1926-07-01

REPORTS AND PAPERS

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I desire to table lertain orders in council, P.'C. 1042, 1043, 1044. 1045, 1046 and 1047, asked for yesterday Dy the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King).



PRIVILEGE-MR. LAPOINTE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED IN FORMATION OF MINISTRY

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which vitally affects the rights of this House. My hon. friend who is leading the House has just tabled six orders in council, which I am going to read. The first is P.C. 1042, which is as follows:



P.C. 1042.

[Stage Direction]
29th June, 1926.
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable Arthur Meighen, the Prime Minister, advise that a Commission do issue appointing the Right Honourable 
Arthur Meighen, a Member of the King's Privy Council for Canada, to be Secretary of State for External Affairs and President of the Privy Council-
E. J. Lemaire,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
P.C. 1043 reads as follows:

[Stage Direction]
29th June, 1926.
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation	of	the	Right	Honourable	Arthur
Meighen, the Prime Minister, submit for Your Excellency's pleasure that Mr. William Anderson-Black, be a member of the King's Privy Council for Canada.
E. J. Lemaire,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
P.C. 1044 reads as follows:

[Stage Direction]
29th June, 1926.
The	Committee	of	the	Privy	Council,	on	therecommendation	of	the	Right	Honourable	ArthurMeighen, the Prime Minister, advise that the Honourable Sir Henry L. Drayton, a Member of the King's-Privy Council for	Canada be	Acting Minister of
Finance and Acting Minister of Railways and Canals-
E. J. Lemaire,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
P.C. 1045 reads as follows:

[Stage Direction]
29th June, 1926.
The	Committee	of	the	Privy	Council,	on	therecommendation	of	the	Right	Honourable	Arthur
Meighen, the Prime Minister, advise that the Honourable Hugh Guthrie, a Member of the King's Privy Council for Canada, be Acting Minister of Justice and Acting Minister of National Defence.
E. J. Lemaire,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
P.C. 1046 reads as follows:

[Stage Direction]
29th June, 1926.
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable Arthur Meighen, the Prime Minister, advise that the Honourable Henry Herbert Stevens, a Member of the King's Privy Council for Canada,, be Acting Minister of Agriculture, Trade and Commerce, Customs and Excise and Interior and Acting Superintendent General of Indian Affairs and Acting Minister of Mines.
E. J. Lemaire,
Clerk of the Privy Council..
P.C. 1047 reads as follows:

[Stage Direction]
29th June, 1926.
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the-recommendation of the Right Honourable Arthur Meighen, the Prime Minister, advise that the Honourable R. J. Manion, a Member of the King's Privy-Council for Canada be Acting Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and Acting Minister in charge of the Department of Health, Acting Postmaster General, Immigration and Colonization and Labour.
That the Honourable Sir George Perley, a Member of the King's Privy Council for Canada, be Acting Secretary of State and Acting Minister of Public Works.

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
That the Honourable William Anderson Black, a Member of the King's Privy Council for Canada, be Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
E. J. Lemaire,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
I agree with my hon. friend the acting leader of the House that these are unusual times and unusual conditions-
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon. friend allow me one moment, just on the question of order? I am quite content that this matter should be discussed but I think it should be discussed under some appropriate heading, and that we should not have it under every heading. We had a long discussion lasting for some three hours last night while in committee of Supply;
I did not think it was in order at all, but hon. gentlemen were very anxious to discuss it and the government certainly has not the slightest intention of preventing that discussion. But 1 think my hon. friend will agree that we should have some understanding as to when this question shall be finally discussed. My hon. friend says he is rising to a question of privilege, but he has not yet defined that question.


Ernest Lapointe: You are preventing me.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would have
thought the proper place for this discussion would have been on the orders of the day.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is quite wrong; a question of privilege can be raised at any time, especially on motions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So long as we agree that it is to be raised once and not under every single item.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will see that this is the proper time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: For the enlightenment of the House I might read the following:
In the Canadian House, questions of privilege take a wide range, but it may be stated in general terms that they refer to all matters affecting the rights and immunities of the House collectively, or to the position and conduct of members in their representative character.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would just like to point out to my hon. friend that if he raises this merelj' as a question of privilege he is raising it in such a manner that it cannot be discussed. There is no reply to privilege.


Ernest Lapointe: It will be a question
affecting the privileges of every member of this House, so every member will have the right to speak.


Hewitt Bostock: I had it in mind to tell hon. members who might be interested in the question which is now being raised by the hon, member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) that they have a right to answer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So long as that is understood, I have no objection at all.


Ernest Lapointe: 
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Minister of Justice):: To the objection which has now
been urged by my hon. friend from Quebec East, the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) I have o-nly this to say-that it is of the most technical character, and avoids a broad or general view of the law which appears on the statute books of Canada. The Independence of Parliament Act, as is well known, was placed upon the statute books for the purpose of safeguarding not only the House but members of the House of Commons, and the rights of the electors of Canada in regard to all relations which exist in this chamber, and section 10, one of the well known provisions of that act, provides that a man who is a member of this chamber shall not accept any office from which he shall derive or receive any salary, fee, wages, allowance, emolument, or profit of any kind unless he is prepared to submit himself to his constituents, or to some constituency in this country, for re-election. Such was the object of the enactment and the test in this instance-it is an easy one and will suggest itself to everyone, is:	Do those four or five hon. members

Supply-Formation of Ministry
including myself, who now sit in this chamber as acting ministers come within this prohibition? Do they come within the class mentioned in section 10 of this enactment? Do they receive any salary, fee, wages, emolument, or profit of any kind in connection with the office of acting ministers of the crown?


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish-Guysbor-ough):: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend says "yes" but I state emphatically no.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The order in council does not say
so.


Hugh Guthrie: That is another point
altogether. I say we do not. It is clear to anyone who is willing to stop and consider the matter. But the next section provides- what is the number of the chapter?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Chapter 10,
section 10.


Ernest Lapointe: Chapter 10, sections 10
and 11.


Hugh Guthrie: Section 11 is a special
provision providing for exemption and it
says:
Nothing in the next preceding section shall render ineligible any person holding any office, commission or employment, permanent or temporary, in the service of the government of Canada, at the nomination of the crown, or at the nomination of any of the officers of the government of Canada, as a member of the House of Commons, or shall disqualify him from sitting or voting therein, if by his commission or other instrument of appointment, it is declared or provided-
Now what I submit is, that it is "provided" in these orders in council simply 'by the insertion of the word "acting" minister instead of minister. The insertion of the word "acting" constitutes a clear and emphatic provision.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I ask a question?


Hugh Guthrie: Well, I do not like to be disturbed just now but the hon. gentleman may proceed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
understand clearly the argument of the hon. gentleman. Do I understand that he is arguing that the question of salary settles the whole matter-that if hon. gentlemen are able to get the appointment without salary, or have their salaries paid somewhere else, that then they have the right to occupy the treasury benches?



HOll-332

Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Hugh Guthrie: I say that has been no breach of the Independence of Parliament Act which I am discussing. I say that the test of the matter is: Do we or do we not accept any office of salary, or emolument under the crown? If we do our seats become vacant. If we do not we have a perfect right to hold our seats. That is the test. Do we or do we not receive salary or emolument? Now the word "acting" minister has been inserted in the order in council for the express purpose of demonstrating or providing that we are not ministers with portfolio therefore we do not receive emolument or salary for our services. That form of order in council for the appointment of acting ministers has been in force and adopted by the Privy Council in 'Canada for twenty-five to thirty-five years and members of the late government, members of the government in which my hon. friend from Quebec East sat, passed many orders in council in this identical language relating to ministers without portfolio and acting ministers in the former government without any further reservation or provision.


Mr. DUNNING:: Members of this House?


Hugh Guthrie: Members of this House, and they did not infringe the law because they received no salary, no wage, or no remuneration. That is the test. If we do receive any such then I admit we are contravening section 10 of the Independence of Parliament Act. If we do not, and as acting ministers we cannot and do not, there is no infringement of any of the provisions of the Independence of Parliament Act.
Now while I am on the subject may I state that the procedure in this instance in regard to the appointments recently made of acting ministers has been in accorda'nce with the established custom in the Privy Council in this country for at least thirty-five years. There has been no variation; in the present instance there has been an adoption of the old forms and the old precedents. There is no specific law on this subject. There is no statute law to regulate these matters; they are largely matters of custom and of form which have grown up in the office of the Privy Council. Some of these customs are not founded in statutory enactment, some of them were originally founded merely in convenience.
Now it was charged last night by the exPrime Minister that one serious objection to myself and my hon. friends appearing in this

5240	COMMONS
Supply-Formation of Ministry
House as acting ministers of the government was, that no oath had been administered to us. Why should an oath be administered to us, may I ask him? What statute requires it! What law has been contravened if no oath was administered to us? Where is the law, where is the statute, where is the regulation? We have none in this Dominion of Canada. All that is required by law of a minister of the crown in this country is that he be sworn of the Privy Council. That is the first condition. The second condition is that he be a member of this House or of the upper chamber: and the third is that he be called upon to act by that person who, for the time being, is the Prime Minister of the country.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Will my hon. friend say that any member of the Privy Council can act without taking an oath?


Hugh Guthrie: I am coming to that now. Just allow me to proceed and I will try and answer all my hon. friend's statements. In England the procedure is somewhat different to that adopted in Canada. The appointment of a minister in England is much more formal than it is in this country. In England in the first instance a man is sworn of the Privy Council. Then he goes through a special formality, the very dignified and quaint formality, of kissing the hand of his sovereign. Then the seals of office, of his department, are formally handed to him and on the acceptance of those seals he becomes a minister. But in addition to that, after all that has been gone through-not before, after-he is required to take an oath in conformity with a law passed in 1868, an imperial statute, the Promissory Oaths Act, which applies to certain ministers of the crown, mentioning them by name. That is, after he has accepted the seal, after he has become a minister, he is required to take an oath for the faithful performance of his office. We have no statutory requirement of that kind in this country. I admit that a custom has grown up in the Privy Council office in this country that when a man is called to the Privy Council, when he has been selected as a minister in the cabinet, with a portfolio he shall take an oath for the faithful administration of his office. This applies only to men who enter the cabinet as ministers with portfolio, but in no case in the last thirty-five years-because that is as far back as the search has gone-has the oath been required of a minister who is appointed without portfolio, or a minister who is specifically appointed as an acting minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As an acting minister is he assuming any powers or any trust that the minister usually exercises?


Hugh Guthrie: Any powers the prime minister directs him to assume, or any powers he is called upon to exercise under the prime minister; I say he is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the hon.
member and others are acting ministers of certain departments. Are they as such ministers exercising any powers or any trusts relative to a department, such as the obligations the minister would have in a department?


Hugh Guthrie: I think to some extent we are.	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then my point is that before any powers or trusts can be exercised in a legal way an oath must be taken that they will be so exercised.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I submit there is no such requirement by our law; no enactment, no regulation, no order in council; and no oath is required. But as a matter of custom an oath prescribed to ministers upon their accepting portfolios, but in no case, so far as we have been able to find, has any oath been required of a minister appointed without, portfolio, or appointed merely as an acting minister. This Mr. Speaker, is nothing new. The procedure in the case of the present appointees without portfolio is identical with the procedure pursued by the government of my right hon. friend who now. leads the opposition. A memorandum has been obtained from the clerk of the Privy Council upon the subject. He is an official of the government,, admirably fitted for the high office which he holds, an official of very great experience, for many years the private secretary of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and a close student of all that went on in and about the Privy Council and upon all formal matters pertaining to the Privy Council. He has a full knowledge of details, a knowledge of methods and of customs pertaining in the office of the Privy Council which enabled him to fulfil his duties as private secretary to Sir Wilfrid Laurier while Prime Minister of Canada. He has himself occupied the office cf clerk of the Privy Council for two or three years, I think. He is a very capable official, well informed in regard to the duties of his office, and he was requested to make a search and give information in regard to what is actually the custom and what is actually the practice in such matters, and I am going to give the House the result of that search now.

Supply-Formation of Ministry
He has directed a letter dated to-day, July 1, to the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, P. C., Prime Minister, Ottawa, which reads:
Dear Mr. Meighen,
Replying to your inquiry on the subject of oaths taken by ministers and acting ministers, I beg to inform you that upon a m-ember of the Privy Council being called to take a portfolio and preside over a certain department, he is required in all cases to take the oath of office.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: That is what I stated.
The wording of this oath, a copy of which is attached, is not prescribed by any statute, in so far as I have been able to discover, but would seem rather to be dependent upon custom and usage.
Regarding the appointment of acting ministers, this is generally done by order in council, but it has not been customary for an acting minister to subscribe to any oath and no acting minister in the past twenty-five years has been asked to do so.
Ministers without portfolio have in several instances been called upon to temporarily preside over departments as acting ministers, but in no case, in at least the period of time mentioned above, was an oath administered to them.
Such was the opinion which I gave you two days ago, after consultation with Mr. Kezar, the assistant clerk of the Privy Council, who has #n experience of over thirty-five years in this office.
During the last administration three ministers without portfolio were at different times appointed as acting ministers, namely, the Hon. Mr. E. M. Macdonald, Acting Minister of National Defence, appointed 28th April 1923.
He was not sworn.
The Hon. R. Dandurand, appointed acting Minister of Justice, 27th August, 1923; no oath was administered. The Hon. H. B. McGiverin, appointed Acting Secretary of State, 26th November, 1924. No oath was administered save that of a privy councillor. Mr. Macdonald was appointed Minister of National Defence on the 17th, August, 1923.
That was about four months after his appointment as a minister without portfolio.
And was sworn in as such on the 18th of the same month, but was never sworn in as acting minister; nor was either Senator Dandurand or Mr. McGiverin. In the case of Mr. Macdonald, he was appointed as Acting Minister of National Defence when that position was vacant, the former minister, the Hon. George P. Graham having resigned as such and appointed Minister of Railways and Canals.
I may also inform you that there have been other cases in the past of ministers without portfolio being appointed as acting ministers after the resignation of the regular minister, or the post was otherwise vacant.
Your very sincerely,
E. J. Lemaire,
Clerk of the Privy Council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
my hon. friend if he has ascertained, or if his leader has ascertained-he says the oath is a matter of custom and that it is not always 14011-332i
taken-if since confederation there is any case where a minister has not taken the oath.


Hugh Guthrie: There is no case where
an acting minister or minister without portfolio has been required to take it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there any
case where a minister has not taken the oath?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I know of no case,
and I think I am safe in assuming this that in every case where a minister is appointed with portfolio the custom to be complied with requires that he should take an oath. I agree that that has been the custom, and that custom should be complied with now in the case of ministers being appointed with portfolios.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: In the case of the then Acting Minister of National Defence, Mr. Macdonald, to whom he refers, for instance, and who, he claims, was appointed acting 'minister without having taken the oath, was he appointed by order in council, and if so was the order in council passed by a properly sworn quorum of the council?


Hugh Guthrie: That raises the point
which I will come to next and that is the other point that was dealt with the other night by the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). As regards his first objection that no oath was taken. I think I have clearly established, to the satisfaction of anyone who has an open mind on the subject, that there is no legal, no statutory requirement, no regulation or order in council which prescribes that an oath should be taken even in the case of a minister being appointed as a member of the government with portfolio. In that case, however, custom does require an oath, and although I do not think it is necessary for me to read it, the form of the oath is as follows:
I,	do solemnly and sincerely promise
and swear that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my skill and knowledge execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as Minister of	.
So help me God.
That oath is, I think, in every instance required by custom of a man who becomes a minister with a portfolio, but it is never required of an acting minister or a minister without portfolio.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has an acting minister any power or trust reposed in him?


Hugh Guthrie: I answered that question as well as I could a moment or two ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And In answering it he did not answer it yes or no.
5242	COMMONS
Supply-Formation of Ministry


Hugh Guthrie: I answered it a moment
or two ago as fully as I intend to answer it. There is another phase of this question and it brings up the order in council question also. In the situation which developed on Monday last on the resignation of the Prime Minister in a very hasty manner, I think I may say, it became absolutely necessary that His Majesty's representative in Canada should have a government. The old saying that "the King's government must go on" had full application last Monday if it ever had application in this country.
His Excellency decided to send for the present Prime Minister and to entrust him with the formation of a new administration. How was the present Prime Minister appointed? What order in council could be passed in his case? I ask the same question in regard to my right hon. friend, the late Prime Minister. I ask the same question in regard to the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. How were they appointed? I have copies of these orders in council under my hand. In each instance they were appointed upon their own recommendations. As the ex-Prime Minister said last night they sat alone in their glory at that council table and themselves authorized their own appointments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was that not
after they had been sworn?


