1926-01-13

GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, January 12, consideration of the motion of Hon. Ernest Lapointe for consideration of the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session, and its precedence over other business, and the proposed amendment thereto of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen.
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: 

Government's Right to Office
That the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General to both houses of parliament be taken into consideration on Monday next, and that this order have precedence over all other business of the House except government notices of motion and introduction of bills, until disposed of.
To this motion the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) moved an amendment, the concluding paragraph of which is as follows:
That those who now assume to be His Excellency's advisers have among them no prime minister with a seat in either House of Parliament, and under such circumstances are not competent to act as, or to become, the committee of parliament, commonly known as the government, or to address parliament through His Excellency, and their attempted continuance in office is a violation of the principles and practice of British constitutional government.
That is the amendment which is now before us. May I s'ay in passing that inasmuch as this amendment delays the consideration of His Excellency's most gracious Speech I should imagine that it ill becomes the Tory party, the defenders of the prerogatives of the crown, to be so discourteous to His Excellency as to refuse to answer his Speech to the Commons and to the Senate. But there is more than that. What is the real effect of the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition? The effect as I understand it is this: If the amendment carries, the consideration of the Speech from the Throne is postponed forever. There is no longer any Speech from the Throne. In what position would we be then? My right hon. friend would become Prime Minister. Would he ask His Excellency to come down to the Senate and make a new speech, and say that the old Speech was all wrong; or would he be able to get it before this House? I do not think there is any machinery which would enable my right hon. friend to bring any further discussion before this parliament. Parliament would be dissolved; our session would be one of ten days. The leader of the opposition must either ask for a dissolution and go to the country, or ask for a new session and bring in a new speech. Or will he promise to take the old Speech?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Gavan Power: Evidently he will not. If he does not accept that Speech, will he himself as the king's adviser put into the mouth of His Excellency another Speech? I leave this question to the consideration of the members of this House, asking them to remember the one point that we have been endeavouring to make ever since the beginning of this debate-that the result of the defeat of the government on this particular motion would be chaos.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: To your side.


Charles Gavan Power: When ray hon. friend speaks I hope he will tell us which of these alternative courses he is prepared to recommend to his leader. I do not, however, wish to con-tencf that it was not the duty, the responsibility of the leader of the opposition to challenge at the earliest possible moment the existence of the present government. The question has been debated since October 29 in every town, village and hamlet of the Dominion. Quite properly it is now before the House of Commons, awaiting our judgment.
The questions at issue are these: Shall the present government carry on, or shall a government of the leader of the opposition rule? Possibly there is a third course: shall we representatives of the people say: We cannot come to	any	conclusion.	We are Sent here	toexercise	our	judgment;	we	are	sent here	toexercise	our	discretion;	we	are	sent here	tolegislate	and	to govern	in	the	name of the
people of Canada, and we find ourselves unable to do so. With reference to the first or the second possible courses of action, let me emphasize this point: that should the government be overthrown on this amendment it would then become the duty of the opposition-of those of us who are sitting on this side-to move a similar motion against the first exercise of power by the government which will replace us. The issue which we have before us has, I think, been somewhat obscured by the lengthy and interesting but perhaps too exhaustive incursions into constitutional history to which we have listened. We are not here to study history; we are here to make history, and the precedent of 1926 constituted by the deciding of this question will be quoted in days to come. The member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) pleaded at great length; he bisected, he trisected, he quoted authorities in his best privy council style, forgetting all the time that the question at issue, the question of law and of fact, was not to be decided by a bench of begowned and bewigged judges but by a jury of farmers. I ask those jurors to remember this. When they return to their electors, when they return to the voters! of Kindersley or Pinto Plains, or wherever they may come from, will their electors ask them: What did Bagehot report on this situation? What did King Charles do? What was the action of Queen Elizabeth? I do not think they will. I suggest that the citizens of these constituencies will rather say: Tell us not about what May said; not about what Anson said; not
JANUARY 13, 1026	F 5	:
Government's Right to Office
about all that is contained in the musty volumes or the blurred parchments of the library. The question is, did you vote for King or for Meighen, and why? They will say that the foundation and essence of responsible government is in the right of the representatives of the people to choose who shall foe the king's advisers, and it matters not if Mr. William Lyon Mackenzie King be temporarily absent from the chamber; it matters mot if Mr. Gladstone was absent for a whole session or part of a session; it matters not whether Walpole was a member of the House of Commons or Newcastle a member of the House of Lords at a particular time. You had a certain duty to perform; you were sent to parliament to decide which party should rule this country. Did you or did you not perform that duty? You are the representatives of the people. Not all the precedents quoted in the speech of the hon. member for West Calgary, not all the eloquence and not all the hairsplitting of the right hon. leader of the opposition should have swerved you from your duty. You had the power; you had the right; you had the authority. There was no power in this country, there was. no power in the Old Country-not even the sovereign himself- that could have prevented you from exercising it. Why did you not exercise it?
The hon. member for West Calgary will in all likelihood-if he pays the slightest attention to my remarks-reproach me as a representative coming from the province of Quebec, and particularly from the city of Quebec, in whose constituency were laid the very foundations of this country, for uprooting traditions and laying aside ancient customs. But in our province, whilst we do not worship progress because it is new, neither do we reverence tradition because it is old. We believe that in our constitutional machinery there should be a brake, but we also believe that this machinery cannot function without having an accelerator as well. We know, too. that within the past ten years our notions of constitutional government and of the rights and freedom of the people have received such rude shocks that we are rather inclined to feel that precedents are made only for certain purposes. We are rather inclined to ask, where was the precedent for the abolition of the liberty of the press during war time? Where was the precedent which allowed the censorship of free speech even in this chamber? Where was the precedent which took away from hundreds of thousands of British subjects the right of the franchise? If these thing? could be done without precedent, to suit party 14011-81
purposes, surely, even if there are no precedents, we may lay aside usage in the time of the country's need. Mr. Speaker, whilst our hon. friends from the west are spending their time in lengthy caucuses and compiling more or less useful questionnaires, the country is crying out for action.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Dew Chaplin: Why didn't you let the vote come last night, then?


Charles Gavan Power: Do I understand that my
hon. friends opposite were prepared to vote last night?


James Dew Chaplin: Sure.


Charles Gavan Power: I presume, then, I may"
conclude that the hon. gentleman is convinced that the offers of his leader's henchmen have: been accepted. Ever since the beginning of this debate Conservatives, one after the other, have spoken in order to make known to the members of the House and the people of the country what were their special claims and their special qualifications. The hon. member for West Calgary, whose pleasant smile I am very glad to see, on Monday evening during the course of a portion of the speech of the Solicitor General was also smiling, and I detected during another portion of the speech of the Solicitor General a smile even on the ordinarily stem countenance of the right hon. leader of the opposition. The hon. member for West Calgary would like to be one of those who are in at the death, in order to get a portion, if not all, of the honour and glory for the overthrow of the government. I can almost imagine hon. gentlemen on the other side joining in the chorus of "Who killed Cock Robin?" "I," will say the hon. member for West Calgary. "I sent my messenger boy with a gramophone, and when he did not succeed. I scattered the dust of centuries over it, and the government was overthrown." "I," will say the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). "I had been a member of their camp, and I knew their tricks. I went to the other side, and the government was defeated." "I," will say the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards), when he returns to his lodge with the government scalp hanging at his belt. "I slew them with the hammer and the wedge. My hands are red with popish blood." "I," will say the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers), a former Minister of Public Works. "I smiled, and seven little Progressives smiled with me." Mr. Speaker, this is no time for jocularity, this is no time for making a game of politics.
lie

Government's Right to Office


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Gavan Power: The country has decided
in its wisdom to send certain representatives here not sufficient in number on either side, so far as the old parties are concerned, effectively to rule the people of this country. The people ask us to find, if possible, a solution, and it is our duty to seek it. As I said before, an endeavour has been made by the government towards that end. This is not the time, nor am I prepared to discuss it on this motion, but may I in reply to certain remarks which have fallen from the lips of hon. gentlemen opposite with reference to the market place, with reference to the auction block, wuth reference to bids, simply call attention to the fact that both here and in the Old Country political leaders and political parties have at times found it impossible to carry out to their logical conclusion all the different parts of their programme, and they have on many occasions accepted, in lieu of that, honourable compromise. On other occasions political leaders have even completely reversed the stand they had previously taken, and though something may have been said about them during their lifetime or at the time they reversed their position, the verdict of history -has not been unfavourable. I do not think any member of the House would say that the lustre of Wellington was dimmed because he accepted Catholic emancipation, which he had fought for thirty years. I do not think anyone will censure Grey for championing the Reform bill which he had at first opposed. I do not think we will even blame Peel for having finally advocated the repeal of the Corn laws. I do not think anyone in this House, and particularly the hon. member for South Wellington, will -blame Gladstone for having finally gone in with the Irish and accepted Home Rule. I do not think any member of this House will say that Lloyd George was wrong when two or three years ago he signed the treaty of peace with what afterwards became the Irish Free State. I do not think any member of this House will reproach Macdonald and Brown for that part which they took in bringing about confederation, a part which was to the honour and glory of them both. I do not think any of those men who for the greater good of the country were willing to sink party spirit and party prejudice, will be blamed in any way when the verdict of history comes to be rendered; and, Mr. Speaker, I think that even out of this present political situation good may come. We are on the eve of a cycle of prosperity. We should not by vain recrimination or empty denunciation retard the wheels of

progress, but should rather by our united efforts endeavour to bring about an impetus and acceleration of that progress.
May I, before taking my seat, call particular attention to one point which I wish to make in all humility, and -to one suggestion which I wish to offer to my western brethren. For many years we in the province of Quebec, those of us particularly who sit on this side of the House have been, under the tutelage, and afterwards under the spell of the presence and even of the name, of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He preached to us the great doctrine of toleration and moderation. It was on account of -this doctrine that in 1911 we accepted and fought for the reciprocity treaty, by reason of which the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was defeated. It was because of those doctrines of moderation and toleration that -from 1921 onwards we became associated, if not allied to a certain extent, with -the hon. gentlemen of the Progressive group. During the last election I should say ' almost every member sitting on this side of the House from the province of Quebec was reviled, cartooned, and assailed in the press and on the platform on account of his association, -or supposed association, in policy with the hon. members who formed the Progressive -group.
There was no newspaper of the opposition, no newspaper even of the Patenaude group, which did not day in and day out, continually and continuously, call attention to the fact that we had made certain compromises in order to please the Iron, members from western Canada. At the opening of this session, at the request of our leader, and particularly of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), than whom no better friend of western Canada exists, we were prepared- to accept certain suggestions to which, perhaps, we had hitherto not been very much attached. Let me call the attention of my hon. friends from western Canada to the fact that we have done so. Let me remind them of this:	They have told us that they
are the judges in this instance. To-morrow the sixty-one members for the province of Quebec may also be the judges in another instance. We have at the request of our leaders made certain concessions. We have done so already and are prepared to do so again. But there is growing already in the province of Quebec an opinion which says that there have been too many compromises. We have not, as have men from other sections of the country, taken a sectional stand; and -this opinion will not prevail so long as hon. gentlemen who are now sitting in this House remain in it. But other members may sue-

