were granted, it would prevent this House from passing the reprimand upon himself and his administration which was contained in the amendments to the Customs report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I have the strongest reasons not only for believing but for knowing that the so-called censure that he talks about would never have been passed on this government had this government remained in office until after that vote was taken, and that vote was only passed because of this co-operation between a certain number of gentlemen to my left and hon. gentleman *opposite to prevent a dissolution of this parliament.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can only infer, and members of this House can only infer, as the leader of the opposition himself infers, what would have taken place if the resolution of censure contained in the Stevens amendment had been allowed by the. late government to foe voted upon by this House. But when _ the advice of the right hon. gentleman was tendered to His Excellency for a dissolution and refused, as we believe, in the exercise of :a constitutional right, within the discretion of His Excellency the Governor General, this country was left without a government, and 1 suggest that the proper procedure was taken *in selecting a prime minister and in summoning a certain number of the king's privy councillors in Canada to advise during the interregnum, while the new Prime Minister was forming his cabinet, and that there is nothing -exceptional in any member of the King's Privy Council being appointed by a committee of that Privy Council to be acting minister, for the time being, of any department. Nay, more than that, as there will be a recess, I will venture to say that the leader of the opposition to-night, if he searches the records of his own administration, will find more than a single instance in which a member of the upper house-I refer to Senator Dandu-rand, a member of his own government-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is beginning to talk about the Senate.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, Senator Dandurand
was a member of the previous government without portfolio, but he held and exercised various administrative offices in the government of the right hon. gentleman, although he was never sworn in or took the oath as minister of any special department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend does not get my point. I never for a moment denied that you could have acting ministers. But what I do say is this: You have got to have a ministry constituted in the first instance of ministers who are sworn in and able to carry on business, and who, after they are sworn in, go back to the people for re-election.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Oh, well!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: After you have gone through the process and got the ministry duly formed in accordance with the constitutional practice in respect to the taking of office, then if you want to add one or two ministers as acting ministers to take the place of a minister who has become too old or, as my hon. friend says, take a portfolio which has been vacated by death, you can do so; but it, was never contemplated by any constitution under heaven that a ministry should be composed entirely of acting ministers. That is reducing the matter to the reductio ad absur-dum.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My reply to that is that it is never-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I add this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.'


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I venture to say that my hon. friend will never be able to quote a precedent in British history where a minister pretending to administer a department of government ever came into parliament while parliament was in session without having resigned his office of emolument under the crown in order to go back to the people for re-election. If he takes an office of emolument he must obtain the approval of the people. A minister of the crown is not in the same position as a private member. When a member of parliament takes office under the crown he is then in an entirely different position in relation to the electorate. He has got to go back to the people and receive endorsa-tion, and if he does not get that endorsation he is not able :to act as a member of the ministry.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No doubt ministers who accept any office of emolument under the crown will go to their constituencies to be reelected.


Frank S. Cahill: When hon. gentlemen opposite do that then they can come back and get supply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But they have to do it immediately.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have the floor.
5234	COMMONS
Supply-Formation oj Ministry


Frank S. Cahill: But you are not saying anything.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is making a statement which is not correct.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have the floor. The right hon. gentleman at least might observe the ordinary courtesy of debate and allow me to complete my short statement. There is nothing to provide that a member who accepts a portfolio must seek re-election within five, or ten or even fifteen days.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is not one of these ministers who has taken a portfolio.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I ask for an opportunity to complete my statement.


William Duff: The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George may not be questioned without his consent.


An hon. MEMBER:: Allow him to finish.


William Duff: I am Chairman and
I am going to preserve order. Does the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George wish to allow the hon. member for Prince Albert to put a question to him or not? If he does not, I must ask the hon. member for Prince Albert to take his seat.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My suggestion and my contention is that there is no provision in the constitution of this country which prevents a member of the privy council,, having been so authorized by an order of a committee of the privy council, from acting temporarily as a minister of a department, in order that the king's government may be carried on for a few days. That has been the practice in case after case-


Frank S. Cahill: Never.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -and it is only because of the exceptional circumstance of the resignation of the right hon. gentleman during a session of parliament that these temporary appointments become absolutely necessary in order that the king's government might continue to be carried on in this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were not necessary.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They were absolutely
necessary. Further, when the right hon. gentleman asks for precedents, he will find no precedent in this country for his own abject and recreant neglect of the duties of his office and his own-shall I use the word 
if it is parliamentary? I should like to use it-his own utter lack of courage in refusing to meet this House and abide by its judgment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend talks'of "lack of courage." I ask him to take back that expression.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I ask the
hon. gentleman to take back the expression because it is unparliamentary and may not be used in this House. Furthermore when my hon. friend talks about my being "recreant to duty'' he is making a statement which is absolutely without foundation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Mr. Chairman, did
you not say that you were going to keep order?


William Duff: I must ask the hor,.
member for St. Lawrence-St. George to withdraw the expression "recreant to duty."


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the expression "lack of courage?"