Hugh Guthrie: I will come to that. It
was after they were sworn in as privy councillors. Then they marched in and were sworn in as ministers. That is a custom in England, which is always followed. In the case of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the situation is very plain. He was the only minister on the 11th July, 1896, and the order in council in that case reads:
The committee, on the recommendation of the Hon, Wilfrid Laurier, the Prime Minister, advise that a commission do issue appointing the Hon. Wilfrid Laurier a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, to be President of the Privy Council.
The committee, on the same recommendation, fur-thur advise that, upon the said the Hon. Wilfrid Laurier, taking the prescribed oath or oaths of office, he do assume the functions of President of the Privy Council.
Subsequently the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier made his recommendation for his ministry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has just read an order in council which states that a commission do issue. May I ask whether he or any of the other ministers has had a commission issued to him by any order in council?


Hugh Guthrie: I assume that in due
course some commission will issue.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon.
friend think that commission can issue while parliament 'is in session and the minister not resign his seat?


Hugh Guthrie: It is not the commission;
it is the order in council with the approval that counts in our case. But it is a grave question whether orders in council are necessary in any case. Certainly orders in council were passed; but all that is required by law in the formation of a ministry is the request and authority of the Prime Minister and the oath of a privy councillor. We do not need an order in council either as a matter of law or as a matter of custom. We would be fully entitled to assume the duties of our office if we were requested by the Prime Minister who has himself been duly called and sworn and appointed, and it would be quite within our rights to attend at his request and become members of his government, with the approval of His Excellency the Governor General.
This is the situation. There is in Canada a Privy Council, the King's Privy Council for Canada, and that Privy Council is com-stituted urfder section 10 of our constitutional act known as the British North American Act. Section 10 of that act provides:
There shall be a council to aid and advise in the government of Canada, to 'be styled the Queen's Privy Council for Canada; and the persons who are to be members of that council shall be from time to time chosen and summoned by the Governor General and sworn in as privy councillors, and members thereof may be from time to time removed by the Governor General.
That is the only council provided for in the British North America Act which is the constitutional authority over this body. It is the King's Privy Council for Canada. There is a very much involved but a very beautiful and ancient oath administered to every member who is summoned and sworn of the Privy Council. Bear in mind1 that there is a Privy Council and in our statutory charter nothing whatever is said about a cabinet. There is no statutory authority for such a thing as a cabinet, but there is statutory authority for a Privy Council. It so happens that in this case I and my hon. friends, with the exception of the -hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black), were all members of the Privy Council, not of recent creation, but of some years ago. We had therefore the privilege of being summoned.
And in addition the hon. member for Halifax was summoned and was sworn of the Privy Council before any other proceedings were taken. He subscribed the roll, took the oath and) became one of the King's privy

Supply-Formation of Ministry
councillors for Canada. We were there as of right, members of the King's Privy Council attending the King's Privy Council, summoned by His Excellency upon the advice of the Prime Minister who had been accepted as the chief adviser of the crown at that time. There we sat in council; there we passed four orders in council, or it may be five. I do not know the number.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend has read the statute with regard to the Privy Council enabling privy councillors to aid and advise the Governor General. We all admit that privy councillors may aid and advise the Governor General, but have privy councillors the power to perform any executive act where they are not sworn in as ministers?


Hugh Guthrie: The term "aid and advise," under the wide interpretation given to it, includes almost everything because everything that is done by a minister in his public capacity is assumed1 to be in aid of the crown or in aid of some of the rights or interests of the crown. I grant that there has grown up, under the system in Great Britain and under the system in Canada, a committee of the Privy Council, which we know as the cabinet. It has no definite starting point, having been a matter of slow growth and of gradual constitutional development. There is not a single statutory enactment either in Great Britain or in Canada with reference to the cabinet. It is not recognized in our legislation but it exists nevertheless as a committee of the Privy Council.
Now there was no cabinet; there was no inner body at the time we met on Tuesday last. The cabinet had ceased to exist merely by the resignation of the Prime Minister, because the resignation of the prime minister carries with it the resignation of the ministry as a whole. The moment the prime minister resigns the government disappears. There was no cabinet at the time and therefore it was open to His Excellency, if he so desired- and the course he adopted was taken on the advice of his new prime minister-to summon his Privy Council for Canada " to aid and advise," according to the language of the act, or not to, as he saw fit. Those who were notified and summoned for that Privy Council meeting were all members of the Privy Council and of the House and were that day appointed acting ministers. What transpired at that meeting of council I am not at liberty to state. As the House knows,' privy councillors are bound by oath not to make known anything that transpired at a meeting of council, touching either what is said or what
is done. But under ordinary circumstances the results of the meeting may be disclosed, and the result of this meeting was the orders in council which have already been submitted to the House and under which we claim to have been duly and properly appointed acting ministers, without portfolio-bear that in mind- without salary and without emolument in any form.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And without any right to sit where you are.


Hugh Guthrie: That of course challenges all that I have said, and my right hon. friend will have ample opportunity to reply. I do not want to bring about a partisan discussion. I desire simply to make my statement as clear and definite as possible and if I am wrong hon. gentlemen opposite will correct me. Such however is the right we claim, and such is the case we prefer to the House. We have been appointed regularly and constitutionally in accordance with custom observed from time immemorial, one might say, but at all events custom which has existed in this country for thirty-five years. We have followed the forms and practices of our predecessors. The moment we undertake to become ministers of departments or, as is sometimes said, full-fledged ministers, then in keeping with the established custom we shall be obliged to take the oath which I have read. Until that 3 p.m. time, however, we are required to take only one single oath, the oath of a Privy Councillor of Canada.
I refer to the case of my hon. friend for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Macdonald) as a case in point. The Right Hon. George P. Graham was Minister of National Defence, and he resigned that portfolio to become Minister of Railways. In April of the same year my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough was appointed minister without portfolio and Acting Minister of National Defence. He was called and sworn of the Privy Council, not as minister with a portfolio but as acting minister. The record shows no oath as having been administered to him, other than the oath of Privy Councillor. He acted as minister of the department of National Defence until the month of August following when he was sworn as minister and he took the oath as minister which I have quoted to the House. In the interval he received no salary, no emolument, no fee of any kind. Will it be said that while he sat in this House in those intervening months he did so without right? Can it be said that he forfeited his seat on becoming acting minister of that department? Can it be said that Mr. McGiverin forfeited his seat?
5244	COMMONS
Supply-Formation oj Ministry
Can it be said that a dozen other acting ministers without portfolio, whom we could name if we so desired, forfeited their seats? There has been no exception which I have been able to find in all the orders in council I have read, or regarding which I have inquired.
The ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) says that recently his attention has been called to the fact that there should be in the order in council an express declaration that no emolument shall be paid. If any office other than that of acting minister were involved there might be some force in what the hon. gentleman says.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: In the case of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, is it not a fact that he was appointed Acting Minister of National Defence at a time when there was in office a government with a quorum of at least four members who had been sworn?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not referring to that point; I am discussing the subject with relation to the necessity for taking the oath. The record shows that the hon. gentleman was not sworn. That is a matter on which I think we are all agreed; we do not need to argue it. The facts are incontrovertible.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do I understand
from the hon. member's argument that he *contends there is nothing in the constitution which would prevent privy councillors from *continuing indefinitely in a position of that character?


Hugh Guthrie: Privy councillors are appointed for life.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is not what I mean. Is there nothing to prevent privy councillors, called by His Excellency, from continuing indefinitely in an executive position?


Hugh Guthrie: His Excellency could dismiss them as readily as he could appoint them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It would be in his discretion?


Hugh Guthrie: They are appointed for life, during pleasure.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not thinking of them in their capacity as privy councillors, but rather as advisers to His Excellency with the right to perform executive acts. Does the hon. member say that there is nothing in the constitution to prevent privy councillors, called to undertake executive work, continuing indefinitely in such office?
[Mr. Guthrie. 1


Hugh Guthrie: There are three safeguards: first, an adverse vote in the House; secondly, the will of the Prime Minister, who may ask lor their resignation; and, in the third place, the right of the crown to dismiss ministers.


Ernest Lapointe: What about the people of Canada?


Hugh Guthrie: And ultimate appeal to the people. Now, I have tried to state the case as clearly as possible without indulging in such over-statements as those with which the House was entertained last night, and I think that any reasonable person will conclude that in everything we have done we have complied with statutory authority, with custom, and with the usages of government in this country. We stand here to-day fully accredited as acting ministers in the various departments to which we have been assigned.
I took occasion this morning to ask the Deputy Minister of Justice for an opinion regarding the right of members of the Privy Council to pass the orders in council which have been submitted, and the following is the reply I received as I entered the House.
July 1, 1926.
By section 11 of the British North America Act it is provided that:
"There shall be a council to aid and advise in the government of Canada, to be styled the Queen's Privy Council for Canada; and the persons who are to be members of that council shall be from time to time chosen and summoned by the Governor General and sworn in as privy councillors, and members thereof may be from time to time removed by the Governor General."
I understand that the Prime Minister and all the members of the present acting ministry have been at one tame or another chosen and summoned by the* Governor General and sworn in as iprivy councillors and have never ceased to be members of the Privy Council. In these circumstances I am of opinion that upon their being summoned to attend meetings of the Privy Council, no oath other than that already taken is required of them.
With regard to the question whether a meeting of members of the Privy Council, summoned upon the advice of the Prime Minister, has power to appoint anting ministers of departments, I am of opinion that this question should be answered in the affirmative. It is a well known principle of constitutional government in Canada that the Governor General may act upon the advice or with the advice and consent of or in conjunction with the Privy Council of Canada or any members thereof. I know of no provision which creates any limitation upon the exercise of this power in connection with the appointment of acting ministers, and I am of opinion that the orders in council in question appointing acting ministers of departments were validly passed and are as effective as if made upon the. recommendation of any committee of council.
This is signed by W. Stuart Edwards, Deputy Minister of Justice.

Supply-Formation of Ministry


Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Dorchester):: My hon. friend who has just taken his seat has shown his usual ability, but I do not think he has answered the question put to the House by the former Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). In discussing this question I will endeavour not only to speak as a lawyer, but to use such language that every man who is not a lawyer will understand what I mean.
The question before the House is not whether these gentlemen can be acting ministers; the question is whether they can be an acting government. The question is not whether, to meet certain exceptional cases of urgency or emergency, one or two ministers may be sworn in as acting ministers or ministers without portfolio, but whether a whole administration may be so formed, whether the control of the affairs of this country can be put in the hands of an acting government which is not a real government. In order that the minds of those who are kind enough to listen to me may not be confused, there are actually two questions before the House, and I will ask the members of this acting government who follow me to give an answer to both.
The first proposition is that laid down by the acting leader of this House (Sir Henry Drayton) when he said yesterday that they were nothing. Hon. members will remember exactly the words used by the hon. gentleman when he said "We are nothing". This government does not exist; this government is to be formed, and this is the first proposition. Is this a government which represents nothing; is this a government which is simply in the embryo form and is to be formed later? If so, I will follow that proposition by the answer that if you are nothing, if you have no authority, you certainly have not the power to deal with the public money of the Canadian people. I wish hon. gentlemen to listen carefully now. If on the other hand this proposition is not sound and the proposition laid down this afternoon by the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) is true, that these gentlemen are real ministers exercising executive functions, then they have no right to remain in their seats in the 'House. Therefore, in order to be well understood before going into the merits of the case, I say that the dilemma before the acting government is this: If you have no authority you are not entitled to supply; you are not the government; you should not lead the House and you should not assume an authority which you do not possess. If you exist as a government; if you have authority to exercise ministerial functions, you have no right to remain in those seats.
My hon. friend who preceded me said that there had been a meeting of the Privy Council, and that as a consequence or result of that meeting a cabinet or a supposed cabinet was born. In order to understand what this means, with the indulgence of the House I will very briefly recite the history of the Privy Council. If hon. gentlemen who are interested in constitutional law will read the authors dealing with such matters they will discover that the Privy Council was born of the ordinary common sense of a king or head of a state who wanted to have advice on difficult matters, and in their origin the privy councillors were simply the friends or intimates of the king who were consulted on matters of importance. Under the Norman system; under the Tudors; under the Plant-agenets this system has evolved, and under George III the present system came into existence.


Edward Joseph Garland: Because he could not speak English.


Lucien Cannon: Because I come from
Quebec I would rather leave that point to my hon. friend. The Privy Council was a general council, and after George III, when the constitutional theory under which we now exercise government was laid down, a distinction first arose, and this is where I differ with my hon. friend and where I challenge any constitutional student in this House to differ with me. The distinction was then laid down as between members of the Privy Council as a whole and the members of a committee of the Privy Council called the Cabinet. Every former minister in this House is a privy councillor who can be called, on matters of urgency, to give his advice to the head of the state. But will any man contend seriously that the Privy Council as a whole can administer this country? The body to administer this country is not the Privy Council but a committee of that council called the cabinet.
This is sound constitutional law. The reason why that distinction has been drawn, and the reason for the importance of that distinction, is the very safeguard of the liberty of the citizen which we enjoy; I mean responsible government. In England responsible government was first established under George III, and under Queen Victoria it came to its full bloom. We have the right in Canada to enjoy the same liberties and the same extent of freedom under our constitution as our fellow-citizens in England enjoy. We have to-day in Canada a Prime Minister. He is the one who is responsible for the present situation. He is responsible for everything which has been done since he has be-
5246	COMMONS
Supply-Formation oj Ministry
come the adviser of the crown. Putting aside political distinctions, are we as members of the House of Commons and representatives of the people of Canada, to stand in our places here and say that the present Prime Minister of Canada was perfectly justified m tearing up the constitution of this country in order to form a supposed government? That is the question. We are no longer in the swamps of New Brunswick; we are no longer in the filth of a customs inquiry. We are on the highest level of a constitutional struggle to decide whether the rights of the people, which have been won after so many difficulties, are to be safeguarded. That is the question. I do not care whether that principle is upheld by the Liberal party, by the Progressive party, or even by the Tory party. By whomsoever it is upheld, I will under any circumstances stand behind the public men in this country who will preserve and maintain the rights and liberties our forefathers won for us, and I do not think that any member in this House will be willing to renounce the birthright which he has received, simply in order to please the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen.
What are the circumstances which brought about this crisis? The Right Hon. Mr. Meighen advised the crown- in this country that he could carry on the business of the House. He advised the supreme authority in this country that he was in a position to carry on a government. The right hon. gentleman either was sincere or he was not. If he was sincere, what could have been the meaning of his advice? It could have had only one meaning, that he could carry on constitutional government and nothing else. Will any hon. gentleman contend for one moment that the crown could have been advised by the right hon. gentleman that we were to have in this country a revolution in constitutional methods? My hon. friend laughs.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should think so.


Lucien Cannon: His only answer up to
now has been laughter. I hope he will get something else, because this is a serious question. The only meaning of the advice given by the right hon. gentleman, when he told the supreme authority in this country that he could carry on, must have been that he could carry on in a constitutional way. Is he doing it? If he is not doing it, he has deceived the crown. Is he doing it?
-Some hon. MEMBERS:	Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: 
Lucien Cannon: He is doing it, is he? My right hon. friend wrho is leading the House, and who was formerly a Minister of Finance, a man who has held high office in this country says that he is doing it-my hon. friend, who gets up in this House and without any hesitation says that he is nothing, and yet nevertheless wants to lead this House. If on the other hand, the advice given >by the Prime Minister was that he could conduct the affairs of this country in an unconstitutional way, I do not believe that any hon. member of this House will stand behind him. We have been reproached and told, certainly with some amount of truth at tim-es, that too often the House of Commons is simply the witness of political warfare. Mr. Speaker, we -must not make any mistake as to- what politics are. Politics is the greatest science that any human being can become familiar with.


Edward Joseph Garland: It should be.