Government's Right to Office
ceed them and those members, whether they sit to the right or the left of the Speaker, in whatever party they may be, instead of being guided by those principles of moderation and tolerance of which I speak, will perhaps remember a motto which is well known in the province of Quebec-aye, which is inscribed on one of the public buildings in my own city:
Je suis un chien qui ronge l'os,
En lc rongeant je prends mon repos.
Un temps viendra qui n'est pas venu
Que je mordrai qui m'aura mordu.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) will pardon me if I do not follow him into the whole of the discussion he carried on. We all listen to him invariably with pleasure, though some of us rarely agree with himi. He is one of those for whom we have a real affection, and I have no quarrel to make with many of his statements. I might, however, if I were to take up the time, disagree with a number of them: his remarks about bide for example. If the whole Speech from the Throne is not a complete bid for the support of my hon. friends from the western provinces, and nothing else, then I know very little about that Speech itself.
I am simply going to refer to one remark made by the hon. member for Quebec South and to express my disagreement with it, namely, his suggestion that if the government was defeated-that is if the amendment carried 

it would mean the immediate dissolution of the House. Of course that view has been put forward- by my hon. friends opposite, particularly for the 'benefit of the Progressive members, and in that respect they are following the lead of the Prime Minister who out through the prairie provinces took the attitude, according to the press, that the Progressive members were so fond of their $4,000 a year that they would not think of voting the government out. The purpose of the threat is evident, but it is not well founded. If the House of Commons to-morrow, or whenever the vote is taken, passes the amendment as proposed by my right hon. leader it would simply mean the retirement of the present government. The Prime Minister would offer his resignation to the Governor General and the right hon. leader of the opposition would then be called upon to form a government- which he would do, as was stated so eloquently by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) yesterday. That is what would happen. The details as to what would happen to the Speech from the Throne are immaterial.
So that I do not wish any misunderstanding in that regard: to my mind, whether the amendment carries or does not, there will be no dissolution of the House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I ran across a quotation the other day that fitted so well the condition of the present government that I thought I would read it for the amusement of the House. It is nearly one hundred years old, and was written by Henry Olay on Andrew Jackson.
He said:
Never, Mr. President, have I known or read of an administration which expires with so much agony, and so liftle composure and resignation, as that which now unfortunately has the control of public affairs in this country. It exhibits a state of mind feverish, fretful and fidgety; bounding recklessly from one desperate expedient to another without any sober or settled purpose.
I should not have read that but for the fact that the rumour has gone round through the balls of this building that some time to-day a statement will be made by one of the members of the government that if this amendment is defeated the government will not accept it as a vote of confidence. They will merely continue carrying on as they are and proceed to discuss the Speech -from the Throne. The report is ridiculous on the face of it; and I shall quickly stop discussing it if some member of the government will deny that there is any foundation for it. Otherwise I shall be obliged to waste a few moments of the time of the House in a reference to it. I regret the necessity of doing that, but apparently none of the members of the government intend to deny the rumour. I wish to show that this motion as we have it to-day is a distinct motion of want of confidence. It is written with the purpose of being a want of confidence motion in this government. The-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) the whole government and the whole House know that that is the purpose of the amend1-ment. The country knows that that is the purpose, and the Minister of Justice, the member for Quebec East, stood in his place in the House the other day when the amendment was moved by my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) and said:
This motion is a pure negative of the other motion which is already before the House.
The motion of the hon. minister was a motion of confidence in the government, and this amendment is a pure negative, as he says. I could quote from a number of different parts of his speech, but I will simply refer to one or two sentences. He says:
I say that this government does not want to remain in office one day or one hour, unless the parliament of Canada approves of it. As I said we took the first

Government's Right to Office
occasion open to us to acquaint the House with the question before us. We are discussing the same issue on the amendment of my right hon. friend, and it is just as agreeable to me. It is important that the issue should be settled at once.
And on page 25 he says:
And I add that when this vote is taken, when the issue is settled, no Canadian can deny that both government and parliament have done their duty in the matter. I hope that the discussion may be brief.
And yet last night when the discussion closed nobody rose on this side of the House, and the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) moved the adjournment of the-debate to fill in time so that the discussion should go over till to-day.


Mr. CAHILL:: Order, order.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member moved
the adjournment of the debate until to-day; so that it is correct to say that he made the motion to carry the discussion over till to-day.


Frank S. Cahill: I do not think it is in order for an hon. member to say that any member of this House made a motion to fill in time. If that is so, I would like to ask the hon. member what he is doing now?


Robert James Manion: When I look back at the parliament which functioned from 1917 to 1921, I recall that my hon. friend on many occasions did not show much courtesy to the House. * The extract I was reading continues:
I hope that the discussion may be brief. We all desire the situation to be regularized in order that we shall have a government with full, moral and political authority for the tasks, domestic, imperial and international, that lie before it.
Could anything be more plain? I am going to quote from the remarks of another member of the government-and then I shall cease *quoting-to show that if this amendment [DOT] carries it is a vote of want of confidence in the government, and if it does not carry it is n motion of confidence in the government. The Minister of the Interior yesterday, at page 102 of Hansard, said::
At all events, Mr. Speaker, so far we have carried on, we have presented to the House our programme and we have not asked th-f House to deal with that programme. We are content to abide by the decision upon the point raised by my hon. friend in his amendment-
I am going to repeat that, because it is very important in view of this statement.
We are content to abide by the decision upon the point raised by my hon. friend in his amendment, and if the decision is in his favour then of course he will prepare a programme and carry on.
He has turned that around, I think.
We have not attempted in any particular to usurp any function and we do not want to remain in office one moment longer than the moment at which a deci-

sion can be reached on this question. If we are sustained then I can say to hon. members of this House that we will do our level best to carry out that programme. We will try to give the same kind of government in the next two or three years that we have given in the past.
After hearing hon. gentlemen to my left discuss the government's action for the past two or three years, I do not know how any of them could possibly support this government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is all I intend to say with regard to that rumour, but certainly it will be just another breach of faith if the government should attempt to carry on in the face of an adverse vote on this motion, and it will certainly be a motion of confidence in the government if the members to my left vote against the amendment of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate so far. I do not intend to deal with the matter from the point of view particularly of a constitutional lawyer or even of an ordinary lawyer, because I am as much of a layman on this question as any of my hon. friends to my left. They and I are in exactly the same position, so far as this discussion is concerned; we are laymen, and looking at it from that point of view I propose to deal with the question of what Mr. Mackenzie King should have done under the conditions which prevailed following the events of October 29 last. But before doing so I would like to point out in a few words the steps by which we reached the stage of representative government to which we have now attained-simply naming them, in order to recall to the minds of all of us those historical developments which are of particular interest in connection with the question now before the House.
If one wishes to go back to a real beginning he must advert to the year 1215, because the event which marked the genesis of the development of parliamentary government was probably the wresting from King John by the barons of the Great Charter of 1215. Further steps ensued down through the eventful seventeenth century when the stupid Stuarts insisted on their pretensions of divine right to such an extent that one of them lost his head on that account and the other his throne. The obtaining of the habeas corpus was another step; then the coming of William and Mary and the enforced abdication of James was another. Then we (have the American revolutionary war and the French Revolution -because the American war was brought about by the attempt of George III to tax the colonies without representation; and the

Government's Right to Office
French revolution had its effect on thought and action in the British Isles. Then finally we come down to the removal of religious disabilities, mentioned by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power); the emancipation of religious minorities, and the Reform acts of 1832 and 1867. These reforms brought us to the stage in which we find ourselves to-day; those important incidents in history were all stepping-stones upon which we built up our present parliamentary institutions, and anybody who forgets or ignores them is merely endeavouring to turn back the clock of parliamentary development.
Now, Mr. Speaker, because of those stepping stones by which we have advanced, in Great Britain, in every British dominion, in the United States, in France and a few other countries there has been a realization of those democratic principles in which we believe. We have attained a democracy which we believe in and frequently refer to, but of which we very often speak in a hazy way. I would like just here to refer to a few of the statements made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), when he derided our party system-and he was followed, I am sorry to say by one or two other speakers in the same strain. I hardly mean to say he derided it, but he implied that we could improve conditions by changing it. We should not forget that no great advances have been made in democracy except in countries which have had parliamentary party institutions much as we have them to-day. England has been the great mother of parliamentary and constitutional development. France has aided very materially, so has Italy and the United States, and certainly so have the British dominions, so that without the party system the advances we have been able to make would not have been possible. Hon. members will remember that those countries without constitutional parliamentary systems, such as we have to-day, though modified slightly, of course, in their operation, are backward and reactionary. They are such countries as Russia, China, the Balkan States, Austro-Hungary, and Germany, the author of the Great war. Germany had supposedly an imitation of our constitutional party system, but it was in the control of the kaiser and the chancellor and they precipitated the Great War. That is just an aside, but I wish to say that word in justice to the party system which, to my mind, is more important than my hon. friend made out. He and I may differ in a friendly way in that regard.
I would like to give just two definitions of what we call democracy at the present time.
Lincoln in his time said that democracy was "government of the people, by the people and for the people." But, unfortunately, that is a little indefinite. Mr. Bryce, later Lord Bryce, gave a definition which is more specific; He gave this definition:
Democracy after all is the government of the whole people of a country expressing their sovereign will by their votes.
That is a very fine, explicit definition, and I doubt if ever there stood in any of the parliamentary halls of Great Britain or our dominions a man who was better able to give a definition of that kind than Lord Bryce. How can you carry out the definition of the government of the whole people of the country by the expression of their sovereign will by their votes except by the will of the majority, because in no country on any question can you get all the people to vote alike. Therefore, the only way in which you can carry out a democratic system of government based upon that principle, which is the great principle of democracy, is by the rule of the majority, by the minority acquiescing in the supreme will of the majority. I see the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) nods his head. I knew he would agree with me. The rule of the majority is the fundamental principle upon which all our governmental institutions are based. It is the sheet anchor of our type of government. It is the bulwark against mob rule, anarchy, any of those things we do not wish to have in our country. It is the basis of all law. Outside of this you cannot have law, because if the minority insist on having their way, it means that the minority start a revolution. A statement was made by the Solicitor General-and I congratulate him now at my first opportunity on the high place he has attained. I am afraid it will not last long but it will last probably as long as mine did the first time. My second, I hope, will }ast very much longer, although I probably should add, in all modesty, when it comes. That was a faux pas. The Solicitor General made the statement that they were submitting this whole question to the highest tribunal in this land. I wish to differ from him. This parliament of Canada is not the highest tribunal in this land. The highest tribunal legally is the last court to which a legal question can be put to be judged. I think any lawyer will agree that that is correct.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Robert James Manion: Well, I will stick to common sense. I will get away from the law. At any rate, the highest tribunal in this country and in any democratic country is the