William Duff: I presume the reference there is to "political courage." I do not think that is unparliamentary, but the other expression is certainly out of order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Can I not say-


Frank S. Cahill: Withdraw.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -that if the Prime Minister is not performing his duty, or if he neglects his duty, he is recreant?


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the Chairman says the
expression is out of order I will take it back.


William Duff: I understand the hon.
member to say that the leader of the opposition was recreant to his duty. If he did say that he ought to withdraw the expression, and I am sure he will do so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will retract and say that the right hon. gentleman did not perform what I conceive to be his duty, which was to continue to meet the House, while the Customs report was before it, and allow the House to pass its verdict upon that report. Rather than meet the House and allow the House to give its verdict on that report, he advised the dissolution of parliament, which he knew would prevent the House from passing judgment on that report. He thereby placed the country in a most peculiar and unprecedented position which rendered it absolutely necessary that His Excellency the Governor General, in accordance with the

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
constitution, should ask the members of the privy council to come and advise him. They did assemble and did advise him, and, acting within their prerogatives as a committee of the privy council, they appointed certain members of parliament to act temporarily in the administration of the several offices to which they were then designated. That procedure is constitutional. Precedents have been established time after time during the ministry of the right hon. leader of the opposition with respect to one, two and sometimes three members of the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend wishes to make precedents, may I say that no acting minister was appointed during the entire period of my administration until the government had sworn ministers who had to go back to the people for re-election, ministers who had undertaken the duty of carrying on the business of the country.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is merely a facetious explanation-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -because the right hon.
gentleman has admitted that he had called in members of the Privy Council who did temporarily administer the affairs of particular departments without taking a new oath of office at all, it being well known that their appointments and oaths as privy councillors qualified them to receive temporary nominations for the administration of the particular offices to which they were temporarily appointed by order in council. The right hon. gentleman brought about an unprecedented condition of affairs in this country. 1 will not reflect further upon his motives in bringing about that condition of affairs, which had to be met by exceptional measures; but he will look in vain to find any precedent established from which it can be shown or from which it can be adduced that anything irregular or unconstitutional has taken place in the recent formation of what he now calls *"a shadow ministry."


Henry Lumley Drayton: I rise for the
purpose of moving the adjournment of the House, and I think I should do that for three reasons; the first is that I do not think we are making much progress; the second is that I have hopes that we will find certain hon. members in a more reasonable frame of mind when we come back, and the third is that I would like the eminent gentlemen who belong to the great Liberal party to consider what Mr. Asquith says on this very point
so much stressed and debated. It is only a little bit of a whole lot of jurisprudence in connection with the matter, but it is something my hon. friend could think over in connection with some of the statements made to-night. Mr. Asquith says:
The dissolution of parliament is in this country one of the prerogatives of the crown. It is a mere feudal survival, but it is a part, and, I think, a useiful part, of our constitutional system. It does not mean that the crown should act voluntarily and without the advice of responsible ministers-


Charles Avery Dunning: It does not mean that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Quite right. I
am always trying to be fair with my hon. friends, and I am giving everything in their favour. Perhaps they will say, "hear, hear to this:
-but it does mean that the crown is not bound to rtake the advice of a .particular ministry to put its subjects to the tumult and turmoil of a series of general ejections so long as it can find other ministers who are prepared to give it a trial.	.


Charles Avery Dunning: Ministers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But there are
no ministers opposite.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is December 18, 1922, and if my hon. friends will only go a little bit further they will find that the Prime Minister, the real representative of the crown, can himself take all the portfolios and have as many acting ministers as he likes looking after portfolios which he himself has taken.


Frank S. Cahill: But he has nobody in the House to receive supply.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Asquith
says further:
The [DOT]notion that a minister who cannot command a majority in the House of Commons, who is in a minority of 31 per cent, is invested with the right to demand a dissolution, is as subversive of constitutional usage as it would, in my opinion, be pernicious to the general and [paramount interests of the nation at large.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon.
member has just quoted Mr. Asquith on the subject of dissolution. Is it not true that in 1914 Mr. Asquith asked for a dissolution at the beginning of the year, and before the year was up asked for another, and that in both instances he was gfanted .a dissolution by Plis Majesty the King?


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is what
Mr. Asquith said-and he is older and wiser and knows what the law is now.


Finlay MacDonald: There
is nothing to support my hon. friend there.
5236	COMMONS
Sup-ply-Formation of Ministry


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is another thing we should always look at in connection with this-


Edward Joseph Garland: Would it
not be better to postpone replying to further questions until to-morrow?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, I wanted
to do that. There is something really to be considered in connection with this matter, not in heat or passion or anything else-just a little bit of common sense to be applied to the situation.
Progress reported.



ADOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved the adjournment of the House.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask what the business will be for to-morrow and the order of it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon.
friend will permit the House to do any business, we will go on with the business of the House and try to get supply through.
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton the House adjourned at 1.10 a.m. (Thursday).
Thursday, July 1, 1926