Lucien Cannon: The object of politics is
the improvement of the conditions under which human beings live, and if any man can do any good to his fellow-citizens through his political influence or his political knowledge, I do not think he need be ashamed of saying that he is a politician. But there is a distinction between politics and partisanship. There is a distinction between high politics and petty party matters. We have now reached the point in the affairs of our country where we need politicians in the highest sense of the word, and not petty partisans, like some of our friends on the other side have shown themselves to be in this debate. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister of to-day is Prime Minister only on account of the very solemn declaration that he must have given, and that he did give, that he could carry on public affairs in Canada through constitutional means. Let us see now if he has done that.
My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) -has quoted the law, and I shall not go back over that ground and quote more law, because -my hon. friend has done it in his usual perfect way. The law concerning governments is very simple. Any hon. member -can understand it; he need not be a lawyer for that. As I said yesterday afternoon in the course of another debate, the great underlying principle of the British constitution is that the king can do no wrong. In England, so long as ministerial responsibility was not fully established, a king could be called to account for his conduct. Charles I was beheaded; others were disposed of by

Supply-Formation of Ministry
the estates of the realm, 'because then the king was considered as being personally responsible for the administration of public affairs. But a change took place in the minds of the statesmen of England, and they said: The king, in order to exercise his full authority as it should be exercised, should cease to be an individual and 'be maintained only as an institution. The king is not an individual under our constitution, Mr. Speaker; he is an institution. But hon. gentlemen will ask me, if the king is not to be held responsible for the conduct of public affairs who shall be held responsible, because somebody has to be responsible to parliament. The answer to that is that the government which advises the crown is always responsible for the actions of the crown.
Therefore, unless we have ministers who are responsible to the House, where is the responsibility for the present conduct of public affairs? The Prime Minister is not in the House. He is not responsible to us; he is not a member of the House. And the other ministers in the one breath tell us that they are not ministers, and in the other breath they say that being ministers without portfolio they are in no way responsible to the ordinary constitutional usage. If we have not got the Prime Minister in this House to assume the responsibilities for the acts of the crown, if we have no other minister substituted for the Prime Minister to assume responsibility for those acts, then, constitutionally speaking, this result follows-the crown becomes directbr responsible. Is that what my hon. friends wish? We stand for the constitution as it is to-day, and we tell the members of the Tory party, who always have been so eager and so desirous to protect the royal prerogative-we tell them: Give the crown the protection to which it is entitled through ministerial responsibility. If there is one institution which is respected in Canada if there is one institution for which we will fight to the very last moment in this parliament, it is the institution of the crown. But we tell hon. gentlemen opposite this: Regularize your position in order not to project the crown into our party warfare.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend who preceded me said: "My situation is exactly the same as the situation of the former Minister of National Defence, the present member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Macdonald)." Let us examine this contention very briefly. When the former Minister of National Defence was sworn in as an acting minister for a while, we had at that time in Canada a regularly constituted government
under sworn ministers. What is the oath that a minister has to swear to? What is it? This is the oath that a minister has to take:
I-do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear that I will duly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as minister.
When an acting minister in a properly constituted government acts for a short time, if he does not take the oath there are other ministers who have taken it and who are responsible to parliament and have to be in parliament to defend his acts. That is the distinction. When Senator Dandurand was acting minister, when Mr. Macdonald was acting minister, if these gentlemen had done anything that they should not have done- anything against their powers or against the trust reposed in them-their colleagues in the then government were in the House of Commons to answer for their acts. Have we got this situation here?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Lucien Cannon: The only sworn minister
in this government is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is not in the House, lie is not answerable to us for any of his acts. And what actually are his tactics? His tactics are to get rid of us as soon as possible in order that the House of Commons or parliament shall not take control over the administration of public affairs at this critical juncture in our history. No man can administer a department, unless under exceptional circumstances such as I explained a minute ago, without taking an oath. Could, for instance, the leader of the opposition go into the Department of Finance and give orders? He could not; he could not undertake to administer that department-although a privy councillor-without taking an oath to perform his duties properly. We have in this House officers who perform their duties, as we all know, with absolute perfection. Our Clerk could not sit here for a minute unless he had taken previously an oath to perform his duties as he should. We as members of the House of Commons were not permitted to take our seats at the opening of this parliament, noi, one of us, before declaring on the Bible that we would fulfil our duties as we should. If we are not allowed to sit as private members without taking the oath, are hon. gentlemen opposite going to run the country without taking it? The acting minister who preceded me said "Show me the law that forces a minister to take an oath?" The law is common decency. Law? If the clerk of the city where my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance
5248	COMMONS
Supply-Formation of Ministry
(Sir Henry Drayton) lives, wishes to collect five cents, he has to take the oath of office. That being so, is my friend who is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to be freed from taking the oath?
I have spoken, I think, long enough, but this is an important question. The Tory party, Mr. Speaker, have one great quality, and that quality is to pretend to safeguard the constitution while they are tearing it, Bead the history of England and you will see that encroachments upon the constitution have often been committed by the Tory party while pretending at the same time to protect that constitution. But coming nearer our shores read the history of Canada, read the annals of our constitutional evolution, and you will see that the Tory party invariably while pretending to protect the rights of the crown have had absolutely no hesitation in trampling on those rights if the interests of their party incited them to do so. Let us come to more recent years. We are deciding to-day the momentous question as to whether a man can be given the right to be Prime Minister of this country without following any of the constitutional processes. I am not speaking as a_ member of the Liberal party but 1 am speaking on behalf of and in the name of the citizens of my province-nay in the name of the citizens of the whole of my country-and I say to hon. gentlemen opposite: You are coming to this House and through the mouth of the acting leader of the House asking us to give you a mandate to run the affairs of Canada. Before we give you that mandate and' before we resign one ounce of the authority of parliament we ask you "What is your record? What have you done in the past? Your past is the only guarantee we have of your future conduct." Before we reach a decision let us look back into the history of the Prime Minister of Canada to-day and ask ourselves if we can give him the least bit of authority that the law does not allow him to have- the man who for party purposes stole the elections of 1917, the man who deprived regularly elected members of this House of their seats, in order that his party might be in power, the man who deprived thousands of electors of this country of the opportunity to express their views, because he was afraid their verdict would not be favourable to his party politics, the man who transformed this country into an armed camp, where races facing other races were asking if a civil war would not be necessary in order to protect the liberties that we had won. This is the man who comes to this parliament and asks
I Mr. Cannon.]
the members of parliament to give him a blank cheque, in order that he can repeat this year the unfortunate happenings that we witnessed in farmer years. I am not interested in systems of co-operation any more. I am not interested in the petty local provincial problems. It is a question now for every man who wishes to safeguard Canadian liberty to stand behind those in this House who wish to vote for the triumph of constitutional government in Canada.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that to-day the sun rose on this Canadian land to light the first of July, the anniversary of confederation. In 1867 our present form of government was bom, and under that government we have striven to make our country great, prosperous and united. Will it be said1 that on that same day over fifty years later those who inherit the duties and obligations of the Fathers of Confederation have forgotten, for local or petty interests, the great charge, the momentous charge, to conserve and maintain the charter of our freedom on Canadian soil?


Henry Lumley Drayton: May I congratulate my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Cannon) upon the calm and logical manner in which he has discussed a constitutional question! He has been discussing it however in the only way the question can be logically discussed by him and by his friends; that is in the way it was discussed last night by the right hon. former Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). What have we to-day from this hon. member on the constitutional question? We have to-day from him a wild torrent of abuse, an attack, Mr. Speaker upon my right hon. leader which is as everybody knows utterly unjustifiable.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes. And we have references to all kinds of things frequently discussed in this House before, but having absolutely nothing to do with this constitutional question, and I am not going to discuss them, because it is not necessary to do so. The known character and standing of Arthur Meighen of itself is an absolute answer to everything the hon. member said. Further than that-well we will drop that point.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in his calmer moments, before he was absolutely intoxicated with his own eloquence, my hon. friend assayed to present some considered arguments to the House. In the first instance, he wants to know what we are, and he wants to know

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
where we aire, what I think we are, or whether we are what they said we were-
(Cheers and other demonstrations in the lobby having been heard in the House):
I would eay the great constitutional authority has carried his constitutional jury with him.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are listening to my hon. friend's speech.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When hon.
members are quite finished I will go on.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go ahead.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Have I permission to proceed?


An hon. MEMBER:: Have you taken the
oath?


Henry Lumley Drayton: You know, Mr. Speaker, I can quite understand this conduct of my hon. friends. It is the only way they can do anything in the present situation, and the whole thing is done out of pique, coming from hon. gentlemen who cannot understand the situation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we brought in to the House two days ago a written statement which gives the exact facts to the House. There is absolutely no question about those exact facts. It is perfectly true that we are simply acting ministers. It is also perfectly true that we are as much subject to the House and the House has just as much control over us as if we had been- sworn in a dozen times. We are just as much responsible to this House as if we were drawing salaries, and the real distinction is that we are not drawing salaries. What really is the trouble here? That is the one thing that one has to ask himself. Is it that hon. members do not like to see ministers working without pay; because that is the only practical difficulty. We have, Mr. Speaker, ministers now working without pay.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too bad.


Mr. CAHILL:: And without authority. '


Henry Lumley Drayton: That may be my hon. friend's opinion. It is not the fact. They are acting in precisely the same way as acting ministers always have acted; there is no change at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the hon. member a question along lines similar to a question I asked before? Would the hon. gentleman suggest that, if at any time a cabinet, or the members of a cabinet, proposed to go without pay for a year or so, they would on that account be entitled to administer the affairs of the . country without going before their constituents?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not at all. We have perfect unanimity upon one point, surely, and that is this-we have it admitted by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe)-that we can have acting ministers for short periods of time. That was the argument. What was the statement to the House? It was that these are merely temporary appointments for the purpose of winding up the business of this House.


Mr. GUERIN:: Are hon. gentlemen opposite responsible to the House for their acts?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes. It is entirely a matter for the House to say whether they want us to wind up the business of the House or not.


Edward Joseph Garland: If it is true, as the hon. member states, that the only essential difference between the position in which they now find themselves and that in which they may find themselves as soon as they become ministers instead of acting ministers, is the fact that they are not drawing salaries, is there any necessity that they should at any time become ministers?


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is admittedly a temporary situation. I am referring to the situation having regard to that temporary period as regards our duties.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the
hon. member think that although acting for the moment in a temporary capacity he and his colleagues are acting unconstitutionally and have not authority?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is the inference.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not at all. My hon. friend does not follow me there. It is admitted by the ex-ministers who have spoken in this debate that the House can have acting ministers and that those acting ministers can perform the necessary functions of the office.


Edward Joseph Garland: But the
acting ministers must be constitutionally appointed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly, and
we were.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: No, you were not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Deputy
Minister of Justice says so; the clerk of the Privy Council says so. They say that we were appointed in exactly the same way as was the former administration, as was the administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Frank S. Cahill: With the exception that
they were sworn in as ministers.
5250	COMMONS
Supply-Formation oj Ministry


Henry Lumley Drayton: With the exception that we were appointed acting instead of regular ministers. It is admitted that you can have acting ministers. We have had the case, for example, of the ex-Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald). His case is precisely the same as ours.


Edward Joseph Garland: This is so important a point that I wish the hon. member who is speaking would make himself perfectly clear upon it. My understanding of the situation-and I am simply going to put a question-is that the late Acting Minister of National Defence, when acting minister, was appointed by an order in council passed by a properly constituted council with authority to perform that act. In this case the point in dispute is that the hon. members who are now acting ministers were appointed by one man only and not by a quorum of the council.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend must see that, as a matter of constitutional law, anyone who is a member of the Privy Council summoned to attend-and they have to be summoned, I admit, and the summoning has to come from the gentleman to whom His Excellency has entrusted the task-can attend a meeting of the Privy Council. The six were summoned; they were there, and they had absolutely full authority to do every single thing that was done. Their jurisdiction to act is not a jurisdiction as ministers sitting in the Privy Council. We all I now that every member of that Privy Council can attend if summoned although he may have nothing to .do for the time being with administration, or although he may be serving during the whole course of the government as an acting minister having no department whatever, maybe having no department assigned to him, but being minister without portfolio.


Edward Joseph Garland: Granting that privy councillors who are summoned may act as privy councillors in council and pass orders in council, can the same men then act
as ministers of departments?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes. There is absolutely no trouble about that at all. They are assigned to departments by orders in council which they have the right to pass.


Frank S. Cahill: Where do they get the authority?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is done in that way in every department.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There comes before us a document that purports to be an IMr. Cahill.}
order of the Privy Council. Is that document valid simply because members who have taken the oath of privy councillors and have been summoned, have passed or voted in favour of it? Is that what constitutes its validity?


Mr. BOYS:: Why not?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is quite right. As long as they are regularly there, as long as they have the confidence of the gentleman in whom His Excellency has reposed his confidence, it is perfectly regular. In fact it is the only way in which this can be done. There has to be a start in the case of all governments. This is the way in which Sir Wilfrid Laurier's government started.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have not a government yet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon. friend says that we have not a government yet. In one sense he is perfectly right and in another sense he is perfectly wrong.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This has never been done before in Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I shall have
something to say about that later.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They do not have to take the oath, neither does there need to be a quorum? Is that my understanding of the matter?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is wrong; the oath has to be taken, and the oath of a privy councillor is a much longer and more specific one than the other.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not the minister's cath?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No. That is
limited to one particular department to which the minister is assigned.
,Sir EUGENE FISET: Is it not a fact that in the case of the hon. member for Antigonish (Mr. Macdonald) when he was appointed Acting Minister of National Defence, he had already been sworn in as member of the Privy Council without portfolio and therefore he could be appointed by order in council to act in any department, while in the present case the only oath of office that hon. gentlemen opposite took was when they were sworn in as privy councillors. If this oath, as has been stated, stands good in their case, then they are in the same position as a minister who has been duly appointed, and therefore they have not the right to sit in this House and must appeal to the people.

Supply-Formation oj Ministry


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid my hon. friend, under the guise of asking a question, is abusing the privileges of the House and making a speech. I am sorry he did not make it with his customary reserve.


Eugène Fiset: I am talking from experience.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend's experience in this case is unfortunately not quite right. The position of the hon. member for Antigonish, having regard to his oath, is exactly the same as my position, as the position of my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), or any of the others.


Eugène Fiset: Will my hon. friend allow me? That is exactly what we contend. If this oath is the same my hon. friends have no right to sit there as members of this House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All that I can
say is that the hon. member for Antigonish did sit as a minister in this House. He sat for four months as a minister in this House, and moreover without there being any regular minister of that department. Therefore his case is exactly the case of the acting ministers here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I put a question?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think I have been fairly reasonable in regard to interruptions and I want to get on. I will answer ony question? lion, gentlomsn like to e.sk when I have finished. I want to deal with the question raised as to our responsibility to the House. We are absolutely responsible to the House.


Charles Avery Dunning: But you are very anxious to get rid of the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend no doubt thinks that is a bright remark. He may want to stay here all year, but I do not and I am sure there are a great many other hon. gentlemen who are equally anxious to get away. The hon. member may be such a slave to duty that he wants to keep us talking constitutional questions indefinitely. Nobody else wants to do that. Now we are responsible to the House, as the conduct of the present opposition shows beyond doubt. Hon. gentlemen opposite are continually trying to get vote against us in the House, and they know that we are responsible to parliament. It is simply idle to talk about there being no responsible government when by their very actions hon. gentlemen show that they believe there is.
We came before the House with the express declaration that our activities should be confined to closing up the work of the session. The regular government to be formed has not yet been appointed. The present government, so far as this House is concerned, is merely acting for the House in order to put into effect the work which has been done so far this session: That is all. Is that a crime against responsible government? I should have thought it would be a crime against responsible government not to make some effort to carry into effect the work which parliament has laboured to perfect. And that is all we are trying to do.
The only speech which we have heard today that carries an argument is that of the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). He points out that in the order in council which appointed him to take charge of the Secretary of State's department, there was explicit provision that no salary should be paid. Well, there was a reason for that. The fact is, however, that there has never been inserted in any order in council appointing an acting minister any provision in regard to salary, for the reason, as we all know, that it has never been the practice to pay acting ministers any salary. Acting ministers are not entitled to remuneration, inasmuch as they take no oath of office and have no patent.


Mr. BOURASSA:: In Mr. Meighen's statement which was read to the House on Tuesday, the following paragraph appears.
The Prime Minister accordingly decided to constitute and submit to His Excellency a temporary ministry composed of seven members, who would be sworn in without portfolio, and who would assume responsibility as acting ministers of the several departments.
Has that undertaking been fulfilled? Have hon. gentlemen who are acting as ministers taken the oath indicated in that statement by the Prime Minister?