Government's Right to Office
tribunal of the people themselves. The Solicitor General and the government to which he belongs submitted themselves to this tribunal on October 29 just gone by, and they were emphatically condemned by that tribunal. They were condemned before the highest tribunal in the land-because, I repeat, this is not the highest tribunal-they were condemned by a majority against them of something like 500,000 votes. I have not looked up the exact figures; but adding the votes for the Progressives and Independents, if you will, to the votes for the Conservatives, all of which were cast against the government, that is approximately the number. How can anyone argue that the votes cast for seventeen of my hon. friends who ran against [Liberals as well as Conservatives were cast for this government? Not one of those votes was cast for this government. Every vote, where they elected these hon. gentlemen, was cast for the Progressive party in the prairie provinces, generally speaking.


Mr. CANNON:: If the votes cast for the Progressives were cast against the government -assuming that is a fact-would my hon. friend go further and assume that the Progressive votes were given in favour of the Tory party?


Robert James Manion: No, that is not the case.
It was not the Tory party that was on trial. The government was on trial. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) suggests that the government was the prisoner at the bar and1 the jury were the people of this country. But certainly by no stretch of the imagination could the votes cast for hon. gentlemen to my left be taken as votes cast for this government. I did not intend to interject this remark, but an hon. gentleman asked about the Patenaude votes. By no stretch of the imagination could the Patenaude votes in the province of Quebec be taken as votes cast for this government, because they all condemned this government out and out. Therefore there was a majority of about 500,000 against the government.
Mr. Mackenzie King and eight of his ministers went down to defeat. To-day we find this remarkable condition in Canada that the great province of Ontario-may I put it on a fifty-fifty basis, as great as the province of Quebec, because I do not want to say anything my hon. friends will turn around-has no cabinet representation in this House; neither, so far as I remember, has [Manitoba nor Prince Edward Island nor New Brunswick. Those are the four provinces which, to my recollection, have not a representative in this government.

I am going to refer before I sit down to some of the statements made by the right hon. gentleman who to-day, although outside of this House, is leader of this government. In the United States the system of government is altogether different from ours. They keep their president and cabinet outside of both houses of congress. I find myself wondering sometimes if Mr. Mackenzie 4 p.m. King, with all his other faseina-ations for the American people, is endeavouring under cover to change our party system into that of the United States. He would have to remove only a few more government members out of this House and he would, indeed, have the United States system in force.
Then Mr. Mackenzie King's statement has often been quoted in this House that unless he got a clear working majority, he was not going to attempt to carry on. What was the answer of the people to that statement? It was that they wiped out not only the majority which he had, but ten or fifteen more for good measure to show that they really meant that, no matter what other trials and tribulations they might have to put up with in this country, they had no desire any longer to put up with this government. If Mr. King's head is still impervious to the acknowledgment of defeat

and I say this in no. disrespectful way-I would advise him to look at the wreckage which remains of the government. I am not speaking of them personally; I am speaking of them as a government. As I said recently at London, the present remnant has no more resemblance to the jaunty group who went to the polls on October 29 than Coxey's army would have to the Governor General's foot-guards. So that in face of all these proofs the government ought certainly to have resigned. I care not so much for the legal aspect of the situation; but purely on moral grounds, from the standpoint of the spirit of our constitution,. I say without the slightest hesitation that Mr. King should have resigned. Political honour and dignity demanded this; it was the sportsmanlike attitude for him to have taken. I remember a very unjust attempt which was made in this House and in the country as well after the elections of 1921 to accuse my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) with having shown a poor spirit in losing. The taunt that he was a poor loser became more or less a byword in Liberal newspapers; in the country and even in this House. Well, unjust as that imputation was, I submit that Mr. King has proved himself beyond any question a poor loser by refusing to resign

Government's Right to Office
when the circumstances made it so abundantly clear that this was the only course open to him. He has shown an absolute disregard of the will of the people, and I submit that the will of the majority of the people of the country is the pivotal principle of our government. Mr. King has shown a flagrant violation of the spirit and of the traditions of our parliamentary system.
I read once a statement of Justin McCarthy, that a statesman might rise as he would but that he should fall with dignity. I will not say anything about Mr. King's rise, but I do say that his fall has been anything but dignified. Indeed, his fall has been not only most undignified but, worse than that, it has been exceedingly humiliating to all those who have a great respect for the high position of Prime Minister in this country. I say therefore that Mr. King should have resigned without any reluctance; this is what he would have done had he desired to live up to the spirit of the law and to play the game with that dignity which should characterize one holding so eminent a position as that of Prime Minister.
I wish for a moment or two to refer to the much-discussed question of precedent. I do not intend to deal with that aspect of the situation in anything like the exhaustive manner in which it was presented by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), and by my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen). The speeches of these three gentlemen on the subject were a lucid contribution to the discussion of the constitutional point. I shall refer to the matter, however, rather in a cursory way. My hon. friend the Solicitor General, who was backed up by other speakers, mentioned two precedents of governments having met parliament without the Prime Minister in his place. The accuracy of the hon. gentleman's position in this regard has been questioned, but I shall not dispute it myself. He went back for his precedent, so far as the British practice is concerned, to the year 1791, while he took the year 1841 as marking the precedent in our Canadian constitutional history. Well, a great deal of water has flown under the bridge since the year 1791 and even since the year 1841, and I do not think that it helped my hon. friend's argument very much that he was obliged to go back 135 years in British practice and 85 years in the history of the Canadian parliament. I would point out to him that a great many changes have taken place since the precedents to which he has referred, and our parliamentary institutions have developed
considerably in the interval. My hon. friend,
I know, is a student of history and he will therefore remember that just after 1791 in the year 1793, France was in the throes of a revolution which had a marked effect on events in the British Isles. Again, about the year 1829 or 1830, the removal of religious disabilities and the emancipation of religious minorities took place in Great Britain, nearly fifty years after that precedent suggested by the hon. gentleman. I would point out that had it not been for that emancipation neither my hon. friend nor myself would now be sitting in a British parliament at the present time. What I am seeking to illustrate by these incidents is the fact that important advances have been made in our constitutional history. Further, there were the Reform Bills of 1832 and 1867, which wiped out all "rotten boroughs" that had members to which they were not entitled. Those acts gave also the vote very much as we have it to-day. And another important step in advance was made when it was provided that voting should be done by ballot. This was in the year 1871, or eighty years after the British precedent cited by my hon. friend the Solicitor General. Finally, so far as Canada is concerned, twenty-six years after the establishment of the Canadian precedent mentioned by my hon. friend, confederation was achieved. My hon. friend, it seems to me. found it veiy difficult indeed to establish his case when he had to go so far back to discover any precedent which could compare at all with the present action of Mr. King and his government.
I do not like reading quotations, for they are rather dull; but one or two which I have here are so pointed that I shall venture to give them to the House, especially as they are brief. Lord Bryce, than whom no better authority can be found, has been quoted several times during this debate, and I shall quote him once more. Writing in Modern Democracies of our Canadian Cabinet he says:
If the ministers dissolve and the election goes against them they resign forthwith and a new government is formed.
According to Lord Bryce, therefore, the government in the present situation should have resigned without delay. Let me quote further from The Development of Modern Europe by James Robertson, Professor of History, and Charles Beard, Professor of Politics, in Columbia university. At page 196 of volume 2 there appears the following:
That when a ministry ask for a dissolution and go to the country the return of a majority of members in favour of the continuance of the policy is taken as a justification for retaining office. On the other hand
12*2

Government's Right to Office
a failure to obtain a majority is the signal for the resignation of the entire ministry and the transference of power to their opponents.
Let me now quote from that grand old man, Mr. Gladstone, in a speech delivered by him in 1874, I believe. He said:
The mere possession of a parliamentary majority... is no adequate support and no adequate warrant for the continuance of a government in office if it has become clear, or when there is reasonable ground for supposing that the desires of the country are in the opposite direction.
And certainly the country has shown that there is reasonable ground for supposing that the will of the people is in the opposite direction to the course now being followed 'by this government.
Further, Mr. Gladstone says:
I am not willing to hold office under any circumstances with a minority either in the House or in the country.
Mr. Gladstone, it will be seen, took very much higher ground than the position now held by hon. gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches in this House. And now I should like to quote very briefly from my good friend the Solicitor General, who is always interesting. In a speech he made in the House on March 3, 1921, as reported at page 533 of Hansard of that year he said:
The Liberal principle, as expounded by my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), has always been the same; it has never varied, and that principle is that the government should remain in power not merely so long as it is supported by a majority of the House of Commons, but so long, and only so long, as that majority in the Commons is an exact reflection of the opinion in the country at large.


Lucien Cannon: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: I thank the Solicitor General for his applause, but I rather think that it is given more for friendship's sake than from conviction, because he has taken an absolutely opposite ground in this debate.


Lucien Cannon: That speech, if I remember rightly, was made when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) as Prime Minister was clinging to office when the country wanted him to get out.


Robert James Manion: The speech in question was made when the leader of the opposition was clinging to office with a majority behind him in this House of from 25 to 35. The motion, to an amendment to which my hon. friend was speaking, an amendment moved by his own leader in the House at that time, was supported by a majority of from 25 to 35. I have forgotten the exact figure but I could easily ascertain it. So that what my hon. friend says is not apropos at the moment.


Frank S. Cahill: What was the result of the election that followed that session?