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is referred to in that statement is the oath as members of the Privy Council. The bon.
4 p.m. member for Halifax (Mr. Black), prior to that time, had not been a member of the Privy Council and he had to take that oath.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It says seven members who would be sworn, not one.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon. friend may find some pleasure in grasping at straws-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not straws.
5252	COMMONS
Supply-Formation oj Ministry


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why, the right hon. gentleman fairly made the heavens ring a short time ago because he found there was only one oath. Now he says there should be more than one oath. He cannot have it both ways.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: In the other cases, it was the same oath taken by the various gentlemen composing the government at the time they became privy councillors some years ago.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes. And that is the right thing to do according to the report of Mr. Lemaire which we have received after an exhaustive study of the situation.
Let me answer the point made by the exMinister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), to the effect that, as there was no stipulation in these orders in council that no salary should be paid, we are therefore disqualified. As I have already said, it has never been the practice to make any such stipulation in any order appointing an acting minister. True, it was done when the ex-Minister of Justice was appointed, not as acting minister, but as permanent minister in charge of the Department of Secretary of State. Hon. gentlemen will see the difference. In that instance my hon. friend was a regular, permanent minister, and as such he would ibe technically entitled to salary. Under the act he would also 'be entitled to salary as Minister of Justice, both being permanent portfolios That of course would 'be wrong. It would be a technical and forced interpretation of the law to contend that he should receive a separate salary as Secretary of State, and clearly that was never the intention. But in order to obviate any possibility of misunderstanding that clause was inserted. It has never, however, been the custom to make such a provision in connection with acting ministers, for the simple reason that, as I have stated and reiterated, acting ministers have no right to receive any salary. Nor was such a stipulation made in the case of the ex-Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Antigonish) who acted, and very properly acted, for four months without pay.
Now we are entirely in the hands of the House. If the House wants us to go on we are perefectly willing to proceed to carry out the business of the session. If, on the other hand, for any reasoq real or fancied-and I have heard no real reasons so far advanced- the House does not want its programme carried into effect, and desires to have us abandon it, we are in the judgment of hon. members.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Regarding the
last remark of my hon. friend, may I say that this session's work will be concluded and satisfactorily concluded by prorogation but it will be concluded at the instance of a Prime Minister who has the confidence of this House and who is able to control it, and not at the instance of a government which, as the hon. gentleman says, does not exist in one sense, while it does in another. I want to make the situation clear so that hon. gentlemen will have no misunderstanding. The statement of the leader of the House (Sir Henry Drayton) was intended to convey the impression that if this House was not satisfied with hon. gentlemen. opposite there would be a dissolution without the business of the session being concluded. No consequence of that kind necessarily follows at all. If it is shown that hon. gentlemen opposite are not in a position to conduct the business of this House as it should be conducted and that they have not the authority to carry on the business of the country as it should be carried on, then it becomes the duty of the adviser to His Excellency to so advise the Governor General, and it becomes the duty of His Excellency to send for someone who can bring to a close the business of this House in acordance with the support and the confidence of the House.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Not a discredited minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will not pay any attention to my hon. friend. I wish to make it clear to the House that if the present Prime Minister advised His Excellency that he found it impossible to carry on, His Excellency must then send for the present leader of the opposition-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and should I be called upon, I will undertake to advise His Excellency to arrange for a prorogation in the first instance in order that the legislation of this session may be given assent to, and that after prorogation, dissolution should take place. There will be no dissolution until after prorogation; that is the point I want to make clear.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman one question, because this matter is immensely interesting and involved. Assuming that that advice be given by the right hon. Prime Minister, so called, to-day; supposing that situation arises

Supply-Formation o] Ministry
and His Excellency is advised that the present Prime Minister is unable to carry on. Then His Excellency may call upon the right hon. leader of the opposition-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is his duty.	-


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, just a moment. The former ministers have ceased to be such; they are now private members, and in that event what more right would they have to vote money or to have the House vote money than the present government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very glad my hon. friend asked that question, because the more he studies the workings of the British constitution the more he will see that it has been so developed as to secure the principle of the freedom of parliament in all these matters. The members of the former government sitting on this side of the House have been ministers of the crown during the present session of this parliament. Each of us after we assumed office resigned our seats, went back to the people for re-election, were re-elected and returned to this parliament. There i3 not one minister of the administration of which I had the honour to be the head who has not been back to the people for re-election, who has not received the approval of the people as a minister, and who has not sat in this House as a minister of the crown. The situation is that ministers who have been ministers in one session are entitled within a specified time during that session again to assume their seats upon the treasury benches without going back for re-election, and they are the only ministers who are entitled to assume authority.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that no minister is entitled to put through estimates or to attempt to do anything in this House who, after assuming responsibility as a. minister, has not resigned his seat, gone back to the people for re-election, been re-elected and returned to this House. If that be the case in order that the public weal may be properly secured, does any hon. member think the constitution ever contemplated a subterfuge which would allow acting ministers to do these things without complying with' the qualifications laid down for ministers? Why, Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of having ministers go back for re-election is that a private member of the House is in an entirely different position from a member who undertakes to exercise authority under the crown either as a minister or as an acting minister. The
theory of the constitution is that a member has been elected to parliament but he has not been elected as a minister of the crown; there have not been reposed in him any powers or trusts of any kind such as the oath of office contemplates shall !be reposed in those who attempt in any way to administer the affairs of a department. When an hon. gentleman has taken the oath of office or undertakes to assume the powers and trusts of the administration of a ministerial department he must go back to the people and to all intents and purposes say, "You elected me as a member; you did not elect me as a minister having responsibilities. I have to come back for your approval of that higher office to which I have been invited."
I hope my hon. friend who asked jhe question clearly understands the situation. This is all-important, (because the whole business of parliament may fall to the ground if the procedure is irregular in any particular. The law of the constitution contemplates that matters shall be carried out in accordance with parliamentary usage, custom and law, and if parliamentary usage and law is departed from then the business of parliament becomes so irregular, the business of government generally throughout the country becomes so irregular, that it is impossible to say whether at any time something which is dofie is legal. We have to be very careful in that regard. My contention is that there is no ministry in office in the true sense of the woa-d; that as a consequence any acts per-
/[DOT]_	___i i___ xi___ _	..ii.-i	x

l L_
iuii.ii.t3ii. uy me au-ea-iieu minusLi,y oauiiuo uc
held to be valid in any particular, and that the ministry has no right to exist.
A few moments ago when I eaid, "There is no government in office," the leader of the House answered, "In one sense the hon. gentleman is right," but I ksk hon. members this question: Since when was the government of Canada carried on by a government of which it could be said in any sense that they were not a government? That is exactly the question, and that is the whole issue as I presented it to His Excellency the Governor General in tendering my advice. I said it was impossible for hon. gentlemen opposite to form a government which would be known as a government in the true sense of the word, for the simple reason that before they could act as ministers or assume responsibility of an executive character they would have to resign their seats and go back to the people for reelection, and I knew if they attempted to do that they could not carry on successfully the business of this parliament.
5254	COMMONS
Supply-Formation o) Ministry
The more one thinks of this thing the more one sees how crucial is the whole situation in regard to parliamentary institutions. I want to make that perfectly clear, 'because I think it is all-important to the country that there should be no mistake as to the situation which exists to-day. I advised His Excellency that I did not believe anyone else could carry on in this House and perform the necessary duties of a prime minister in order to bring about prorogation in a regular way. I took into account the situation we see here now; knowing the present Prime Minister I knew exactly what his tactics would be if he were asked to form a ministry. Under these circumstances I could not advise His Excellency to send for the right hon. gentleman, but I had to leave to His Excellency a free hand, to find any member of parliament who would undertake the task. What has the Prime Minister done? He has gone to His Excellency and said, "I can carry on the government of this country", and it is only 'because he has so represented his power to His Excellency that that advice was accepted. Now the position is this. What we are witnessing at the moment is that hon. gentlemen opposite not only have not the capacity to carry on, but admit themselves that they have not the powers of ministers of the crown.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend say they have the powers?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, as I tried to explain to my hon. friend we have the powers, temporary powers.
-Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the use of laughing? We have always said so.


An hon. MEMBER:: How long will they last?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It entirely depends upon this House. This House can stop them to-day or to-morrow. When this House is over our powers stop.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There we have exactly the threat that my hon. friend was holding over us a moment ago. There is the threat that is being held over the head of hon. members. The present Prime Minister, through his representative in this House, is threatening that there will be a dissolution brought about unless the House permits them to carry on.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
threat.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a
threat.
iSir HENRY DRAYTON:	I rise to a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I was asked as 'to the duration of our powers, and I said it depends upon this House. When this House is not here, this temporary ministry is over, and the Prime Minister will then proceed with the task of forming a permanent government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend says: When this House is not here, our work is over. I want to tell him, that if the constitutional course is pursued, their work will be over while this House is still here. That statement embraces the whole constitutional position. Their work should never have begun. Their work is not going on to-day. Their work is over now; it was long since past. They have no right to stay here for an hour, and I say that as soon as that fact is brought home to His Excellency by his duly constituted adviser, as it will be brought home ultimately through the force of public opinion, if not from the arguments in this House, then it becomes the duty of His Excellency, if His Excellency is going to act, as I believe he will, in a constitutional way, to say to the present Prime Minister: You led me to believe that you could carry on the 'business of this House, anid I gave you your chance; I gave you your opportunity, but now that you come and1 are obliged to admit that you are unable to carry on the business of this House, I cannot grant to you, I cannot constitutionally grant to you, a dissolution when within the past few days I have refused' a dissolution to another Prime Minister, and when the whole reason was that you undertook to carry on and took the responsibility of my refusal of a dissolution.
Is there difficulty in imagining, and this is i very serious thing for the crown and its representative-I put this to hon. gentlemen opposite whose duty it is to protect the crown: If any other course were taken by His Excellency than that, what interpretation would immediately 'be put upon His Excellency's act? It would be that His Excellency had taken a particular course for the purpose of favouring one political party rather than another political party in control of the government of this country. Now that is a course which, as I know His Excellency the Governor General, I believe he would be the last person in the world in-

Supply-Formation of Ministry
tentionaily to take. I say that I believe His Excellency the Governor General wishes to be in every particular a constitutional governor, but I say that it is the duty of his advisers to see that he is not permitted to make a mistake which will in any particular threaten the high office which he holds or bring into public controversy and discussion the name of the crown or its reprsentatives. That is all important.
I want to make clear again the position. I tell my hon. friend who is leading the House that it is his duty now, as a member of the ministry which is advising His Excellency the Governor General, to tell his leader the Prime Minister that it is his duty to go to His Excellency the Governor General and to say to His Excellency: My ministers have stated in the House over and over again that they are not ministers of the crown; the leader in the House (Sir Henry Drayton) has told the House of Commons that there is no government in office at the present time in one sense. That is what my right hon. friend has said, and another minister last night used the expression, and it will be found on the records of Hansard to-day: We are not the king's ministers; we are not ministers of the crown. I say that those statements should immediately be brought to the attention of His Excellency, and His Excellency should be advised at the same time that it is now his constitutional duty under the circumstances to send for someone else to see if the business of the country can be concluded in a proper way. That is the constitutional obligation of the adviser of the cruwu in circumstances such as we have at the present time.


Mr. MANION:: May I ask why my right hon. friend, when he had the opportunity, did not carry on himself?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Because he was defeated three times in the House.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: He was never
defeated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The records of this House show that while I was Prime Minister never once was the government of which I was the head defeated in any way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Three times.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) asked, why did I not go to His Excellency and say that I could carry on. I went to His Excellency and what I said was this that I did not believe the business of this House could be carried on in a manner befitting the dignity and 14011-333
honour of parliament. I did not say it could not be carried on by subterfuge; I did not say it could not be carried on by intrigue; I did not say it could not be carried on by devious methods of one kind or another. What I did say was that this House could not be carried on with honour and dignity to the crown and its representative and for that reason I thought that there should be a dissolution, but when I was counselling a dissolution, I never contemplated that the business of this session would end there. After discussing dissolution and obtaining a decision favourable to dissolution, my next step would have been to consider the time at which dissolution should be taken. I would have advised His Excellency to arrange immediately for prorogation, and in the Speech from the Throne to announce the dissolution. That is the manner in which it should properly be done. That is the only way in which dissolution at the moment should be thought of by any party concerned.
What I wish to make clear now, because it is the whole constitutional issue so far as the crown and the representative of the crown is concerned, is that the crown cannot refuse the advice of one Prime Minister and immediately thereafter, within the same week, accept the same advice from someone who has taken the responsibility for the refusal in the first case. Let me put the position clearly, so that we will get away from any mistaken ideas in regard to matters of this kind.
Assume for a moment that it is not a case of this parliament, but a case of the British parliament, and that Mr. Baldwin is conducting the affairs of the British House. Mr. Baldwin goes to His Majesty the King and says: Owing to the different groups that we have, owing to the uncertainty of numbers and the parity of parties, I have reached the point where with the great problems with which this nation has to deal at the present time-such as the industrial troubles with which he has been dealing, assuming that such conditions existed with a House composed as this one is-I feel that the business of parliament cannot be carried on successfully by anyone, and that the only thing that will save the situation is a dissolution of parliament, and allowing the people to express their views anew, so that we may get a House that is more representative of the popular will than the House is at the present moment. Assuming that advice was tendered to His Majesty the King, I venture to say-* and I say it because it has been true for a hundred years-that His Majesty the King would not refuse to grant a dissolution in



Supply-Formation of Ministry
those circumstances. I say His Majesty would grant it, that it would be his constitutional duty to grant it, and for a hundred years it has never been refused. But assume for a moment that His Majesty thei King had doubts as to whether the business of the House could be carried on, and he had reason to believe that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald might be able to carry on, and Mr. MacDonald were to say " I can carry on the business of the House and will undertake so to do." and His Majesty the King were to give him the opportunity. Ramsay MacDonald goes back to the House of Commons to show what he can do. He would never do-no British statesman would ever do-what has been done here. Imagine this kind of thing in the Mother of Parliaments over yonder? Imagine any Prime Minister undertaking to tell the people of Great Britain that he would, carry on the business of the country with half a dozen acting ministers? And they say themselves that they are not ministers; and they say themselves that they are not a government in one sense of the word. Does anyone assume that, if that sort of situation presented itself, that at the end of the week His Majesty the King would grant to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald the dissolution which he had refused to Mr. Baldwin? Now my position is this: We in Canada are a self-governing dominion in the full sense of the word. With respect to our own domestic affairs the government of the day stands in the same relation to the Governor General as the government of the day in Great Britain stands in relation to His Majesty the King. In those circumstances I say that the procedure that would be expected to be followed in the Old Country should be followed here. I believe that is the intention of His Excellency, Lord Byng. I believe it to be the intention of His Excellency to see that constitutional procedure is followed. Have we not been talking about equality of status as a thing newly acquired within the British Empire? Before I leave the point I have just been referring to, let me quote an authority which I trust hon. gentlemen opposite will be prepared to accept, although I fear they may even hesitate so to do. I have in my hand a volume entitled Canadian Constitutional Studies.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is the author?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Someone asks
"Who is the author?" I am surprised that the question should come from that side of the House. The author, according to the title page, is the Right Hon. Sir Robert Laird Borden, G.C.M.G., D.C.L., L.L.D., and I am

proud to say that the volume bears the following inscription "The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister, with the compliments of Sir Robert Borden." I have made some of my constitutional studies from the writings of Sir Robert Borden. I regard Sir Robert Borden as a very eminent constitutional authority, and here is what Sir Robert says at page 61 of this book with respect to our constitutional development from confederation down to the time of the world war:
In the discussion of executive competence it is important to examine the status and functions of the Governor General.
That is not bringing the name of the Governor General into discussion; the author is discussing the general relations of the government and the Governor General. I continue to quote:
Before 1848 he was regarded as an imperial officer responsible primarily to the British government through the. Colonial Office. With the progress of responsible government, there came a necessary' change in his relation 'to the administration of public affairs. In Canada this relation is the same in all essential respects as that of the King in Great Britain.
I ask the present Prime Minister to take this volume of Sir Robert Borden, a former Conservative Prime Minister in this parliament, one who has had larger experience in the problems of government than any other public man living in Canada to-day, and place before His Excellency those words:
In Canada this relation is the same in all essential respects as that of the ICing in Great Britain. The administration of public affairs is conducted by ministers responsible to parliament, and the Governor General acts by their advice.
These gentlemen talk about being responsible ministers, ministers responsible to parliament. Why they tell us here that they are not responsible to anyone. They say there is no need for oaths, there is no need for orders in council, there is no need for statutes. They might as well add there is no need for parliament itself; all that is necessary is that the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen should tell whoever happens to be Governor General in Canada "I can form a government and carry on if you will let me do it, just as I please myself." That is the position we are face to face with.
Now may I give one or two other authorities on this matter? I will not at the moment take further Canadian authorities; I have already quoted from an eminent Canadian source. I will take a British authority, and I will begin with one who is a distinguished graduate of Oxford university. The volume I am about to quote is Responsible Government in the Dominions by Arthur Berriedale Keith, M.A.,

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
(Edin.), D.C.L. (Oxon), of the Inner Temple, barrister-at-law, and of the Colonial Office, Junior Assistant Secretary to the Imperial conference, Membre Effectif de lTnstitut Colonial International, in three volumes, volume 1, Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1912. At page 180 of this volume hon. gentlemen will find under the heading Executive Government-the Governor as Head, the following statement; Let me say that Mr. Berrie-dale Keith is recognized throughout the world as a leading constitutional authority; I do not believe there is any one Writing on constitutional law and parliamentary institutions who is recognized as being more of an authority than Mr. Berriedale Keith. He says at page 180:
It is a complete mistake to suppose that the governor is entitled to refuse advice because he does not approve the actions of his ministers, and thinks that he may have a good chance of getting a majority for the opposition if he refuses their advice: his duty is not to his own conscience, but to the people of the dominion which he governs, and he should execute that duty independently of every other consideration.
In other words the point that is brought out there is not that the Governor General is a person who should not have a conscience, but that the Governor General, as a constitutional governor, is in the position that the king is in when it is said tc The king can do no wrong,J. That is one of the oldest maxims of Constitutional government-the king can do no wrong. That does not mean that in his personal capacity and conduct he may not be capable of doing things that are wrong. It does mean that as king he acts only upon the advice of his ministers, so that if a wrong is done it is not the wrong of the sovereign, it is the wrong of the adviser.	That is the position that
I take at the moment. The great wrong that is being done at this hour to the crown, and to its representative in this country, is that its advisers are deliberately permitting the crown to remain in the position they have placed it in of appearing to take sides in party warfare and party struggle. Listen to this:
Tlie normal (form of (the refusal to accept ministerial advice is when a ministry beaten in parliament, or which is losing its hold on parliament, asks for a dissolution in order that it may strengthen its hand in the country.
That is putting it pretty strongly-I think as strongly as it can be put, that the normal form of refusing to accept ministerial advice is where a ministry seems to be losing its hold on parliament and asks for a dissolution in order that it may strengthen its hand
in the country. Now, what does Mr. Keith say in that regard:
Now the imperial practice in (this regard is, of course, that the minister receives a dissolution when he asks for it.
Even in such an extreme case as that a prime minister is granted a dissolution. And' why is that the recognized imperial practice 2" It is the recognized imperial practice because it is known that the highest tribunal to which the government can appeal is the electorate. If a government were asking the crown or its representatives to continue it in office when it was losing its hold, then there might be ground for a refusal, but when a government asks that it have the right to go before the people to be judged because conditions are such that it is impossible for anyone to carry on a government, then we find that the imperial practice is as stated here. This authority says that of course the minister receives a dissolution when he asks it. He continues:
There is in favour of this view the most important authority, and the expressions of opinion which have been made on the other side from time to time are hardly authoritative. It is indeed clear that the refusal of a dissolution is much too dangerous a course for the crown to take; it at once reduces the crown, however reluctantly, to be a .partisan in a political struggle. In the case of a governor this does not matter very seriously; he is only a temporary tenant of office, and his personality and popularity are not things of the highest moment; he may discredit the post of governor and weaken the imperial connection, hut these things can be put right by a tactful successor, and, truth to tell, both governors and ministers, as self-government develops, seem to grow more used
tn WArlr .+rrnfhn* . the 

 [DOT]	-	-


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
right hon. gentleman give the House the date of that article?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is as far back as 1914.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River); The date might be of value for the record. It is July 17, 1914.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has evidently consulted the same authority. The article goes on:
In the colonies a different practice has prevailed. The governor has been supposed to exercise his discretion in this and other matters. Dissolutions asked for by premiers have been frequently refused. Colonial parliaments are short lived and party majorities are narrow; and His Excellency may not deem it worth while to put a busy and scattered population to the expense of an election when the people wild in any case, soon have an opportunity to express their opinion. In 1899 dissolutions were re-fused by the governors in no fewer than three of the states. In 1909 Mr. Earle, the Labour Premier, was defeated in the Tasmanian House of Assembly by a majority of six, and asked the Governor, Sir Harry Barron, to 'let him go to the country. The governor refused, and sent for the leader of the opposition, who was able to form a m nistry with sufficient support in the House. In these and other cases 'Downing-street" backed up its man on the spot and asserted the discretionary power of the governor.
All that, as my hon. friend will note, relates to a position affecting not a self-governing dominion, but these smaller states of a colonial status. What is the next paragraph?
It has now decided in the opposite sense.
That is in 1914 in the communication sent to the governor of Tasmania.
The old trouibile has broken out in Tasmania again. The Liberal minister in Tasmania was defeated by a single vote, and the premier, Mr. Solomon, asked Sir William Bllison-Macartney, the Governor, to grant a
dissolution. But, the governor refused nnd nailed upon Mr. Earle, the Labour Leader, to form a ministry, annexing, however, to his request the condition that a general election should take place. Mr. Earle accepted! under protest, and his objection was supported by the parliament which resolved, with only one dissentient vote, that the governor's demand was contrary to the principle of responsible government. The resolution was transmitted 'by the governor to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who has replied in the despatch which emphatically supports the position taken up 'by the Tasmanian premier and legislature. It is laid down that the governor ought to act upon the advice of his min:sters in such a question as that of authorizing ot prohibiting a dissolution of parliament, which is one of purely internal politics, and that he ought not to impose conditions upon them. In other words, it is the mmisters, presumably representing the people, who are responsible for the "peace, order, and good government" of the colony, not the officer who represents the crown and the imperial cabinet. If th's doctrine is main+ained-as it probably will be-almost the last vestige of imperial control over the affairs of the selfgoverning colonies d:sappcars. It is an emphatic recognition of the complete nationhood of the dominions, so far as regards their own domestic government. The governor rema'ns. though it may not be long before he will be appointed on the recommendation of the local, rather than the home, cabinet. He is there to guard
5260	COMMONS
Supply-Formation of Ministry
the general interests of the empire, and to see that any legislation which may touch these or affect international relations, is reserved for the consideration of the central government.


Hewitt Bostock: May I interrupt the right
hon. gentleman? I have followed very closely the debate as it has so far proceeded, and it appears to me that the present trend of the discussion is rather beside the issue which is before the House. The proceedings were subjected to what is described by the authorities as an incidental interruption. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) raised a question Of privilege which I am bound to say, in the language of Bourinot, affects the House collectively. The point of the hon. member's contention is that the hon. gentlemen at present acting as ministers of various departments are encroaching upon 5 p.m. the privileges of parliament inasmuch as they have taken the oath as ministers and should go before the people. That, I gather, is his point, and the hon. member argues that according to the act on the independence of parliament the acting ministers are consequently debarred from conducting the affairs of the government in the House until elected.
Many hon. members have discussed the question pro and con, and if I have followed the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) I am afraid they are somewhat irrelevant to the point taken by the hon. member for Quebec East. The question of privilege having been stated, and answer having been made by hon. gentlemen concerned, it seems to me that the House should come to some conclusion in the matter. I have not the slightest desire to minimize the importance of the question raised by the hon. member for Quebec East, but I would remind the House that, as Bourinot points out, every question under consideration must sooner or later take a concrete form, and must be determined. Such determination of the question may be achieved by means of a resolution moved in accordance with the rules of procedure. An hon. member may, of course, at any stage of the proceedings, raise a question of privilege, but the House must come to some conclusion upon it. It would seem hardly desirable to debate a question of privilege at interminable length, once it has been clearly stated. I suggest that, to this end, a motion be moved.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask Your Honour a question? In view of the fact that as Your Honour has admitted this ques-

tion affects every individual member of the House, should any hon. member be denied the right to state the case from his own point of view?


Hewitt Bostock: Undoubtedly the question raised in this instance affects the House collectively, but it seems to me that a motion should be moved to determine the sense of the House in the circumstances.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I submit that if the representatives of the two larger parties in the House are to be given a reasonable opportunity of discussing this question of privilege affecting the whole House no hon. gentleman ought to be precluded from stating his case. Any member, indeed, if necessary, every member should have a chance to speak to the question.


Hewitt Bostock: I hasten to assure the
House that I have not suggested that any hon. gentleman should be denied the right to discuss the question of privilege as raised by the hon. member for Quebec East, but when I interrupted the leader of the opposition it appeared to me, if I followed him, that he was discussing a totally different subject.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the question before the House at the moment is the right of hon. gentlemen opposite to be in office and to advise His Excellency. If that question is to be settled at all one must necessarily go to the roots of the situation to discover how hon. gentlemen came to be in office, and I have been endeavouring to show that they are in office by reason of circumstances of such a charactei as to demand that immediately, through then prime minister, they advise His Excellency that they are there without due authority and without right and should resign forthwith so as to enable His Excellency promptly to regularize the situation. I make that explanation tentatively, Mr. 'Speaker; I have not yet concluded my remarks.


Ernest Lapointe: It would be perfectly
in order to move a motion as a result of the discussion of a question of privilege, but I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that no one is bound to do so. Any hon. gentleman who desires to do so may exercise his right to move such a motion to conclude the debate, and while I quite agree that there must be a determination of this debate as of any other, at the same time this is a matter that affects the rights of every single member of the House. Under the circumstances, I submit that every hon. member is entitled to speak.

Supply-Formation oj Ministry


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should be
the last member, Mr. Speaker, to desire to disregard any ruling of the Chair, and having discussed the subject at considerable length, I shall draw my remarks immediately to a close. I have only one further quotation to offer on the subject to which I have been referring, namely, the parallel between constitutional procedure in Canada and similar procedure in Great Britain. May I quote from a well known authority:
.The Constitution of Canada, an introduction to its development, and law, by W. P. M. Kennedy, M.A., Litt. D., Trinity College, Dublin, Assistant Professor of Modern History in the University of Toronto, 1922.
I refer hon. gentlemen to page 382:
The relations between the Governor General and the cabinet are now fairly clear. He does not attend cabinet meetings, but all communications which can be called otficial come to him through the cabinet, and all orders in council are submitted to him personally. He is entitled to receive the full confidence of his ministers when they ask him to act in any official capacity. If confidence does not exist, he can doubtless dismiss them; bait he would do so with the full knowledge that lie would be compelled to find successors who would be prepared to take constitutional responsibility for his action.
As a matter of fact no instance of dismissal exists in the history of federal government in Canada. Doubtless also he has the constitutional power to refuse a dissolution, but the sense of political responsibility has become so strong with Canada's new status in the empire that to do so would be an act of extreme danger. The tendency is to assimilate the constitutional conventions of Great Britain and to follow in this matter the completeness of political development.
Now I want to draw the attention of the House to the oath which a privy councillor takes, and which is the oath hon. gentlemen opposite say they have taken. Professor Kennedy says in reference to the relation of the cabinet to the Governor General:
He is entitled to receive the full confidence of his ministers when they ask him to act in any official capacity.
Now I say His Excellency at this moment is entitled to have the full confidence of his ministers, and I say they cannot extend to His Excellency their full confidence if they do not explain to him the whole situation as it exists in this parliament at this moment, and the subterfuge to which they are resorting in attempting to carry on the business of the country or rather in pretending to carry it on in any way. As privy councillors sworn by a solemn oath to protect the crown and its representative it is their business to prevent the crown and its representative in Canada from being placed in a false position before the people. If confidence does not exist he can doubtless dismiss them, and I say without hesitation that if these gentlemen continue longer in office after what has been
said with respect to their present position, His Excellency's duty is to dismiss this ministry and find someone who will take responsibility for the dismissal. I may say that as leader of His Majesty's loyal Opposition I am prepared to take responsibility for the dismissal of hon. gentlemen opposite. I am prepared to take that responsibility because hon. gentlemen know that the proceedings of this House cannot be brought to a close except by someone who has sufficiently the confidence of the House to be able to bring proceedings to a close in a proper and regular way. Let me read part of the oath taken by members of the Privy Council:
You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in any such Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare your mind and opinion to the honour and benefit of the King's Majesty, and the good of his subjects without partiality or exceptin of persons, in no wise forbearing so to do from any manner of respect favour, love, meed, displeasure, or dread of any pet-son or persons whatsoever. In general you will be vigilant, diligent and circumspect in all your doing* touching the King's Majesty's affairs:
There are two paragraphs to which I draw the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite. They are sworn to declare their minds and opinions to the honour and benefit of the King's Majesty and to be circumspect in all their doings touching the King's Majesty's affairs. I say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no single matter which so affects His Majesty the King as the exercise of the royal prerogative. The whole development of constitutional government has been to circumscribe little by little the absolute power of the crown, to cause the exercise of discretionary authority to rest upon ministerial responsibility. There was a time when the crown could perform almost any act pretty much of its own volition, but little by little one prerogative after another came to be exerised on the advice of the ministry. At one time it was the prerogative of summoning parliament; at another time it was the prerogative of pardon ; at another time it was some other prerogative, and perhaps the last of all the prerogatives to be circumscribed was that of dissolution. I say hon. gentlemen opposite owe it to their oaths as privy councillors to advise His Excellency the Governor General of the present situation and to let His Excellency fully understand what may be the consequence to him as the representative of the crown itself if, through their advice, he should act in any unconstitutional manner at this time. I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite, before it is too late, to remedy a great wrong and to see to it that His Excellency is advised that they are unable-
5262	COMMONS
Supply-Formation oj Ministry


Mr. SUTHERLAND (North Oxford):: What are you trying to do-start a rebellion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want to prevent a rebellion; I want to protect the honour of the crown; I want to prevent the name of the crown-


Mr. CAHAN:: I rise to a point of order I submit, Mr. Speaker, that under the rules and practices of this House any member has a right to state a matter of privilege, but having stated the- matter of privilege, if further proceedings are to be taken thereon he must, from his seat in the House, make a motion presenting a clear issue to the House for debate. Such an issue has not been presented to the House; full opportunity has been given to hon. gentlemen who wished to state their question of privilege, and I submit that further debate is out of order unless a motion is made on the issue of privilege, upon which further debate may take place and the decision of the House be given.


Hewitt Bostock: The question of privilege affects collectively the members of this House of Commons, and may be debated by all members. But as I said a moment ago I expect that this long debate-


Lucien Cannon: Are you giving your decision?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: I would like to speak to the point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: It is rather late.


Lucien Cannon: It is not late. Here is a very important question-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman is in order.


Lucien Cannon: This is a very important question, the most important matter discussed since the opening of the session. Hon. gentlemen opposite say the debate has lasted too long; it started at two o'clock this afternoon and it is now shortly after five o'clock. We heard gentlemen speaking for two months on trifling matters, and they were never called to order by the Chair.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There was a motion before the House.


Lucien Cannon: There need not be a motion; the rule is well known. Bourinot, who is quoted so often here, is very explicit in the matter. This question of privilege is

one which interests every member of the House, and every member has a right to speak on it. If any member decides to move a motion he will do so when he so decides.


Hewitt Bostock: That is what I was going to say when the hon. gentleman preceded me.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Might I be permitted to add just a word before this decision is given. At page 302 of Bourinot I think exactly this point is touched, as follows:
Questions of privilege may always be considered in either house without the notice necessary in the case of motions generally.
And at page 303 I find the following:
In the Canadian House, questions of privilege take a wide range, but it may be stated in general terms that they refer to all matters affecting the rights and immunities of the House collectively, or to the position and conduct of members in their representative character.


Hewitt Bostock: It agrees exactly with what I said at the beginning of this discussion. I have no ruling to give. I simply suggested that there is a question of privilege that affects collectively the House of Commons, but that the point of privilege having been stated cleariy and unmistakably, and the answer of tlhe ministers having been made, the debate should now come to an end. Certainly every member is entitled to speak on the question as it affects collectively the House of Commons, but I do not see the necessity of prolonging unduly the debate, unless a motion is put in concrete form dealing with the particular issue raised by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe).