Robert James Manion: Let me reply to my hon. friend by asking him another question. What is the result of the election just gone by? With all my hon. friends' perspicacity they could not foresee in 1921 what the result of the then forthcoming election would be; but the world knows beyond any doubt what the result has been of the election which we have just had in this country. The Prime Minister and his associates have been told to get out of office. I have no desire at all to be vulgar in any sense, but really it should be sufficient among gentlemen to show a man the door without having to kick him downstairs.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going higher still -perhaps not higher-I doubt it, I am not sure it is going higher, but I am going to quote the leader of my hon. friend the Solicitor General on the very same question. This is a year previous, but I will quote him on the same debate in a moment. By the way, I could- quote the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) who is not in the House at the moment, but my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) quoted him so well that I was rather annoyed that he used up a good deal of my material. I do not intend to repeat it, but I quote the Prime Minister himself. I am quoting from the unrevised Hansard of March 1, 1920, at page 33; the paging may be slightly different in the revised edition. Mr. King was speaking then of the absence from the House for the moment, or for a short time, of the right hon. ieader of our government at that time, Sir Robert Borden. Sir Robert Borden was sick in bed during part of that time at least, and this is the statement the Prime Mlinister made:
If we are to restore the deliberative aspect of this assembly, ministers should be in their seats in the House where they can answer the questions put to them in regard to public business.
He goes on:
The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) should be in his seat to answer questions with regard to matters of policy.
I was pleased to hear in this! House yesterday some hon. gentleman, I think it was the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassal, say some kindly words of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden. I am always pleased to hear such appreciative remarks, because I had the honour of sitting here under his tutelage for some four years, and I have never seen in our parliamentary life a higher type of citizen than the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden. I noticed that my hon. friends on the other side of the House, including the Minister of Jus-

Government's Right to Office
tice, are very much more reasonable in quoting him and accepting Sir Robert's dictum to-day than they ever were when he was in power.


Lucien Cannon: That is always the case.


Robert James Manion: Of course. Mr. King goes on:
The ministers should be here so that they can answer questions.
%
Later he says:
What are the consequences of the frequent absences of the Prime Minister? One is the rumour that the Prime Minister has either conditionally or absolutely tendered liis resignation; that he has no intention whatever of returning to parliament or of occupying a seat in this House.
Now history repeats itself! Then he goes on and points! out the fact that at that time there were some seven ministers absent from the House, including the Prime Minister, who was ill. But at the present time there are nine ministers absent from the House. He continues:
Now it is rumoured that the Prime Minister himself is to go. Why, Sir, that is a small ministry all in itself-
That is, seven, including the Prime Minister who was ill. He said a little later:
While the government has been indifferent in the regard mentioned, it lias been equally indifferent so far as the deliberative nature of this assembly is concerned, in withdrawing ministers to the other chamber where they are beyond questioning altogether.
'this is really amusing. He continues:
We have at the present time in the Senate no less than three ministers holding portfolios, the Minister of Labour,-
This government has not a Minister of Labour at all at the present time.
-the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-
He is also in the other House now.
-and the Postmaster General.
So is he in the other House now.
In times like this, of all times, the minister who holds the portfolio of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment should be in this House where he can be questioned, and so should the Minister of Labour.
Well, the late Minister of Labour cannot very well be here because he went down with fourteen thousand of a majority against him in Toronto. Further he says:
We should have a cabinet that will represent in a rough fashion the various important considerations of race, religion, economic interest and provincial right and concern.
An then follows:
The province of Nova Scotia has no representative in the cabinet; the province of New Brunswick has no representative in the cabinet; the province of Prince Edward Island has no representative in the cabinet.
That is to say, something like three million of the people of this country are without any representation in the government, so far as their province is concerned.
He exaggerated to get the three million, but now there are probably four or five million without representation in the government. There are over three million in Ontario alone without such representation. Then he continues:
How in the face of a situation like that can we longer talk about representative government in this country? Why is there no representation here? The answer is plain. The people have lost faith in the government and the government have lost faith in the people,-
How well that applies to-day! And we were in a majority of 26.
-and yet hon. gentlemen opposite would have us believe they are carrying on representative government in this country.
Then he moved-I shall not read it-a resolution of want of confidence in the government of that day, a resolution which in every particular would fit the government to-day.
. I am going to quote the same right hon. gentleman's remarks in the following year. I regret giving so many quotations but these are so apropos that they are worth placing before the House. Speaking on the same subject, on February 15, 1921, a year later, also on an amendment moved by him of want of confidence in our government, which amendment was defeated by 116 to 91-we had a majority of 25-this is what he said:
By what right, by what authority, do my right hon. friend-
Speaking of my right hon, leader.
-and the members of his ministry presume to carry on the government of this country?
Then he went on to explain the writ of quo warranto of the time of Edward II, and enumerated twelve of our ministers who had left the government for one cause or another -a number of them having died-from 1917 to 1921. But that number included men like the Hon. Frank Cochrane, who was dead, the Hon. A. L. Sifton, who was also dead, and some who had resigned and were still supporting us, as for example Hon. T. W. Crothers, Hon. Martin Burrell, Hon. A. K. Maclean-who was later appointed to the judiciary-Hon. S. C. Mewbum, who is now in his seat behind my right hon. leader-a gentleman who is a decoration to any party. Including all those, there were only twelve who were missing, and he gives that as his reason why that government had not the confidence df the people. I have made it my business to check up the number of ministers who took office in 1921,
Government's Right to Office

but who are not in the government to-day, and I find there are seventeen absentees, one and a half times as many as there were from our government at that time.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will allow me-in order to be fair again, to complete the argument, the hon. gentleman might state how many ministers withdrew and how many new ministers came in on the eve of the election of 1921, when m.y hon. friend himself became a minister.


Robert James Manion: But that was a later
time; I am not choosing the time for the gentleman who calls himself the Prime Minister now. He was speaking in February 1921. I was not in the cabinet, neither was my good friend to my right from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), the hon. member for Frontenae, the hon. member for Calgary, and a number of others. I am not going ahead of the right hon. gentleman, I am giving his own words against himself, because every one of them is a quotation against himself. He speaks of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. and says:
He recognized the rights of the people as superior to those afforded his government under the constitution.
So do we recognize the rights of the people as superior to this government or any other government. The rights of the people are supreme. As I stated, the people are the highest tribunal in the land. Then he talks about the by-elections, and points out that my good friend from Victoria (Mr. Tolmic) and one or two others who happened to be in the cabinet, had been returned by reduced majorities, and he gives that as terrible proof of lack of confidence in the government of that day. He says:
Take the case, first, of by-elections of ministers. We all know that constituencies normally are gratified to see their members made ministers of the crown. It requires a strong wave of popular indignation to defeat a minister; usually his return is by acclamation.
Nine of his ministers were defeated at this very election!


An hon. MEMBER:: It was a blizzard.


Robert James Manion: Indeed it was a blizzard.
Then he goes on:
Let me ask him what is bolshevism other than the usurpation of government by a group, through some act of violence which defies the laws, usages and customs which constitutional procedure has devised to preserve representative institutions? So long as the consequences, in robbing the people of their rights are the same, it matters but little what the method employed may be. The only fundamental difference between the usurpation of the powers of popular gov-
ernment in Russia and its usurpation by the present administration in Canada, is that in Russia physical violence has been the instrument used by the usurpers to effect their purpose, while in Canada it has been legislative violence.
In Canada at the present time I do not think it is even legislative violence, I think it is effrontery that allows the right hon. gentleman to continue as Prime Minister after he has been disowned as he has been by the people of this country. One other quotation and I am finished:
We know that there are rights under the law, that there are powers under the constitution; these we are prepared to concede to the limit. But is there ho such thing in our national economy as public morality? Is there nothing binding in conscience and in honour between those who rule a people and those who have permitted them to rule?
And he moved this amendment:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's' present advisers do not possess the confidence of this House or of the country, and that their retention of office constitutes a usurpation of the powers of popular government.
And yet when the vote was taken on that .we had a majority of twenty-five. In view of the fact that Mr. King understands so thoroughly, as he proved by that statement, tlm principle of majority rule, I submit that it is a brazen contempt of the popular will, the will of the majority, to take the action which he has taken, and it is equalled only by the open contempt which he has shown for our parliamentary institutions. I say that such actions, and I say this in all sincerity, where the people of a country have condemned the Prime Minister and he yet insists on retaining office in this country, endanger our whole parliamentary institutions; they lower the whole tone of our public life, they lessen the people's confidence in government, and nourish and foster dissatisfaction, unrest and bolshevism. I well remember an incident which bears very closely on this case which occurred in the parliament of 1917 to 1921. In the hurry I have not looked up the actual facts, but these were the facts in rough: One of the ministers in our then government, the late Mr. Sifton, in a discussion that arose in the House made the statement that there were times when the parliament of Canada was superior to the people, when parliament was right and the people were wrong, and I well remember one of the present ministers, then one of the prominent leaders of the opposition-I am quite certain it was the Minister of Justice, the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe)- rising in his place and fairly flaying Mr. Sifton for what he called his reactionary Tory doctrine. I submit, Sir, that it was reaction-