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall not take up much further time. I was saying when the question was raised that hon. gentlemen opposite 'had stated to this parliament that they were advising His Excellency because of an oath which they had taken as members of the Privy Council. I have drawn attention to the circumstance that that oath obliges them to have great regal'd for anything and everything which in any particular may affect the crown, and I am contending that their action in attempting to carry on and continuing-to sit on the treasury benches, as they are doing at the present time, is an action which is imperilling in a more far reaching way, I imagine, than they contemplate, the position of the representative of he crown in this country, and I submit that they can perform no finer act on this day on which we enter upon the sixtieth anniversary of our Dominion than to resolve, however difficult it may be for them so to do, that they will make it their first duty to see that the .representative of the king in this country

Supply-Formation oj Ministry


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take excepis given advice which is constitutional and sound, in order that the relations of this country with the Old Land may not be strained in any particular, but that we may be drawn closer and closer together through that bond which is the great bond within the empire, namely, the preservation of the liberties of the Mother Country and of all the Dominions through common political ideals and institutions based on the principle of responsible self-government in the case of each and all.
May I add this word? There is a distinction between the privy council and the cabinet. I hold in my hand one of the orders in council which my hon. friend handed to me at the beginning of the sitting to-day. That order reads:
Certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the committee of the privy council, approved by His Excellency itho Governor General.
There the distinction is suggested between the rights of privy councillors and those of the particular group which constitute the cabinet. A privy councillor has the right to aid and advise His Excellency the Governor General, but it is only a committee of the Privy Council sworn as a cabinet that has the right to perform any executive act, and it is a committee of the Privy Council which constitutes the government of the day. What I contend, Mr. Speaker, is this:	While hon.
gentlemen opposite have exactly the same privilege that many of us have who sit on this side, as members of the Privy Council, to aid and advise His Excellency, which is the duty of all privy councillors, they have no right and no power to act in an executive capacity, to perform any executive duty whatever until they have taken the oaths of office which will compel them, after accepting office under the crown to resign their seats, and go back to the people for re-election, and then come back to this House with all the authority essential to clothe them with ministerial responsibility. If they are not prepared to take that step immediately, then they should immediately resign.
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William). Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up many minutes, but there are one or two points I wish to make that I think may be of interest in this debate. In the first place, we listened last evening for a couple of hours or more to abuse-I might call it a tirade of abuse from the right hon. the_ ex-Prime Ministertion to my hon. friend's words immediately, Mr. Speaker. I submit that it is not right for my hon. friend to say that I engaged in a tirade of abuse. He is welcome to his opinion, but I submit that the suggestion is unparliamentary and wholly uncalled for though it is language to which we are accustomed from the hon. member.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not think the hon. member would like it said of him that he has indulged in a tirade of abuse as against his opponents. I think the expression is rather too strong.


Robert James Manion: Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, since that expression is too strong, and since I do not know any other words that will take their place, I withdraw it. The right hon. gentleman made the remark that it was nothing better than he could expect from me. I wish, Mr. Speaker, you would ask him to withdraw that remark, because it is the .second time he has used it of me this session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said my hon. friend's remark coming from him came from him; that is all.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to get into a controversy with the right hon. gentleman.
I will leave it to the House to judge what kind of tirade or speech the right hon. gentleman made.
The right hon. gentleman this afternoon in the course of his remarks talked of our threatening the party diagonally opposite, as the expression is, with a dissolution, and he blamed us for what he called threatening the party diagonally opposite-I mean no disrespect when I use that term the Progressive party. I remember, Mr. Speaker, all through this session, every time a question came up when the late government was in any danger whatever, the ex-Prime Minister turned to the hon. gentlemen of the Progressive party and said: If you defeat the government on this measure it will mean an election. Yet he now takes the attitude that we are threatening them, and are not acting as we should in that regard.
He also asked:	What right has the Governor General to refuse him a dissolution, and yet to give it to the right hon. gentleman who is leading this government, the present Prime Minister? Well, so far as I know, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. the present Prime Minister has not asked for a dissolution. I do not know why the leader of the opposition takes that attitude.
Supply-Formation of Ministry

_ Everybody in this House knows why the right hon. gentleman who is to-day Prime Minister took the attitude he did. He took the attitude he did because it was the only attitude he could take in fairness to the House and country. The right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition stood up in this House the other day and without any notice announced: I have resigned the position of Prime Minister of this country; and when the present Prime Minister, who was then leading the opposition rose and suggested that there should be a conference regarding the remainder of the session, the ex-Prime Minister called him to order, and said: There is no Prime Minister. He objected to his discussing the matter with him at all. So there were only two courses left for the present Prime Minister. He could either have asked for a dissolution himself, since he had been called upon by the Governor General to form a government, or he could have said:	We
-tfill attempt to carry on and fulfil the obligations of the late government to the people of Canada, and we will consider the convenience of hon. members, instead of sending them away for six weeks or two months, and then bringing them back again-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit that my hon. friend is entirely wrong in the first of his two, alternatives.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says there were two courses open to the present Prime Minister. One was to ask for a dissolution I say that he could not have asked for a dissolution because he was taking the responsibility of a refusal of dissolution.


Robert James Manion: What I meant to say was an adjournment, not a dissolution, and I think that was clear from my speaking of sending the members away for six weeks or two months.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope hon.
gentlemen opposite will feel that I was justified in rising at the moment.


Robert James Manion: What I meant was an adjournment, and I used the words six weeks or two months. He could have sent the members of parliament away to their respective homes in the various sections of this country, and then at the end of six weeks or two months have called them back, when as a matter of fact the business of this House could be finished up in three days, or at the most inside of four days or a week. Instead of that he took the patriotic attitude of considering the convenience of members, the

patriotic attitude of considering the business of the House and of the country; and when he asked my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition to discuss matters with him he was met with a refusal, although what he did was best for this countiy and best for this House. To-day and yesterday we find the right hon. leader of the opposition opposing that attitude. The . business of the Hou'se which has been carried on for six months, and surely that was long enough for a session, was all practically completed except the estimates, the bills that were to come back from the Senate, and two or three noncontroversial bills that are still to be passed. It looked, Sir, as if we should be able to finish in two or three days or in a week at most if hon. gentlemen opposite did not indulge in the obstructive tactics in which they are indulging at the present time. But what has happened? The right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition is simply holding up the House, he is doing exactly what he tried to do when he resigned, he is doing his best not only to embarrass this House but to embarrass this country: That is the attitude of my right hon. friend. I do not know that we can expect any different attitude from him as far as that goes. I do not wish to be personal in the matter but what I want to point out is this that other prime ministers in other days took a different attitude, a contrary attitude to the attitude taken by the right hon. gentleman who retired the other day. Let me compare his attitude with that taken by Sir John A. Macdonald in 1873 when the government of the latter through a scandal also-not a scandal arising out of the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise but what is known as the Pacific scandal-was put in the same position as the late government was put in. At that time Sir John A. Macdonald did not take the attitude of retiring and saying to the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Alexander Mackenzie: "I will not discuss the matter with you. Get along as well as you can. I do not care how much I embarrass you or the country." He took the patriotic attitude, perhaps too much to expect from my right hon. friend, of standing in his place in this House and telling the leader of the opposition of that day that he was going to resign- that he had resigned in fact-but that he was ready to meet him and discuss matters with him and facilitate the carrying on of the business of the country and of the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
my hon. friend a question-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.

Supply-Formation of Ministry


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -so that we
may see the parallel clearly? Was Sir John A. Macdonald's advice refused or declined by the governor general to whom he tendered it?


Robert James Manion: I will deal with that in
a moment, and I think rather effectively, by giving citations from the same books from which the right hon. gentleman quoted himself. The leader of the opposition stopped quoting one instance at the very passage which was of interest to this House. I happened to notice that my right hon. friend stopped at a particular point in his quotation from Keith; and I am going to give him not one but sixteen instances in the last few years where governors general have refused dissolution to outgoing governments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend cannot give one instance of that kind in Great Britain in one hundred years, or in self-governing dominions.


Robert James Manion: I will give sixteen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not in the
self-governing dominions but in some of the colonies.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Before the hon.
gentleman passes from this point may I ask if he suggests there are sometimes occasions when it would be patriotic to resort to unconstitutional action?


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend has a perfect right to get up and express his opinion but the question is not one entitling any hon. gentleman to rise to a point of order.


Mr WOODS WORTH:: I rose for the purpose-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. May I remind
hon. gentlemen that the question before the House is one of privilege affecting the independence of members of parliament.


Robert James Manion: I have no objection to
anybody asking a question, but I do not think that remarks which have no bearing on the subject are appropriate. Here is an account of what happened in the House of Commons on November 5, 1873. I am going to read just a couple of passages; the report is too lengthy to read the whole of it:
At any rate-
This is Sir John Macdonald speaking-
-he thought the House would leave that matter-
This was the matter that was being discussed previously-
-in abeyance for a few moments till he made an announcement he had to make. He had to announce that the ministry had resigned.
That was the Macdonald ministry.
Till last night they believed they had the support of this House; that the House would not only give them a vote of confidence, but sufficient support to enable them to carry on satisfactorily the affairs of the government. However, from certain things stated in this House, and from certain communications more or less formal outside of the House, they had reason to believe-in fact they knew-that they had not at this moment a good working majority. The consequence was that he felt it his duty to-day to go to His Excellency and respectfully tender him the resignation of the government, and His Excellency's authority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: He had it in charge from His ExcelJency to state that he had accepted the resignation of the administration, and sent for Mr. Mackenzie, the leader of the opposition, to form a government.
And then further down:
Sir John Macdonald observed that it was the bounden duty of the expiring administration to see that the incoming administration had no embarrassments.
But the right hon. gentleman who is leading the opposition here made it his bounden duty to cause every embarrassment not only to the present administration but to the country in general. The right hon. gentleman does not seem to care whether this is a temporary administration-because we admit that it is a temporary administration-he does not seem to care whether the estimates go through, whether Supply is passed, and he does not seem to care whether the legislation which my hon. friends at the other end of the chamber have been fighting for all the session is held up in mid-air or allowed to pass_he does not care anything about it, all he cares is to embarrass the temporary government which was formed within twenty-four hours instead of the period of from six to eight weeks which is usually allotted in such cases.


Jean-Joseph Denis: What has my hon.
friend been quoting from?


Robert James Manion: From a press report of
the debates of that time.


Jean-Joseph Denis: A press report?


Robert James Manion: Yes, a press report of
the proceedings of the House; I do not think Hansard was in existence at that time, or that there was any official report such as the one now published daily.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am not disputing my hon. friend's statement.
5266	COMMONS
Supply-Formation of Ministry


Robert James Manion: I realize that, and I have no intention of being brusque towards my hon. friend. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have shown what the attitude was of a man who was one of tihe outstanding statesmen in the world in hie day. He did not take the attitude which the present leader of the opposition has displayed. The attitude which he took-and to my mind it was the only fair and honourable attitude-was that in order to aid the incoming administration to carry on the affairs of the House and the affairs of the country he would assist them in every possible way. The attitude of the ex-Prime Minister in this instance is to1 embarrass the country and embarrass the incoming administration in every possible way. Sir, John A. Macdonald deemed it to be a patriotic duty to help the incoming administration to carry on the affairs of the country, because country should come before party. We listened for two and a half hours fast night, and for an hour or more to-day, to the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition, and I submit that all his speeches have been veiled attacks upon the Governor General of this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
the motive underlying the remarks my hon. friend has just made is most apparent.


Robert James Manion: Let the right hon. gentleman correct me if he wishes, but I object to his imputing motives to me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say that the statement that any word of mine has been a veiled attack upon His Excellency the Governor General is absolutely unfounded and unparliamentary and should be immediately retracted.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman who has the floor cannot impute motives to another hon. member. If, as he states, the right hon. gentleman had befen attacking His Excellency the Governor General, either openly or in a veiled manner, my hon. friend knows very well that I would not have permitted it.


Robert James Manion: I know that, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I suggested that the attack was veiled. However, I bow to your ruling.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon
friend is required to withdraw the statement completely.


Hewitt Bostock: I trust the hon. gentleman will withdraw his rather throng expression.


Robert James Manion: Well, Mr. Speaker, if tihere is anything to withdraw, I withdraw it willingly in deference to your ruling.
Now, before I close my remarks with some quotations from the same book from which the right hon. leader of the opposition quoted, I wish to say this: The best, inference which can be drawn from the quotations which the right hon. gentleman has made, and his own remarks, is, that even if they cannot be regarded as veiled attacks, they come very near to being attacks upon the Governor General. If the Governor General did what the right hon. gentleman claims he did to him the other day, he certainly was getting close to attacks on the Governor General.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not
taken any exception to what the Governor General did to me the other day. I said I would wait to see his action in the present-situation	[DOT]


Robert James Manion: The only reference that
has been made in these debates to the Governor General has come from my right hon. friend, expect some refutations from this side. About every other paragraph of his speech dealt with the Governor General, and to those of us who have had the very great honour, as some twenty on this side of the House had, of serving under that gentleman who is now Governor General-


An hon. MEMBER:: What kind of services?


Robert James Manion: Who asked that question?


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask hon. members on both sides not to drag in this debate the name of His Excellency. Yesterday I made it clear that the relations between the Governor General and the Prime Minister might be brought into the debate, because ministers have accepted the responsibility of taking office under the Governor General. But to bring in the personality of the Governor General I think is highly undignified.


Robert James Manion: May I ask you, Sir, what
is undignified? Have I done anything which is undignified?


Hewitt Bostock: I am not referring to the hon. member. I say that bringing the name and the personality of the Governor General into any debate before the House, unless it is as regards the official relationship in which the ministers stand to the Governor General, is absolutely out of order.

Supply-Formation oj Ministry


James Shaver Woodsworth: I submit it is out
of order for the hon. gentleman to refer to the fact that he and others have served under the present occupant of the office of Governor General overseas. It seems to me that is introducing most decidedly the personal element and I think it is out of order.


Hewitt Bostock: I interrupted the hon.
minister when he was mentioning that fact, because introducing the name of the Governor General in that regard is, according to authority, using the name of the crown, or of the office of the Governor General of the Dominion, to influence the opinion of parliament. To that I strongly object.


Robert James Manion: I will make no more references to the Governor General, except to say that I am not very much surprised at the attitude my hon. friend takes, because it is an extraordinary attitude to my mind, and he takes extraordinary attitudes very often. It is an extraordinary attitude for anybody to take that on the 1st day of July, Dominion Day, we should not pay a tribute to the Governor General of this country.


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I ask your ruling,
Mr. Speaker. Was I in order in raising a point of order a moment ago?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Lucien Cannon: On the point of order
raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think the Speaker has been perfectly correct in saying that the hon. member (Mr. Manion) should not drag the name of the Governor General into our debates. I spoke for about an hour and did not mention the crown once, and the rule is very well known that in no debate are we to try to influence members of the House by even mentioning the crown.


Robert James Manion: I think my hon. friend
should have directed his remarks to his leader and not to me. As far as I am concerned, I do not want to carry on this part of the discussion further, but I wish to point out, before I come to the quotation, that the right hon. gentleman who is Prime Minister had only twenty-four hours in which to place himself in a position to carry on the business of the country. My right hon. friend, who led the party which preceded this party in power, had from October 29, to January 7 to form his administration, and the administration came into the House without the Prime Minister in his seat, and not on:y without the Prime Minister in his seat, but
without a seat of any kind, a Prime Minister who had to leave his own native province to hunt up a seat in a western province.
The right hon. gentleman quoted Keith volume 1, on Responsible Government in the Dominions. I have read the volume and remember parts of it. He stopped quoting from Keith at a certain point, and I took the opportunity of looking it up. I wish now to discuss the abstract question in regard to the rights of the Governor General in refusing dissolution and I submit I am quite in order as the whole discussion has been around that point. He quoted Keith at page 181. He stopped quoting just before a paragraph which says:
The question of dissolution always, from the nature of the ease, presents the governor with a possibility of differing from his ministers with success; it necessarily implies the existence in the colony of two parties, of which one is in possession of the government, but the other has been successful in driving them to appeal to the people. The governor has therefore a difficult task, not merely in deciding to refuse to accept ministerial advice but in deciding to accept it; for the fact that the prerogative is not expected as a matter of course to be used as the ministry advises prevents him from sheltering behind the advice of his ministers. If he acts on their advice he may easily find himself quite as unpopular as if he had refused to do so, and indeed the governor is expected to do what is best for the country, a course by no means normally at all simple or easy.
There are two important facts which the governor must consider in granting or refusing a dissolution. In the first place, the duration of colonial parliaments is brief,


An hon. MEMBER:: Colonial parliaments?


Robert James Manion: Yes. Well I will come to some dominion parliaments.
Then he must remember-


John Campbell Elliott: Does the hon. member
think that that clause referring to colonial parliaments applies in that sense?