Government's Right to Office
ary doctrine, because I am one of those who believes in the rule of the majority, but I think that the most reactionary doctrine is being carried out to-day by Mr. King and the members of his government who have advised him to take this course.
I want to point out to my hon. friends to my left that the question before us is not a question of policy at all. It is a question of government of the people, by the people, and for the people, as was so well expressed by President Lincoln. It is a question of majority rule that is before the House, and my friends to my left, who unfortunately-I say unfortunately with no disrespect; I mean the situation has unfortunately been forced upon them -have the deciding vote. They have to decide whether they will uphold majority rule in this country, or whether they will advise the turning back of the parliamentary clock, reversing the principle of democracy, and doing injury to those advances for which our forefathers sacrificed for over seven or eight hundred years. I want to point out to them what I said in my opening remarks, that this whole Speech from the Throne is a bid for their support. I have no particular quarrel with Mr. King's appeal in that Speech for Progressive support although I do not think it is very dignified, taking all the circumstances into consideration, but I have no quarrel with that except to point out to my hon. friends that Mr. King has promised them very many things in the past which he has never carried out. We have heard the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss MacPhail), the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael), and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell), point out many promises which Mr. King made to them and never carried out. I say here that no prime minister in the whole history of our country ever made so many promises and broke so many promises as the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. The hon. member for Mackenzie mentioned the single transferable vote. The Prime Minister also made the promise of virtual free trade in many of the lines of production in this country. He gave his promise again and again that he would complete the Hudson Bay railway, and finally we had his promise- and these are all repeated in the Speech from the Throne-that the natural resources would be returned to the province of Alberta. I have in my hand an editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press, which is certainly no supporter of ours, two columns wide and the full length of the paper giving a list of the different occasions on which Mr. King has promised to return to the prairie provinces
their natural resources and lias flouted his promise when it came to the test. So I hope my hon. friends to my left, if they can be swayed at all by promises, which I hope they cannot be, will remember the broken promises of Mr. Mackenzie King, and I hope they will remember as well the criticisms which he made of them at various points out through the west, not the least of which was his suggestion that the $4,000 indemnity was more important to them than the honour of public life. I wish to quote another statement of Mr. King, taken from the Calgary Herald of October 2, 1925. Speaking of the Progressive party he is reported as follows:
Whatever usefulness the Progressives might have had, Mr. King believed that usefulness was at an end. He admitted their motives might have been right, but their methods were wrong. They adopted too much of the "holier than thou" attitude, and though they attacked the system of party caucuses they themselves had found it necessary to adopt the same means for discussing their policies.
I have recollections of much more severe criticisms of the Progressives than that from the Prime Minister, but since I cannot produce them, I do not wish to quote them from memory. But my hon. friends know that Mr. King attacked them, and attacked them severely. He seemed to be a believer in that old Scotch song, "0 Whistle an' I'll come to ye my lad". He thinks all he has to do is to whistle, and he will bring back the Progressives to support him in this House. The suggestion has been made by him, and not only by him, but in the press, that the $4,000 indemnity was of more importance to the members of this House than the honour of this House, than upholding parliamentary principles. I think the nlembers of this House on all sides and in all parties and groups should vindicate the honour of the House. We members of parliament are on trial before the people of this country at the present time, and the only way in which we can absolve ourselves from guilt is to show that we place first of all parliamentary rule based on the will of the majority. That is the only way in which we can carry out our honest duty as representatives of the people. Otherwise we are acting irregularly; we are not true to our oath of office, we are not true to our constituents, we are not true to our traditions, not true to the land we love.


Lucien Cannon: I agree with my hon. friend as to the rule of the majority, but if the Progressive vote be against his own party, where is the majority?


Robert James Manion: It does not matter what the Progressive vote is at all, the rule remains exactly the same. The people were the ones

Government's Right to Office
who ruled. They are the highest tribunal in this land. They were consulted, and they condemned this government.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: May I interject to the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) that the byelections of which the Prime Minister boasted in the speech quoted by my hon. friend were the b.v-elections which the then government lost, but which the Progressives won, and where Liberal candidates were ignominiously defeated.


Lucien Cannon: Coming back to my question-


Arthur Meighen: You do not like that.


Lucien Cannon: I was discussing a question with my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion), not with his leader. I say that the people have only one means of expressing their views, and that is through their representatives in parliament.


Robert James Manion: They have another means, and they expressed their views, and expressed them emphatically, on October 29. That is the whole sum and substance of my argument, and my hon. friend the Solicitor General sees it too plainly; his acute mind gets it only too well, and he is trying to befuddle the issue. The majority of the people of this country condemned this government on October 29, and that is the majority that should be obeyed.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: My hon. friend has stressed very strongly the question of majority rule. Will he explain what he means by majority ride? Does he mean the plurality vote against the policy of the Conservative party, or is he referring to the vote taken in this House?


Robert James Manion: We do not know anything about the plurality vote yet, except that it was against this government. It was the government that was on trial.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The plurality vote was 218,000 against the policy of the Conservative party.


Robert James Manion: Even disregarding the
Progressives altogether we had 200,000 more votes than my hon. friends opposite, so that if it gets down to the question of a plurality of votes we beat my hon. friends by a round vote of nearly a quarter of a million.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: You have to
take the whole vote; you cannot put the Progressives to one side.


Frank S. Cahill: You cannot overlook the
Progressives because they are here.


Robert James Manion: But the people of Canada were the people who voted. I am speaking of the vote that was cast on October 29; that was the real test of the sentiment of the people of this country.
I was going on to say that I have faith and confidence in the spirit of justice and fair play of all the hon. members in this House who are not blinded by partisan motives. The only men who probably are in an independent, an absolutely independent position, to-day, are my hon. friends to my left, and I believe sincerely that they will maintain the rights of the people. That is my belief because that is t'he only way that we as members of this House can hold up our heads and work with a knowledge of duty honestly and honourably performed. This parliament is guarding the democratic traditions which we believe in and it is our duty to live up to and to support that guardianship. I appeal to my hon. friends on the high ground of a fine Canadianism- that is the ground I appeal on. Because, as the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) well said wealth alone, money, anything of that sort does not enure to the real profit of the people. What we really want is honour, justice and right in our country. That is the ground on which I appeal to my hon. friends on the left and on that ground I am confident of the response they will make. I know hon. gentlemen to my left. I have had relations with them, as have hon. gentlemen opposite, for something over four years. I have found them fair and honourable, and I have always had respect for their opinions. Although we might differ in our views I have always found that they looked at questions from the standpoint of Canadians just as the rest of us did, that they generally regarded questions from that idealistic, fairminded and honourable standpoint. Let them support us, as they should support us, on the best ground in the world, the ground of majority rule, and they are assured of fair play from the government formed of hon. members on this side which will come into power when the existing government, so-called, disappears.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: No doubt hon. gentlemen opposite laugh at that statement because they have laughed at every promise they have made to hon. gentlemen to my left. And if my hon. friends of the Progressive party support hon. gentlemen opposite now they will laugh again at the promises they have made to them in the Speech from the Throne if they are allowed to continue.

Government's Right to Office
I live in the city of Fort William; I live at the head of the lakes. There is no section of the country, outside the prairie provinces themselves, which is more dependent upon the progress and prosperity of the west than the city of Fort William and the city of Port Arthur from which my hon. friend (Mr. Langworthy) comes. We are dependent on the prosperity of the west, we want the west to prosper. Therefore as a supporter of the right hon. leader of the opposition I will back them in getting justice and fair play in all cases which are fair to the rest of this country. So that I shall not be misunderstood by anybody in this House, let me say . that due to the geographical shape of the country, due to the manner in which the population is grouped, we must have compromise in Canada. Compromise, after all, is the essence of democracy. If we want unity, and confidence and enlightenment in this country we have got to compromise; and my hon. friends from the prairie provinces have to compromise on some questions. Whether they are dealing with hon. gentlemen opposite or hon. gentlemen on this side they have to adopt some compromise and they will get justice, right, and fair play honestly and honourably administered from this party in preference to the other because they have had experience of how hon. gentlemen will act and it is only fair that they should treat now with the party to which I belong.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish-Guysbor-ough):: Are you making a bid now?


Robert James Manion: No, I am not making a
bid. The policy I am advocating is based on the high plane of Canadianism. So far as making bids is concerned we have not come out in this House as hon. gentlemen opposite have with absolute bids, or told what we will do in the case of the Hudson Bay railway or other projects. We have not done anything like that. We regard hon. gentlemen to my left as high-minded Canadians who are looking at this question from the standpoint of true Canadianism first. That is the attitude we are taking.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Apparently my remarks
are making some hon. gentlemen opposite
uneasy.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh no! do not flatter
yourself.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends opposite
are not so sure of themselves as they were a couple of days ago. Hon. gentlemen to my
left are listening to the arguments of the different speakers. They are judging the arguments presented and judging them fairly and well. There is no doubt how they will vote.
I rvas going to say when I was interrupted that some Progressive members, I know from their speeches, have been Liberals in the past, and they may fear they would' be betraying friends to support us. There have been other occasions in this country when those who had been Liberals in the past placed country before party and supported the group on this side, and they have never had any occasion to regret giving that support. I ask hon. gentlemen to my left to work on the same high principle that influenced those who took such a stand at that time. I am sure they will. Not only that. When they look at the groups in this House-I say this without any disrespect to any of my hon. friends on the government side; I say it with all respect for them-they must find the group which surrounds me to be the most representative one. In it there are men representing agriculture, men representing industry, men representing the professions, men representing every walk of life. Such are the men this group is made up of, outstanding men; and, I repeat, in all respects representative. a In addition this group has a leader who lives up to his words; a leader whose brilliancy, honesty, sincerity and loyalty to his friends has never been questioned even by his worst opponents; a man who is really a great Canadian; a man who knows the affairs of this country from A to Z. Let my hon. friends give their support to and get fair treatment from the group on this side of the House, who believe in treating them fairly and honestly and not in refusing to live up to the promises which they have made. That is the only way whereby we can bring back to this country that stability of legislative machinery, that stability of business and industry, that stability of our whole national life which is so much needed. We can only build up a great nation by living up to the ideals for which our forefathers fought for hundreds of years. We have in Canada a magnificent heritage, a country of great potentialities. Let my hon. friends to my left look at this question absolutely from the standpoint of idealism, from the standpoint of Canadianism, from the standpoint of parliamentary institutions, from the standpoint of democracy. If they do this there is only one way in which they can vote, and they can depend upon fair and generous treatment on every question which may come before the House.

Government's Right to Office
Mr. ,1. L. BROWN (Lisgar): Mr. Speaker, after the fervid oratory of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) my first remark may seem to be a descent from the sublime to the ridiculous. But I wish to ask the hon. gentleman this question: in the event of our accepting the invitation that has been given us to co-operate with him and his friends: what relation would exist between them and us? Would it be that morganatic alliance that was spoken of by Hon. Mr. Baxter?


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman has
asked me a question. Would he permit me to answer?


Mr. BROWN:: Yes.


Robert James Manion: The relation existing between his party and ours would be exactly the same relation as that existing between his party and hon. gentlemen opposite if they support them.


John Livingstone Brown: It is perhaps unfortunate.
Mr. Speaker, that this debate has not been confined to the issue that is clearly and definitely and naturally before the House. It is clear to me that the discussion should not have been on the sins of omission or commission of the government, and we may admit that there are mfftiy-perhaps more sins of omission than sins of commission-and some of us have had no hesitation in stating both in parliament and in the campaign which took place, that there were such sins of omission. But the discussion in this House at the present time is not concerning the sins of the present government. Neither is the discussion on the future policies of the government, or any alternative policies that may be offered to us by the opposition, for we are not yet discussing the Speech from the Throne. If we should reach the Speech from the Throne, it would then be in order to discuss the policies advanced by the government and the alternative policies which might be advanced by the opposition. This is not a question of whether it is good politics or bad politics. The government has been told in a speech from this side of the House that it was bad policy. That may be. The future will prove it erne way or the other. It is not a question whether it was dignified or undignified on the part of the government to pursue the course they have pursued. The whole question, as declared by the opposition, has been the constitutionality of procedure, and I think if we had kept our minds clearly on that point we might have saved ourselves a great deal of difficulty. However, since others have wandered beyond that field, perhaps I may be

forgiven for some slight digressions, and I will deal with the constitutional aspect very briefly, not from the standpoint of a lawyer, but by setting forth some of the difficulties in which we might find ourselves in coming to a decision in regard to voting for or against the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen).
Before dealing with this question I would like to make some references to two or three things that have been said in the progress of the debate. I suppose if I were to make the bald statement that the right hon. leader of the opposition and some of his supporters have made absolutely contradictory statements in regard to certain matters, I would be met with an unqualified denial, but I am going to show the House that in one particular the right hon. gentleman and some of his lieutenants have made contradictory statements. I wish to call attention particularly to a speech delivered in this House yesterday by the hon member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and I quote from that speech. At page 88 of Hansard, the hon. member, in making a statement as to the reason for the introduction of this amendment, said:
This method would have given the House the usual opportunity of discussing the Address, and it would have giveu the opposition the opportunity which has always been afforded of moving any amendment they might see fit to propose. It is said, and it has been said to me by some Progressive members, "Why did you not wait for the discussion of the Address?" We did not wait because the government tried to trick us in the matter; it tried to steal a march on us; it tried to spring a motion which it had no right to make inasmuch as such a motion must be preceded by notice. Then having defeated them in their object we could take no chances as to the government's next move. So on the first opportunity which offered, my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) moved the present amendment. Under the circumstances I say that ha was absolutely right in doing so. I quite agree with the hon. member for Kindersley that this discussion might better have taken place on the discussion of the Speech from the Throne, and it would have taken place on that occasion had the government not attempted to trick us out of our opportunity.
I quote also from the remarks from the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell), who spoke last night, perhaps not so clearly or distinctly, but to the same purpose, on page 105 of Hansard. He said:
The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) complained last night, and rightly complained, about the failure to debate the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne before taking up this amendment to the motion of confidence. May I remind him that the reason for this is the very obvious one that the acting government was simply attempting to secure a snap vote of confidence before the Address could be reached.
Those two supporters of the right hon. leader of the opposition have stated that this

Government's Right to Office
amendment was brought in because the government tried to trick us into a snap vote, and yet that the right hon. gentleman on the first day of the session said:
When I say that we on this side of the House received no notice of the government's intention, I make a statement that I am sure will occasion no surprise.
They received1 no notice of the government's intention, and yet we found on our desk when the House opened this document which reads:
The following motion will be made by Mr. Meighen at the first available opportunity.
And then we go a little further to show what the intention was in the matter. Quoting from the right hon. leader of the opposition, we find the following:
Had the government followed the order of pro-ct*dure which they followed four years ago at the opening of the last parliament, and which they notified me in writing they would follow to-day, I would have moved that amendment to that item of business appearing as number six in this preliminary order paper handed to me by the officers of the House.
That states plainly and definitely that it was his intention to move that amendment at a particular time. Perhaps I might offer the suggestion that the leader of the opposition take the member for South Wellington and the member for West Hamilton into his room and have them rehearse their speeches, lest they contradict one another and himself. These are some of the things which cause us to hesitate to accept absolutely the opinions of legal gentlemen in some of these matters, however eminent these gentlemen may be.
I wish to refer again to the remarks of the hon. member for South Wellington. He said: We have been asked, as I said, to treat this question seriously, earnestly. If this government so intends us to treat this question, the government itself lias made a very bad start. The start was made when the Speech from the Throne was prepared. That speech was a deliberate attempt on the part of the government to prejudice the question in the first instance. The Speech from the Throne is little short of a pre-election manifesto, full of allurements, inducements, blandishments, to wave before the eyes of the Progressive and Independent members of this House.
To those of us who sat in the last House that is very ifamiliar language. We heard the same thing when the Speech from the Throne was brought down in 1924. On the one hand the government was accused of offering blandishments to the Progressives, and on .the other we were said to be howling for reforms. That was the word of the leader of the opposition himself. He said that whatever reforms we did get were in response to the howls of the Progressives. I had the pleasure of welcoming the leader of the opposition to my constituency during the past summer. My con-14011-9
etituency contains one of the beauty spots of Manitoba, and the Conservatives of the whole surrounding district very wisely decided to call the people together on that occasion. I attended, because naturally I wanted to hear what would be said, and I acknowledge the courtesy that was extended1 to me. I was given a seat on the platform, and I wish to acknowledge also the fact that while I listened to the speech delivered that day, I was furnished with enough campaign material to win the election. So I want simply to ask:	When
did it become an offence for a government to present to parliament a programme that might be thought to be acceptable to parliament? We have heard something about bidding for support. This was repudiated by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett); but I shall speak only of the public bids that have been made for support, for while the hon. member on the one hand repudiated the idea of bidding for Progressive support, what was the meaning of the conclusion of the speech of the hon. member for South Wellington when, speaking of the Progressives, he said:
They will occupy the same dominant position in the councils of this House as they do to-day, and if a new government were formed and legislation satisfactory to them introduced and proceeded with, there is no reason why such a government should not continue to the end of the parliamentary term. But the Progressives have this safety valve. Should legislation be introduced not acceptable to them, then on account of the peculiar position which they occupy, they would have the remedy in their own hands.
That is clearly a bid for support, but I have no objection to either party putting before us the claims which they have to advance.


James Dew Chaplin: A legitimate
bid.


John Livingstone Brown: Yes, that is a legitimate bid, and it is just as legitimate for the government to present a programme that may be thought acceptable to parliament.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
argues that as a bid for support. What could come to the Progressives by virtue of that bid that certainly would1 not come to them if the bid were never made?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: It is not a bid; it is a statement of fact.


John Livingstone Brown: A statement of that kind,
when coupled with the assurance that they would' be able to carry on for five years without another election, is undoubtedly a bid. On the question of bids for support, I do not know that it would be well for members of the opposition to press this matter too far. It is no dishonour nor any reason for con-



Government's Bight to Office
demning a government that it presents to parliament a programme that is acceptable to parliament. One is only confusing the issue and introducing irrelevancies by wandering in a direction of that kind.
The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) threw a boquet to the hon member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) about the Hudson Bay railway. We know the attitude of the hon. member for 5 p.ra. Queens-Lunenburg, and to show that we are entirely impartial in this matter, I would like to hand a bouquet to the hon. member for South Oxford' (Mr. Sutherland). The hon. member for South Oxford was also at this picnic at Rock lake and he wTas making a very fine address, much milder than we have been accustomed to listen to from him in parliament. In the course of his address one of my constituents shot at him the question: "What about the Hudson Bay railway?" That staggered him for a little while, but finally he came through with this: "The feasibility of that route was proven a hundred years ago." I smiled. I did1 not dare talk.


Mr. DUFF:: You did not quite believe him? That is the reason you smiled?


John Livingstone Brown: I believed it, but I took the opportunity, after the speaking was over, to go to the hon. member for South Oxford and say: "Mr. Sutherland, you did that very well for a man who sat up all night to vote against the Hudson Bay railway," for it will be recalled that on a certain occasion when a vote was taken, a vote which, by the way, the government considered a vote of want of confidence in themselves, only two members of the party to my right were in this House, the hon. member for South Oxford and the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), and they both voted against the Hudson Bay railway.


Mr. FORKE:: And confidence in the government.


John Livingstone Brown: And, by the way, confidence in the government. These were some of the funny things that I was able to tell my constituents during the election campaign, and there are some others.
I shall deal very briefly with the constitutional situation as it appears to us to-day. When I came down to the House, I had my mind absolutely and completely made up on the question of constitutionality. After listening to the address delivered by the hon. member for West Calgary, I confess he elaborated a point that had been introduced by the

leader of the opposition and that had not previously occurred to me, that is the relation of the Prime Minister to parliament and the proceedings of parliament. One cannot help admiring the eloquence and fervour with which that point of view was emphasized. The rapidity of utterance of the hon. member for West Calgary and the distance which I was removed from him prevented me from following his argument in toto, and I have not been able to read his speech since. But in the main we recognize the point that has been raised-the place of the Prime Minister in relation to the government and the question whether the government can function in parliament as a government. I confess I have had to give very serious consideration to that point since it introduces a question that I had not previously considered. But I would have attached perhaps more importance to the argument if it had not been encumbered as it was all the way through with irrelevancy. On both sides, I admit, things have been dragged into the debate that were irrelevant, I always feel that the strength of a case is vitiated if, after one strong argument in its favour has been presented, other weaker arguments are introduced. I recall the story of a British admiral who visited a certain port and who was very much annoyed when the commander of the port did1 not receive him with the regulation number of guns. He called him on board the ship and made a most emphatic protest. "Well, sir," said the port commander, "I -had nineteen good reasons for not firing the salute. The first was-I had no powder." Well, there need be no others. If the argument as to the right of the government to function in this House is so sound, I think the case would have been strengthened if -much of this discussion had been left out. There can be no doubt about that. I admit there is force in the point that has been raised. But there is another point in this amendment that must also be considered. I refer to the following paragraph:
That the party represented in the last parliament by His Majesty's opposition secured in the sa-id election by far the largest support in the popular vote, and has substantially the largest number of members of any party in the present House of Commons.
A great deal of discussion has taken place on the question of the majority in the country' and what conclusions can be properly drawn from the results of the election. My contention is that no valid conclusion can be drawn from those results if we think only of the popular vote or of the number of members who were elected. If this is the only consideration there is simply no basis on which)