Robert James Manion: No, I believe Canada is
a dominion. I think perhaps I am as good a believer in Canada as my hon. friend. Keith continues:
Then he must remember that the shortness of parliament, and the important work that has to be done, render a dissolution to be avoided if possible, for the waste of time, expense, and dislocation of a general elect.on, if less serious in themselves than the same features in this country, are equally important to a smaller community. Moreover, there is growing stronger and stronger the feeling, in Australia
Nobody will dispute that Australia is not a colony.
-in Australia at least, that a dissolution does wrong to the members of parliament, who thus are not merely put to trouble and expense, though election expenses

Supply-Formation of Ministry
aie not on the English scale, but are put in jeopardy of losing their salaries, an important consideration in n place where the paid member is an institution. Then a second consideration is the question of supply.
Further down he says:
The cases of refusal of dissolution and the grant under circumstances of difficulty are almost innumerable, and mafiy of them are interesting. One of the most important o'f the earlier cases is that of Governor-General Sir E. Head, of the united province of Canada in August 1858, on the defeat of Mr. Macdonald's ministry.


An hon. MEMBER:: When we were a
colony.


Robert James Manion: 
Lucien Cannon: Referring to the Leteiiier
case, his course was considered so unconstitutional that he was dismissed by the federal government. Sir John A. Macdonald himself dismissed him.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend may give
one case where that happened, but there are sixteen altogether although I do not intend to read them all. Some of these cases were in Australia, some in Canada. The sixteenth was in South Australia:
In South Australia, Mr. Price, the Premier, applied to the governor in 1906 for a dissolution. . . . The governor was unwilling to dissolve a parliament which had not long been in existence. ... He therefore declined to grant the dissolution.
Histoiy is now repeating itself.
My right hon. friend cited the case of Tasmania.
5. In Tasmania in 1879 the governor had more troubles on his head, for Mr. Crowther, who had followed Mr Gibl.n, Mr. Fysh's successor in the leadership of the party, asked for a dissolution on the ground that it was desirable to test the feeling of the country on the principles of direct taxation and a change of relations between the houses. The governor declined.
[Mr. Manion.I
That is as recent as 1906. I could give more; but I give these because the right hon. gentleman opposite has used Professor Keith as one of his precedents, and we all know that Professor Keith is one of the most outstanding constitutional authorities in the British world to-day. He has used him as an authority, and according to him he gives case after case-and I have quoted ten-where the governor refused

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
dissolution to the Prime Minister who asked for it. Therefore there is no discussion on the matter. It is a constitutional course if the Governor General dhooses to take it. The attitude taken by the right hon. gentleman who is to-day Prime Minister of this country was the only patriotic attitude he could take. He had to form a government and attempt to carry on until the business of the House was completed. After that if he wishes to dissolve parliament, that is his affair.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the
hon. gentleman ask the House to accept the sixteen precedents which he has quoted as an example to be followed to-day and so deny the evolution which has taken place in our status and which is acknowledged by his previous leader, Sir Robert Borden?


Robert James Manion: I do not deny our evolution, and I do not pretend to be an authority on constitutional questions; but I have read enough of constitutional questions to know that it is the right not only of the king, but of the Governor General to advise with his ministers. My hon. friend will not deny that. I am not using these citations to prove the case. I am showing simply that the attitude taken by the leader of the opposition is wrong in implying that this is an unprecedented case. I gave sixteen citations. The right course for the right hon. gentleman opposite to have taken, since he objected so much to the course we have taken, was to go to the Governor General, state that he could not carry on properly, and ask for dissolution. If the Governor General did not agree, then his duty was to come back to the House and attempt to carry on until he was defeated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My duty was
to do whatever His Excellency would ask me to do under the circumstances. I indicated clearly to His Excellency that I was desirous that my resignation should be withheld by His Excellency if he desired to hold it pending an arrangement of any kind.


Robert James Manion: I think I have shown convincingly there are many precedents for the attitude taken to-day. I also believe the right hon. gentleman opposite, having taken the attitude which he has taken, should have patriotically assisted instead of attempting to embarrass the right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister of this country.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Campbell Elliott: When the House rose at six o'clock I was about to address myteelf to some of the remarks of the Acting Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, of Health, and of Labour (Mr, ,Manion). Before coining to t.he arguments which I intend to submit to you. Mr. Speaker, I desire to refer briefly to the three main points stressed by the hon. member. In the first place he referred to what occurred when ^ir John A. Macdonald was defeated in consequence of the Pacific scandal. The Hon. Mr. Mackenzie, as the House will remember, was asked to form an administration as a result of Sir John Macdonald's defeat. I am rather surprised that my hon. friend should have cited that case in support of his contention. What did the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie do when his opponents were defeated in the House and he was called upon to form a government? Did he do as hon. gentlemen opposite have done? Did he attempt to form a visionary, illusory, shadow}', ghostlike administration, or did he, in the regular course, create a cabinet which would be really vital and which gave evidence of some of the characteristics of a true government? The Hon. Mr. Mackenzie formed a government mostly composed of members of the House to whom were assigned portfolios of departments of government, who were forthwith sworn as responsible ministers. On the advice of the first minister the Governor General, Lord Dufferin, prorogued parliament the same day upon which the ministry took office. Writs were issued for the elections necessary to fill the seats in parliament thus vacated, in order that the new ministers should at the earliest possible date obtain the sanction of the electors for exercising their functions as responsible ministers of the crown. All the ministers were promptly returned, several of them by acclamation. After continuing in office for a period of about two months-[DOT] that is to say, during November and December, 1873-Mr. Mackenzie obtained from the Governor a dissolution of the parliament elected a little more than a year previous, and a general election ensued in which Mr. Mackenzie's administration was sustained by a majority of eighty. This was the course followed in the instance cited by my hon. friend, and the House can contrast the difference between the attitude shown by the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie towards the responsibility which he felt devolved upon him on being asked to form an administration and the sense of responsibility which apparently
5270	COMMONS
Supply-Formation of Ministry
hon. gentlemen opposite entertain in attempting to form a visionary government to carry on the affairs of the country. Although they admit that they are not the king's ministers they claim to be ministers entitled to ask for supply, and pretend to be vested with the power to manage the various departments of the public service.
What is, and has been in the past, the attitude of other administration under circumstances similar to those in which we find ourselves at this time? The hon. gentleman referred to the Letellier case, already mentioned by the hon* member for Dorchester. I do not intend to discuss that case at any length, but in my opinion, like the Alexander Mackenzie case, it proves exactly the opposite of the contention advanced by hon. gentlemen.
The last reference which my hon. friend made appears to me the most important. I want to do my hon. friend the credit of being fair enough and frank enough in reading these instances to refer to the fact in almost every case that the word "colonial" was brought in in one place or another, in connection with the recital of what had taken place. On this occasion, the birthday of this great country, it seems remarkable that my hon. friend-who, in common I think with all the other members of this House and the people of this country, is proud of the status acquired by this Dominion among the overseas dominions of the world and proud of the fact that it has advanced to the stature already attained-should suggest, as a reason why a certain course should be followed now, some course followed years ago in certain places which were admittedly merely colonies at the time.
In connection with the argument of my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Justice 1 would like to refer to chapter 10 of the statutes of Canada. This chapter, as my hon. friend correctly stated, refers to the fact that no person accepting or holding any office, commission or employment, permanent or temporary, in the service of the government of Canada, at the nomination of the crown, or at the nomination of any of the officers of the government of Canada, to which any salary, fee, wages, allowance, emolument or profit of any kind is attached-as well as sheriffs, et cetera-shall be eligible as a member of the House of Commons or shall sit or vote therein. May I draw particular attention to those words:
-to which any salary, fee, wages, allowance, omolu-ment, or profit of any kind is attached-

Looking at the English act you will see that the word "profit" was not originally included there, which gave rise to some of the decisions given years ago in England. But I want to ask my hon. friends this. Can anyone point to a case in any British dominion where it was even argued, let alone conceded, that you could have a government or an administration without having therein one minister clothed with the full powers of a minister?
The present administration cannot be called such. Just let us see how it was organized. The Prime Minister was sworn in, and by that act he vacated his seat. At the beginning of this session nearly three weeks were spent by hon. gentlemen opposite in attempting to convince members of this House that unless there was a Prime Minister occupying a seat in either house, no matter how many other fully qualified ministers there were, the government could not function. In this connection may I just read the words of the then leader of the opposition as they appear on page 15 of Hansard:
The powers of a prime minister are very great. The functions and duties of a prime minister in parliament are not only important, they are supreme in their importance. The Prime Minister is not only the leader of the House, in whichever house he may be, 'but he is the spokesman of the nation before the crown or the representative of the crown. He is the spokesman, and the only spokesman, of the nation. He is the sole via media between parliament, as parliament, and the crown or the representative of the crown.
Then later he proceeds:
The ministry is embodied in the Prime Minister. He personifies his ministry in so far as parliament is concerned, m so far as the crown is concerned, and he speaks as between parliament and the crown. All this implies-and it is the result of many years of constitutional development, a development which proceeded against struggles not a few-that the minister known as the Prime Minister, in order to enable the government to function within the walls of parliament, must be a member of one of the Houses of Parliament. He must be a member because parliament has the right to demand that he come there to expound the policies of the government, to defend those policies, and admit his submission to the control of parliament. Otherwise though he be the King's servant he is not the agent of parliament.
Then ho went on to elaborate that theory to such an extent that as I watched him and as hon. members around him applauded to the detriment of the furniture on this side of the House-


Mr. GEARY:: We are through with that furniture.


John Campbell Elliott: Only for a very short time. Watching the right hon. leader of the opposition, in my innocence as a very youthful

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
member of this House I was at times almost constrained to think that he believed himself to be right. We contended on this side of the House, and properly I submit, that if there were other ministers in the House properly clothed with authority and prepared to assume the functions of an administration it was not necessary for the Prime Minister to be also in the House. I submit that we were correct in that, as we are now correct in the theory that you cannot have government not only without a prime minister, without whom according to my hon. friends the government cannot function; but without any other responsible minister who has taken the oath of office properly to administer the affairs of his department.
See the change in the arguments of my hon. friends to suit their own case; they have not one minister who has taken the oath of office. Is that what my hon. friend intended to convey when he spoke here the other day? Might I pause here to say that in parliaments thought to be enjoying responsible government it has been usual, no matter how secretive the Prime Minister and other members of his cabinet may feel disposed to be, before assuming the functions of government for them to be good enough to disclose to parliament at least some of the policies which they intend to follow in the course of their duties as a government. Of course I cannot blame them for not doing what governments do, because this is not a government. I cannot blame them for not doing what administrations do, because even they do not claim that this is an administration. But what did my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) promise this House in the message which was delivered by my right hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton)? This is the message sent to this House; it appears at page 5097 of Hansard:
Immediately following the resignation of the late government and the adjournment of the House yesterday, His Excellency, the Governor General sent for the Right Honourable Arthur Meighen, leader of the Conservative party and requested him to form a new administration. Mr. Meighen advised His Excellency last evening that he would undertake this task, and was sworn in this morning as Prime Minister, Secretary of State for External Affairs and President of the Privy Council.
Having in mind the fact that the present session has now continued for almost six months, and is very near its close, Mr. Meighen believed it to be the first duty of any government he might form to conclude with all convenient despatch the work of the present session. Such a course in preference to a somewhat prolonged adjournment was demanded also by a just regard for the convenience of hon. members, especially those who come from a great distance.
It was manifestly impossible to effect this result if a government was to be formed in the usual way and if ministers were to be assigned portfolios necessitating the vacating of their seats and consequent by-elections. The delay thus involved would, especially at this period of the year, have entailed unnecessary hardship. The Prime Minister accordingly decided to constitute and submit to His Excellency a temporary ministry composed of seven members, who would be sworn in without portfolio.
Note the words, Mr. Speaker:
-who would be sworn in without portfolio, and who would assume responsibility as acting ministers of the several departments.
When would1 they assume that responsibility? After they had been sworn in as ministers without portfolio! But does my hon. friend for a moment contend that the Prime Minister intended by that message that they would not take the oath? He did not say: who have years ago been sworn in as privy councillors, which oath they intend to rely upon as vesting in them the power to become acting ministers in their several departments. That is not what he said. What he said was: "who will be sworn in." So that my hon. friends have not carried out the procedure which the Prime Minister evidently communicated to them, and which the Acting Minister of Finance communicated to this House as the declared intention of the Prime Minister as his method of forming this acting cabinet. I want again to refer to the fact that nowhere in any British dominion at any time has any collection of individuals claimed to exercise the rights of government under the British constitution without some of those ministers having come into being in the regular way. What is the theory with regard to ministers who have not been vested with the full powers of a minister, who come in as ministers without portfolio? That is set out quite clearly in the practice and procedure relating to this matter. I refer to Bourinot, fourth edition, page 21, where I find this:
The act provides for a council to aid and advise the Governor General in Canada. This body is styled "The Privy Council" and its members are appointed and may be removed at any time by the Governor General. That portion of the council known as the cabinet is always supposed to represent the views and policy of the majority of the peoples' representatives in parliament and can hold office only as long as its members retain the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons. The principles that prevail in the formation of a cabinet in England obtain in the case of an administration in Canada. Its members must have seats in one or the other of the House of Parliament, but the majority of them, as a rule, sit in the House of Commons. The whole privy council practically never meets for business as an organized body but only those select members of it who constitute the cabinet. The cabinet consists, generally speaking, of those members of the privy



Supply-Formation of Ministry
council who are at the head of the various departments of state but there are frequently added members of one or other of the Houses who hold no portfolio.
Let me repeat that:
There are frequently added members of one or other of the Houses who hold no portfolio.
But they are the exceptions. The cabinet, the administration, the creation that is vested with power to carry on the administration of the country's affairs, that part of it that has administrative life, is the cabinet, consisting of the heads of the various departments who have been regularly sworn in, and after having been sworn in, have been re-elected; and that is the only way in which you can get an administration capable of asking for supply and handling that supply in carrying on the affairs of the country.
I followed with a great deal of interest the argument of the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). If his argument meant anything, and I followed him very closely, it meant this: that if a minister is only an acting minister he does not need to take the same oath that a minister who is clothed with the powers of a fully developed minister requires to take. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that shows how illogical the argument of my hon. friend is. Let me follow it a step further. I refer to chapter 10 of the revised statutes, which deals with the members of the cabinet. Section 11 says:
Nothing in the next preceding section shall render ineligible any person holding any office, commission or employment, permanent or temporary, in the service of the government o.f Canada, at the nomination of the crown, or at the nomination of any of the officers of the government of Canada, as a member of the House of Commons, or shall disqualify him from sitting or voting therein, if, by his commission or other instrument of appointment, it is declared or provided that he shall hold such office, commission or employment without any salary, fees, wages, allowances, emolument or other profit of any kind, attached thereto.
I repeat the provision:
-if, by his commission or other instrument of appointment, it is declared or provided that he shall hold such office, commission or employment without any salary', fees, wages, allowances, emolument or other profit of any kind, attached thereto.
What does that mean? I submit it must be quite apparent to every hon. member in this House who reads that section that that is the only exception to the rule that if a member accepts an office of emolument he vacates his seat. But it must be stated in the order in council appointing him that he holds such office without any salary, emolument, or other profit of any kind attached thereto.
[Mr. Elliott.J
The situation is, I submit, a very simple one. My hon. friends must realize, when they think the matter over, that they have not done what the Prime Minister in his message to this House promised they would do. namely, take the oath before assuming office. They must realize that there is no real administration to carry on the affairs of government at the present time; that they are not sworn in, not properly clothed with full powers as cabinet ministers, and on that account unable to form a quorum of cabinet. In constitutional matters the power to take control of the money of the people and to use it for public purposes is a power which must be guarded with the utmost care. Millions of dollars are sought to be granted to the members of this temporary administration, an administration that is merely a shadow, that is without form and void and lacking all the attributes which an administration must possess not only in this country but in every self-governing dominion in the world. Yet they are asking the people ot Canada to grant them the right to expend millions of dollars of public money without having taken that oath which the rules and statutes prescribe must be taken as a safeguard that such money will be properly expended in the interest of the various government departments.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend kindly give me the reference to the statute which provides for that oath?


John Campbell Elliott: For that oath?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not know that I have the reference here.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
such statute.


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend suggest for one moment that the members of a cabinet are not required to take an oath of office?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was only asking my hon. friend a perfectly proper question, and his statement illustrates his ignorance of the subject. There is no such statute.


John Campbell Elliott: Then I would ask my
hon. friend if he means what he says, and he frequently does although not always-


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no such statute.

Supply-Formation oj Ministry


John Campbell Elliott: -I would ask him why.
when he was about to become a real minister, he did take an oath of office if such is not required? Will my hon. friend tell me?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not say
that.


John Campbell Elliott: That is all very well.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
says "all very well." What I said was there was no such statute. My hon. friend has referred to an oath which he says is required by statute, and there is no such statute; that is all. My hon. friend might get a little closer to the facts sometimes.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend knows
perfectly well that he is-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Absolutely
right.