Government's Right to Office
to form a conclusion. Let us take the constituencies themselves. I know pretty well what the situation is in my own constituency; I know what the result means. But I can form no opinion as to what the vote meant in many of the other constituencies in the country because wTe have no means of adequately ascertaining the views of the people in the absence of the alternative ballot. The failure to give to the country the alternative ballot has landed us just in the position we are in to-day. I was compelled on one occasion to make pretty much the same speech in regard to the alternative vote as was made last night by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell). Recognizing therefore the fact that we have no means whereby under such circumstances the people of Canada can give adequate expression to their views, it is obvious that any conclusions we may come to may be invalid. So that numbers mean nothing. Why should it be said that the largest group in the House is entitled to the support of the House? Are numbers the only things to be considered? Surely not. Surely policies and views are to be taken into consideration in the administration of the affairs of the country. Numbers in themselves mean nothing; and if wTe go back over the records of elections in the past, in the United States at any rate,-I am not sure of the facts in relation to this country-we shall find that on more than one occasion the popular vote there was not the vote represented by the administration which was formed following the election. That has happened again and again in the United States, but I should not like to make any assertion in regard to Canada because I might be wrong. If, however, majorities mean anything, then it might be pointed out that if we are to have the people represented by majorities we should have them represented in proportion to the numbers of the elected. And hon. gentlemen to our right have absolutely repudiated the principle of proportional representation. If numbers are to mean anything, and if the argument is valid from the point of view which hon. gentlemen have raised, then let us push that argument to its logical conclusion and say that proportional representation and only proportional representation can give to the country a parliament that would meet the needs of the country and express the will of the people. I therefore put aside altogether the question of numbers; all the debate that has taken place on that point has had no weight in my mind. I have attached no great importance either to the arguments advanced opposite or to the arguments that have been brought forward on this side.
There is another question that must be considered. The argument in regard to numbers has been urged as a reason why the largest party in the House should be entrusted with the government of the country, and we are asked to state clearly and distinctly, and thereby to establish a precedent,, that such a course should be followed. As I see the matter-and I am not now speaking of the relation of the Prime Minister to the House-the situation seems to me to be this: The Prime Minister in the circumstances had the option of following one of at least two courses-although there might have been others. One of these was to advise His Excellency to call upon the leader of the opposition to form a government, which of course would have been perfectly constitutional. I cannot agree with the statement that has been made that in doing so the Prime Minister would have violated anjr trust. There again we have to disagree with hon. gentlemen. And it is the fact that these extreme statements are made on one side and on the other that causes the layman to hesitate. Why should it be considered a violation of trust if the Prime Minister, recognizing the difficulty of the situation and coming to his own conclusions as to what the circumstances indicated, had advised the Governor General to ask the leader of the opposition to form a government? Or why, on the other hand, should it be said that the course he chose to follow was unconstitutional? Either alternative was open to him. Defeated governments have met parliament again and again; why therefore should it be said that up to that point the Prime Minister would have been acting unconstitutionally? It is clear, then, that so. long as the matter is left in that uncertain state the Prime Minister might very well pursue either course. He might be right or wrong from the standpoint of policy; he might be dignified or undignified; he might be doing what was expedient or what was inexpedient: I am not discussing any of those points. But so long as the situation is as it has been in the past; so long as the responsibility is left to the Prime Minister of advising His Excellency the Governor General as to what course he should adopt, I do not see that any objection could be taken in the event of the government's choosing either alternative.
We are asked in the amendment to agree that the party represented in the last parliament by the opposition secured by far the largest support in the popular vote and has now the largest number of members of any party in the House. As a statement of fact this is true; but as a premise for a conclusion

Government's Right to Office
it must be examined very closely. And the conclusion which it seeks to convey is that the party having the largest number of vote3 must of necessity occupy the treasury benches. For my part I should have to weigh that proposition very gravely. It seems to me that if we countenanced that position, in view of the fact that we have groups in parliament and that groups are likely to remain, it would be impossible for these groups to work together in harmony, as a government until one party or the other could obtain a clear majority. For my part, I say, I should have to consider very seriously whether at this juncture we could establish such a precedent. The British constitution, as we know, is a flexible thing, subject to constant change. It is built up of usages and customs and precedent, and if we adopt the course here suggested we should be establishing a precedent which in a measure would be binding upon all future administrations.


Mr. LADNER:: Will the hon. gentleman
give the House the returns for the different candidates in his own constituency?


John Livingstone Brown: Yes. I cannot give all the figures, but Brown, Progressive, was elected over Rowe, Conservative, by a majority of 376.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What were the totals for
the other candidates who were running?


John Livingstone Brown: There were no others. I
said I could interpret that vote for myself. 'The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), not knowing the local situation, may not be able to interpret it; but I have a fairly clear indication in my own mind as to what it means. Therefore I say that the conclusion the hon. member for Vancouver South might draw in regard to that situation might be absolutely wrong, as I am certain it would be.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But if I may say so, it
was the conclusion which other members of this House might wish to draw from the returns of the votes given to the hon. gentleman himself and to his opponents. He has that information?


John Livingstone Brown: I have not the total vote.


James Dew Chaplin: The government did not get any votes in your constituency then?


John Livingstone Brown: You can put that interpretation upon it. Whether it is valid or invalid is the matter I have to decide in view of what I know of the local situation. The

conclusions of other gentlemen, might not be accurate, they not having that local knowledge.
In view of the two constitutional questions which are raised now, you cannot wonder that we should hesitate to pronounce absolutely and definitely in favour of this amendment, because as it seems to me, we might be tying ourselves to a precedent which we would not wish to establish. At the same time I am compelled to recognize the force of the arguments which have been presented so ably by the legal gentlemen in the House. I am not a legal man myself, but I delight to listen to them, and I recognize the full weight of the arguments they have presented. Still there the situation remains. I do not know whether at this time it would be wise for me to say what course I would follow should the amendment be carried, but perhaps I might go so far as to say this:	I
have endeavoured to support that legislation Which I thought 'to be good and just, and to oppose that 'legislation of which I did not approve. I shall dwell upon the matter no further at this time than to say that if this amendment is carried we all know what it means. We know that it means the calling to office of the hon. gentlemen who sit to our right. But though we have had occasion to differ with them on many points, if such a situation should arise, in view of the course I have tried to follow in the past I would have to support them on legislation which appealed to me as worthy of support, and I could only withdraw my support when they introduced legislation which, to my mind, might not come up to that standard. I would have to do that, and that would be the only position I could take in the meantime. Mr. Speaker, again I say that the considerations which have been urged have caused us to weigh very carefully and seriously the whole question which has been placed before us for decision, that is, the responsibility of carrying or defeating this amendment.
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), addressing himself to the Progressive party, said that the Speech from the Throne was a bid for their support. That some hon. member on the side of the government might address himself to the Progressive party, and tell them, rightly or wrongly, that the Speech from the Throne wad a bid for their support I can understand, but I cannot understand the logic of the hon. gentleman who, wishing to have the Progressive party vote against this government, tells them that they have been offered a bid-a

present or something worth while to support the government. As I say, I cannot understand the logic of the hon. gentleman any more than I can understand his reasons for uttering such very Strong and indiscreet expressions this afternoon.
The hon. gentleman says that the government holds out the threat of an election. Well, Mr. Speaker, the government is making no threat of an election. We on this side of the House are not afraid of an election, because I know that a great many hon. members on this side of the House would succeed in being returned to this House just as easily as would the hon. member for Fort William. That is not a consideration. Much less is the indemnity a consideration which should weigh in the minds of hon. members in deciding the question at issue. True it is, in a way, that we are afraid of a general election, but for this reason: This country at the present time needs peace and is not ready for a general election. We do not want an election because we believe it would be contrary to the interests of the country at large. We take that attitude for that reason and that reason alone.
Then my hon. friend says thait parliament is not the highest tribunal of the land. I cannot understand that. He says the people constitute the first tribunal. Well, the people do constitute the first tribunal, but only once every five years, or every time we have an election. After the election is over the people have nothing to do with the direction of national affairs, having by their votes entrusted such direction entirely to parliament. The members of this House are the sole representatives of the people, and constitute the sole tribunal to pass upon all questions coming before them.
I w'ould not dwell upon this issue if it were not that the hon. gentleman has tried to give a lesson from beginning to end to another hon. gentleman just as capable, just as worthy as the hon. member for Fort William himself, if not more so. I refer to the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King.
Now the hon. gentleman asks: But what about the plurality vote or the popular vote? Well, it all depends upon whose ox is gored. You can count the plurality vote in a gr .at many ways. If we had in this country the alternative vote it would be much easier to count the plurality, because then where there were three members running in a single-member constituency, each elector would have two choices, and in that way the wishes of the electors could be better known. But that was not the case in the last election, where we had about eight different programmes before the people of this country, as was stated the
Government's Right to Office
other night by the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), and where, as in the province of Quebec for instance there were no candidates, except one or two, who designated themselves as candidates of the leader of the opposdion, and where in many constituencies in the west there were no Conservative or no Liberal candidates running, and so on. In a case of that kind, Mr. Speaker, I say it is impossible to count the popular vote and say it was in one direction or in another.
Again, is it necessary that any government should have behind it the popular vote in order to govern the country? I say not, and there are innumerable instances in history to demonstrate that it is not necessary for a government to have behind it the popular vote in order to govern. I will give one example only, and that is the case of Ramsay MacDonald, who governed England for ten months, although at the preceding general election he did not secure even one-third of the popular vote.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) says that political honour and dignity should have made the Prime Minister resign. The hon. gentleman should not take it upon himself to use such language unless lie be absolutely sure that he is not mistaken, and unless it be demonstrated to this House in an unmistakable v'ay that the Prime Minister had no right to retain power and convene parliament. The hon. member for Fort William even went further in that connection, and used the word "effrontery". I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is an affront for any hon. member to abuse the Prime Minister of this country, more especially when his charges are not well-founded. What is the charge? The hon. member says to the Prime Minister: You should have resigned; you had no right to convene parliament. I shall not go into the details of that, Mr. Speaker, but I have a witness, and a worthy witness, on the other side of the House in the person of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) who was Minister of Justice in the former administration, and who the other day said in this House in the presence of the hon. member for Fort William-and if that hon. gentleman had been listening to his colleague he could not have failed to hear it-that it was perfectly legal and proper for the Prime Minister to convene parliament andl submit his case to parliament if he chose to do so. But the hon. member for Fort I\ illiam calls it effrontery for the Prime Minister to do so; he calls it political dishonour and an indignity.
Then he went on to say that the Tory party is the most representative group in this

Government's Right to Office
parliament. That is true, and it is not true. If the most representative group means the group that has behind it the greatest number of members, I say yes, it is true. But if the most representative group is the group vdiich can align behind itself the greatest number of members, I say it is not true. Let me give an example: Suppose that we on this side of the House were free traders, and that all the other members of the House who do not belong to the Conservative party were free traders also, but belonging to a different party. On the question of the tariff would anyone say that the Conservative party was the representative party in a case of that kind? Certainly it would not be because the two other parties combined, having the same principles on the question of the tariff, could and would unite against the Conservative party, and in that case they would become the representative party.
Suppose again that it were true, as has been charged against this government so many times, that we were in favour of a lower and lower tariff all the time. We know that the members of the Progressive group are in favour of a lower tariff. Is it not true, therefore, that on that ground we could meet and form the largest group and be the most representative group in the House, although the two groups taken separately would not be as large in numbers as the Tory party?
What is the situation? I quite realize, Mr. Speaker, that it is tedious for the House to listen time and time again to each hon. gentleman giving an exposition of all the facts which have preceded the convening of this parliament, but in order to make one's address intelligible it is necessary to go back a little further than the convening of parliament.
On the 5th of September parliament was dissolved, the election to take place on the 20th of October. At that time, leaving aside the minor parties, we had three large parties in Canada. On the 20th of October the Conservative party came out of the election the largest group, the Liberal party the next largest, and the Progressive party the third largest. At once the Conservative party made the claim that they had won the election, and that the Liberal government must submit to the decision of the people and resign. May I say in passing that these hon. gentlemen have not followed all the time at least the course which they have indicated? When the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) was speaking this afternoon, hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House said they were ready for the vote. But they were not ready for the vote last Friday. After proclaiming for two months that this govern-
ment had usurped power, when on Friday afternoon last the leader of this party in this House rose and asked for a decision on the government's stand in calling parliament, immediately the Conservative party began to hedge and jockey for position; they raised questions of procedure and delayed the proceedings to the stage we have now reached. Taking the admission of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) I say it was perfectly proper for the Prime Minister to convene parliament and not resign. Having in mind the action of the Minister of Justice last Friday afternoon II say that immediately parliament was convened the government chose the opportunity to submit their case and asked parliament to decide whether they should continue in office any longer or not. I maintain that this action was perfectly honest and justifiable on the part of the government, and my hon. friend (Mr. Manion), to say the least, had no reason for abusing the Prime Minister as he did this afternoon, more particularly when the right hon. gentleman is absent from the House.
What is the contention of my hon. friends opposite? It is that the government should have resigned at once. To place in office whom? The Conservative party evidently. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a little problem to submit to the House in that connection, a problem which is very simple and very clear: Supposing the government had resigned immediately after the election, or within a reasonable time-let us say two or three weeks afterwards. Supposing the Tory party had been called by His Excellency to form a cabinet. Parliament would then have been convened, and the two hundred and forty-five members who compose the five or six different parties would have come here and would have been invited to vote confidence or non-confidence in the then government. Supposing further that the Progressive party, whose affiliations and policy are nearer to the Liberal than to the Conservative party, had declared: "We will not support the Conservative party because we do not believe in their policy; the party we want to support is the Liberal party,"-what would be the consequence? The Conservative party would be defeated and another general election would be required immediately. The Progressive party might then have said to the Liberal party: What business had you to resign? Because you resigned we have been deprived of the privilege of expressing our views in this House. As it is we express our views by asking for another general election. Had you remained in power, as it was your duty to do, we would

Government's Right to Office
have supported you. You would have represented the ideas and the policies of the majority of the members of parliament and you would have, been able to carry on. That, Sir, is the situation, just as surely as daylight follows darkness. But the government are held to be wrong because they did not resign. I do not see the logic of it. The policy adopted by them, I repeat, was an honest one. It is now for parliament, composed of the duly elected representatives of the people, to declare whether or not this government should remain in office. It would have been supremely illogical had the government resigned in order to put the Conservative party in office. But the situation, in consequence of the action which the government have taken, now becomes absolutely clear and logical. What do those parties want in whose hands the fate of the government now rests? If they want a Liberal administration they can have it. If they desire a Tory administration it is also their power to obtain it. They could not have had such a choice had the Prime Minister resigned immediately after October 29. and that is why such a course would have been a supreme injustice to the people whom the members here represent and to the nation at large.
What is the. proposition now before the House? It is, if the amendment carries, purely a vote of non-confidence against the government. Is it not a vote of confidence if it does carry. I say no, and1 I repeat:	It is
a vote of non-confidence against the government if it carries, but if it does not carry it is a negative vote that has no meaning. In other words, if it does not carry the government remains in power so long as parliament wants it to remain. The government may then carry on for a day, for a week, for two weeks, for a month or for two months; and let no one forget that the government is always in the hands of parliament. It is and must remain master of the situation. That is why I say it would be illogical, it would be unjust, on the part of hon. members who belong to the Progressive party, to the Independent party, or to the Labour party, or refuse to the government the test to which they are entitled. The government have submitted to the House the Speech from the Throne. Is that satisfactory to parliament, or to the members of the majority, or is it nolt? I say it is satisfactory to hon. gentlemen on this side; but if there is another group of members to whom also it should be satisfactory it is clearly those who compose the Progressive party.
While I am on this point let- me say this:
I have no hesitation in telling my Progressive friends that in the course of the last general election the argument was raised against Liberal candidates in the province of Quebec that we had sacrificed Quebec for the west.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, had sold Quebec.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: Yes, they went
further and said that the Liberal party had been sold to the Progressive party. Those charges were untrue. We disproved them and the people stood by us. They believed then and still believe that the Liberal party has not sold itself to the Progressive party. But there is one thing which hon. gentlemen at the other end of the chamber should not forget. It is that the Liberal party have been generous to them in the past. For example, no less than twenty-six branch railway lines have been built in the west. I believe that some branch lines might have been built in Ontario and Quebec as well. However, I want hon. gentlemen to remember that the old province of Quebec, with its Latin temper, is generous. What we have been seeking in that province-being true and faithful disciples of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and William Lyon Mackenzie King-is the unity of Canada. In order to establish unity and goodwill it was necessary for us to make concessions to other provinces, and we did so. Such has been our conduct during the past four years, and such will be our conduct if we remain in power. Such will be my conduct if we are out of .power. Our motto in Quebec is "Unity and fraternity among all the provinces in this Dominion." And it will be so much the worse for those who raise the flag at times against the province of Quebec. Of course if it is their business to do so, they may do it, but this will not cause our faith to waver. We .will remain in Quebec what we have been for the last, three hundred years; we will work in conjuction with all other people throughout the Dominion in order to achieve what I have just mentioned, namely, unity, goodwill and confraternity in this Dominion. It is with these principles in view that I, for one, during the past four years supported the government, which has given a great deal to the west. I know that they have not done any injustice to the west. And now what do they propose to do? In the same spirit as previously they Say "We have a programme in the Speech from the Throne which should satisfy all the provinces in the Dominion." In the same spirit I, for one, and my colleagues on

Government's Right to Office
this side of the House I hope, as well, will be ready to support the government in carrying out the provisions of the Speech from the Throne and in their efforts to continue the policy of goodwill in this country and satisfaction to all the provinces. But I want to tell my hon. friend that if the government .Is defeated we are relieved of those sacrifices.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Jean-Joseph Denis: My right hon.
friend the leader of the opposition, for whose ability I have the greatest respect, says "hear, hear." The people of the west may ask him what he will promise, but we know that they will not get a low tariff. If they expect a low tariff from the Tory party they will be greatly deceived. I do not say that they will get a low tariff from the present government. What they are going to get is foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne this year. What they got in the past three years was promised in the Speech from the Throne and enacted in the statutes. I am not going to tell my hon. friends that this government has offered all things to all men, but they have offered what they could under the circumstances. The government, being the guardians of the justice which must prevail throughout all the provinces of the Dominion; being the guardians of the rights of the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia, the Maritimes and all other parts of the country, have to equalize the rights of each to determine what they can do for each. They have done this in the Speech from the Throne and I ami satisfied each province is receiving its due share. If any of the provinces are receiving more than their share, I think it must be the provinces of the west.
A very strange argument was presented by the hon. member for Ivindersley (Mr. Carmichael). He said:	"The Conservative
party has been preaching tariff in season and out of season; the Liberal party has been preaching a lower tariff, but they have not given it to the country; therefore in parliament and in legislation the two parties are pretty much the same". He says further, "If I support the Conservative government and they attempt to raise the tariff, we will be here to frustrate that attempt. They number only 116, and! we of the Progressive party will be able to prevent them raising the tariff". I am sorry the hon. member is not in his seat, but I will take care to send him a copy of Hansard to-morrow, because I want him to read my remarks. The hon. member, judging from his speech, apparently thinks that he can make pawns of both parties. If the
Liberal party will give him and his friends the golden apple from the garden of the Hesperides, then they will vote for that party; otherwise they will support the Conservative party-but always with the sword lifted ready to decapitate the Prime Minister and his cabinet if they touch the tariff.
I will say to the right hon. leader of the opposition and to hon. members opposite that there are several members on this side of the House who are in favour of moderate protection. I can say this fearlessly, because three times in three successive elections in the county of Joliette I have been elected on that platform, and if the hon. member for Kindersley thinks that when he raises his sword to decapitate the government he has placed in power he is going to have the support of every member on this side on the tariff issue, he will find he is mistaken. I do not agree with the views of the opposition in some matters, but I am not so far from them in matters of tariff. It is with no shame that I make this declaration. I made it publicly in my election.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The right hon.
leader of the opposition says "hear, hear." Let him ask his own friends in the county of Joliette if at a joint meeting of five hundred people at Crabtree Mills in my own district I did not make the exact statement that I make here to-night. I stated further that in my opinion some of our industries had not enough protection and should be given more protection. After my speech on that occasion some of my opponents came to me and said, "Now you are finished1, and your government is no good." My answer to them was: "A tariff cannot be permanent. At certain periods, say ten or fifteen years or less, the tariff must be adjusted." The tariff was adjusted several times before 1896 and in the general trend the tariff was raised. In the Laurier administration the tariff was adjusted, I think, twice. Under the last administration some adjustment was made, and under the present administration there have been adjustments. And now in the Speech from the Throne the government promise that if continued in power they will have an advisory board to deal with the tariff. Therefore, the question of tariff is one of opportunity. You must study each article manufactured in this country and find out whether or not each manufacturer has or has not the necessary protection to maintain his industry and give it a reasonable profit. I wish again to tell my hon. friends from the west that they will be sorely surprised if they think they are going

Government's Right to Office
to rule the old provinces of Quebec and Ontario on this question of tariff just because we are accused of bidding for power. Personally I am not here for power. I make a declaration which I will carry out in this parliament and it is this: that above the interests of party politics I will always place the interests of the country at large and of my own province in particular. I have been elected on that platform and upon it I intend to stand until my electors change their ideas and defeat me on that platform-but they do not seem (to be in a hurry to do so now, if the majority which I received at the last general election is any indication. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I suggest that the same order be put on the orders of the day.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, January 14, 1926