John Campbell Elliott: No, he knows that he is
not right. If he is right then I would ask him why do the members of the cabinet take the oath? Why does the Minister of Justice suggest-and he stated what the Minister of Finance now denies-that if he were a real minister, that, is a live minister-a minister into whose being had been infused the breath of life-he would have to take an oath of office? Being only an imaginary, spurious, unreal, visionary minister, how could he come here and seek to get control of the money of the people of this country without taking any oath of office? I do not want to labour the point. I am sure that my hon. friends realize by now that they have no existence as an administration, that they are absolutely without the powers which are necessary in order to entitle them to exercise the functions of government, to entitle them to receive supply, and to carry on the business of the country.
I want just at this stage to deal with another phase of the argument that has been presented to you, Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate. In doing so I hope that I shall keep away from matters that are personal and endeavour to argue the question out on its real (merits. Because, after all, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question. What the people of Canada are concerned with today are not recriminations back and forth from one member of this House to another, but the very serious problem of how the affairs of the country are to be administered, how their money is to be expended, and the status of those by whom that expenditure is to be made. That is a serious question and- it should be argued seriously. It is not enough,
14011-334J
I submit, for some hon. gentlemen opposite to say: "You are taking up a lot of time, you are taking it up at the close of the session when we should be at home." I agree that we should be home, we should have been home months ago, but why are we not there? We are not at home because my hon. friends opposite spent weeks, yes months, in the attempt to convince the members of this House that a government could not function if it had a prime minister who was not a member of either House of parliament. My hon. friends did not argue that the late government had ministers not entitled to* carry on the administration but they argued that the fact that the late government did not have a qualified prime minister was an absolute bar to its constitutional functioning. It is not sufficient for hon. gentlemen to say that we should not take up a few hours, or a few days, for that matter, in discussing a question of this kind. It is not sufficient for them to say to us: "You are doing this just to get into power." Is that why my hon. friends opposite occupied all the early months of the session in useless discussion which did not get them anywhere or assist the members of this House in the solution of the problems which confront this country?
I think that my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton), who at times is reasonable, will, when he comes to consider the situation, realize that he and the other members of the visionary cabinet neglected to follow the constitutional procedure which would enable them to carry on for a short time. The matter is too serious to be treated in that way. Are the representatives in this House of the people of Canada going to submit to this proposition; that the affairs of this country Shall be conducted in this way, that the moneys of this country shall be expended by a government clothed with less authority than any government that has ever assumed control of a self-governing country among any of the British dominions? I submit not.


Mr. PRICE:: Clothed with less authority
than the government my hon. friend has been supporting? Why, the ideal


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Otto Baird Price: The public was fed up with that government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


John Campbell Elliott: Really, Mr. Speaker, it
amuses me when my hon. friend even suggests that he has an idea. It is quite new. I do not propose to get into any cheap argument
5274	COMMONS
Supply-Formation oj Ministry
with my hon. friend. That is not what I am here for. The time of this House is too valuable to be taken up in that way.
I wish again to urge that it is quite impossible for this government to function. If they do not take the proper course and get their house in order, they cannot carry on the affairs of government and are not entitled to be given the full power of a governmental administration.


Mr. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: I must admit at the commencement of my remarks that I approach this problem with a good deal of diffidence. After listening for a couple of days to arguments presented by legal minds, you will understand, Mr. Speaker, that a layman such as myself cannot discuss a matter of this kind without first craving the indulgence of the House as to the manner in which he treats it. At the same time, I consider it the most momentous question that has been before us this session, and I will say more. I have sat in this House for seven sessions, and I have had the great honour of sitting in the press gallery for a number of sessions, and this is the first time in my experience in this House that a question of privilege has arisen in which it could be said that all the members of this House were collectively interested. It must be a very important question when Your Honour had to admit that the House had a collective interest in it, and that every individual member was permitted to protest against such a serious situation, which affects every one of us, and through us certainly affects the whole of the people of Canada whom we represent.
We see in this House a group of members endeavouring to administer the affairs of the government, when those hon. members have not taken the oath of office, nor have they been appointed regularly to their positions as acting ministers; and yet they claim that they have the right to conduct the business of the House, and the right to exact from us the voting of the public moneys, one of the most important functions that parliament is called upon to perform. What is the situation? Can we compare it with the situation in January last when we met in the first days of the session? My hon. friends would want us and the country to believe that they are in the same predicament as the government at that time was, and that the conditions are the same as those which obtained when we met in January. On that occasion there were on the other side of the House, sitting on the treasury benches, members of parliament who had been properly sworn in, who had every right to exercise the prerogatives of ministers of the Crown, and who could properly and with dig-
nity conduct the business of the House and administer the affairs of the country; yet because their membership was not complete and there were certain vacant portfolios, my hon. friends opposite claimed that that government had no right to function and should be dismissed. We find every one of those members who on so many occasions protested against what was a perfectly constitutional position, rising now to defend their own position, which is perfectly indefensible, and taking objection to our attitude on this occasion during a couple of days, when for two full months they protested against the situation which previously obtained.
We all know the result of the last federal election. There were three main groups of members elected, one group having 116 members, the government having 101; but there was a sufficient number of independent members elected to swing the majority one way or the other. The Liberal government was then in power. What was the Prime Minister to do after that election? What was he to advise His Excellency? And what took place at the time? The then Prime Minister advised His Excellency that in his opinion the proper course was not that he should retain office, was not that he should be considered as being still in power, but merely that parliament should be called at a convenient moment and the representatives of the people allowed to decide which party should administer the affairs of the country. That is what took place, and although the ministry was perfectly and regularly in order; although the members of the government had been sworn in and had taken office according to the best principles of our constitution, out of respect for the rights of the people and of public opinion 'they carefully refrained from entering into any act of administration until parliament had been convened to decide that issue. Yet what stand was taken then by my hon. friends opposite, these ministers without portfolio, without oaths, or without anything else that could qualify them as ministers? They claimed that every right had been violated; they claimed that the House could not function because the Prime Minister was absent from it. They claimed that there was no via media through which we could communicate with His Excellency and His Excellency be advised.
That was the stand my hon. friends opposite took then. What are the facts to-day? We have but a shadow government, but a temporary government, on their own admission and also on the admission of everyone else. We have but a group of men who have not been properly sworn in, who have taken no oath and who have not been properly

Supply-Formation of Ministry
appointed by the council,, because in that council only one minister sat who had any right whatever to be there. The government which obtained the vote of confidence of the House in January last carried on for a number of months and succeeded in obtaining successive votes of confidence on the Address, on the budget and on the main measures of its political programme throughout the session. But when it found that the support upon which it could rely from the independent groups in this House was tottering, when it found that majorities were dwindling to one or two, becoming the expression not of the House, but merely of whatever members happened to be in the House at the time the votes were taken; when it found that it had become impossible to carry on, although the government had not been defeated, the then Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) went to His Excellency and advised dissolution, and dissolution was refused. What other course was there for the present leader of the opposition to take than to resign and to make way because he could not obtain dissolution?
The minister of so many portfolios that 1 do not know by which to designate him, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) tried to demonstrate this afternoon that in a number of instances dissolution had been refused in the past. He said that he was going to cite sixteen instances. You have heard them, Sir, and you have noticed that every one of those cases was either concerning a colony, not a dominion, or concerning a province, not a dominion again, and that all of them date back over fifty years ago in the history of British institutions. If my hon. friend is willing to go back fifty years in the history of the liberties of the British dominions we on this side of the House are not. We stand for the liberties as we have them to-day; we stand for more liberties that may come to-morrow, but we shall certainly never go back to dead books or to forgotten periods of past history for examples of what we should do to-day. This is why one after the other we rise in our place on this question of collective privilege to protest against the situation which now obtains.
The leader of the opposition was criticized very severely because after tendering his resignation he did not advise His Excellency as to his successor, or did not make it easier for his successor to carry on the business of the House. How could he do so, when the very advice that he was giving was that no one could carry on, neither himself nor any other leader in the House?


Donald Sutherland: Why did he not resign right after the election when he was defeated at the polls?


John Warwick King: He was not.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend cannot
have followed me, because this is the very point I- have been trying to make so far. I should be glad to repeat my argument, but the rules of the House prevent my doing so.
I may tell my hon. friend, if he finds any comfort in it, that rvhatever I said about this matter I said nothing about the Australian treaty.


Donald Sutherland: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I certainly will. I should
like to hear the question, but I cannot possibly reply to it unless it is put. The reason why I made this remark to my hon. friend is that whatever we discuss in this House, whether it be the Address, the budget, rural credits, old age pensions or anything else, when it comes to my hon. friend it always revolves around the Australian treaty-.


Donald Sutherland: My
hon. friend will not find me renouncing all past rules and establishing new precedents on a question of this kind, precedents that have never before been heard of in this or in any other British parliament.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is my hon. friend's
opinion, and naturally he is entitled to it; but if he had the same idea of the liberties of members of this House and of the rights of the common people as we cherish and foster, instead of making the statement he made he would protest against this House being ruled by a government formed of temporary members who have no right whatever to administer the affairs of this country. My hon. friend was so much concerned over certain problems that they perhaps prevented him from giving the fullest attention to a question like this which, in my opinion, is much more momentous than most of the questions to which he gave so much time during the course of the session.
I was arguing that it was impossible for the present leader of the opposition to recommend to His Excellency the name of a possible successor who could carry on the business of the House, when his very reason for recommending dissolution was that there was no such possible successor. That 9 p.m. is very plain. He may have been wrong in believing that; he may have had a wrong insight into conditions in
527(1

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
this House. But certainly he was logical, and the last thing we could reproach the leader of the opposition for is the course that he followed in that instance. How could he advise His Excellency as to the fact that he wanted a dissolution because no one could carry on, and in the same breath say: If dissolution is not granted, then I suggest that the leader of the Tory party can carry on. That would have been most illogical, and when my right hon. leader is criticized for having embarrassed the affairs of the country and of my hon. friends by the stand he takes, I cannot consider that argument seriously.
Is it not a strange thing, after we have been here for six months, being obstructed in every possible way, by every device that my hon. friends could imagine, to find that after they have claimed to hold power for two days they already feel that we are creating much embarrassment to their shadow cabinet. I shall remember all my life the scene which took place on Monday last when the then leader of the government got up in his place and, in a voice which betrayed the gravity of the moment, read to this House the document through which he was announcing that his cabinet had resigned. Before a minute had passed, the first thing that came to the mind of the then leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) was to rise and say: Well, now that you are out of it, I pray that you make it as easy as you can for us. Certainly we are not going to do anything merely to delay the business of the country. But in his time the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) was devising every means he could think of to prevent the estimates being voted and to keep bills from' going through the House. Yet, so soon as the late government resigned, having before him the vision of a cabinet under his own control, the first thing he thought of in the gravity of that situation was reliance upon the benevolence of that very group of men against whom he had devised every scheme his fertile imagination could produce to make it difficult for them to carry on.
Do not let hon. gentlemen suppose that we are taking this stand to-day with any idea at all of embarrassing this government. As a matter of fact during the past couple of days this House has done some business. But when we were informed last evening of the procedure by means of which hon. gentlemen opposite came to occupy their seats, we had to rise in protest, not for any advantage that we might gain, not in the interests of our own party, but from the standpoint of the people at large. We could not allow

such a situation to exist without comment. It has been shown by every text which has been quoted in this discussion that ministers, whatever their capacity, may be appointed only by a quorum of council. And a quorum comprises four ministers. Yet these bon. gentlemen, temporary ministers, acting ministers, and soon departing ministers, were appointed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) himself alone. He is the only minister who has been sworn in, and he, sitting by himself, presiding over himself, personally passed the orders in council appointing this acting ministry.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Just as Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier did.


An hon. MEMBER:: He never did that.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: He did. He "sat by himself, presided' over himselif," and made his own appointments.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: A self-made government.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not know to which period of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's career the hon. member alludes, but I venture to suggest that if Sir Wilfrid's record were compared with my hon. friends' he would find that the right was on Sir Wilfrid's side. I will not try to make any easy argument by going back to the days of Sir Wilfrid, but I may content myself with this observation: If we want to find an instance of a strict regard for the constitution, if we want to see a record of the business of the country carried on as it ought to foe carried on, there is no one to whom we may look sooner than Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He was eminently fitted to promote the prosperity and to maintain the honour of this country, and no greater man in 'Canada's history can be mentioned. He was the right man in the right place. I say, he was the right man-words that are slightly different in sound from my hon. friend's name.
As I was * saying, when Mr. Meighen appointed hon. gentlemen opposite he did so all bj' himself. He was the only one who' had been properly sworn; he was the only one who had taken the oath of office, although there should have been at least four ministers properly sworn. Even conceding to the right hon. gentleman a brain capacity comparable to the sum total of that of four hon. gentlemen opposite, I still say that on the rock of constitution he should have stood with three other properly sworn ministers before attempting to pass such orders in council. This therefore is the situation. We

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
have a Prime Minister who, not being in the House, is not responsible to parliament, and acting ministers who, being in the House, are responsible to no electorate. They have not been sworn in and have not made any move to secure the endorsation of their electors before coming into the House to administer the affairs of the country. No one disputes the fact that Mr. Meighen could have had three other ministers sworn along with himself in order to pass orders in council appointing acting ministers. Why then did he not take that course? For the very reason advanced by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in giving his advice to His Excellency. If Mr. Meighen had attempted to withdraw three ministers from this House he could not command a majority. Are we responsible for that situation? It is a situation we deplore; it is regrettable that neither party can .properly carry on owing to the complexity of this parliament. When we met in January it was perfectly reasonable to assume that the government might expect the support of a group who had supported it in the past and whose policy in more than one respect approximated its own. To-day however it is different. We find the indtependents voting differently on every question as it comes up. No one is able to predict how any vote will go. If a member happens to be called out to the telephone at the moment the division bell rings, the result is likely to be affected. We have had more than one vote which has been decided by a bare majority of one or two, and if a member happens to be ill and is unable to take his seat, the division may swing in the opposite direction.
Is it proper that the business of the country should be conducted under such conditions? Again I ask, did not the leader of the Liberal party follow the proper course in advising His Excellency that neither party could carry on under the circumstances and that a dissolution was therefore necessary? Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to think they can carry on. They come to the House without a prime minister, that via media which, as they claimed not long ago, is essential to proper government. They have not one sworn minister on the treasury benches and yet they want to carry on. More than that, they wanted to rush things through in one day. When we asked the leader of the House (Sir Henry Drayton) the other night what was going to be the business the following day he said, "It will be prorogation." They were going to do it all in one day; they were going to pass millions of dollars.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You are wrong.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I know I am wrong at
this moment-I am quoting you.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I know my hon. friend wishes to be fair, as he usually is. His may be one lone voice in the wilderness, but I pay him that compliment. What I said was that I thought all the contentious business had been disposed of, and as the estimates were all government business we might be able to conclude.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The point is not whether the items are warrantable or not. It is not a matter of spending so many thousands on a break-water or so many thousands on a lighthouse. The question is, are there ministers in the House who can be entrusted with the public money? That is the point. We do not claim that no money should be spent on public works. They are our estimates, it is true; but we do not want to entrust any men in this country or in this House with public money until we are satisfied that they have a right to administer it. I think this is a great principle which every member of this House should be very jealous to guard and protect and this is the issue in this discussion. It is not merely the passing of a bill or the voting of an estimate, it is the very principle that no man should be entrusted with any of the public money until he has complied with the constitution, and we claim that the present government have not done so. It would be belittling that question and losing sight of it to claim that because the estimates which were before the House last evening were devised by us, we should entrust that money to a group of men who have no ri^ht to it. We might as well go outside the House and entrust it to a private company, if we followed the line of argument of my hon. friend. It is not a question of whether or not the money should be spent; the question is who should spend it, and I say again that my hon. friend either loses sight of the question or does not speak his mind in taking the stand he has just indicated.
This is a momentous question, Mr. Speaker, and I rose for no other purpose than to join my protest with that of the right hon. leader of the opposition, who placed that question so clearly before the public last night. I wa3 as much impressed by that address as was my good friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) who rose in his place in a moment of well-understood enthusiasm and said it was one of the finest speeches delivered in this House for a very long time. Let me tell my right hon. leader that I would not
5278	COMMONS
Supply-Formation oj Ministry
pay him that tribute if it were only for his eloquence or the way in which he put his arguments, but what impressed everyone- and I do not think I am wrong when I say that it also impressed hon. gentlemen opposite and stirred their consciences-were the very points which he made and the principles which he endorsed as well as the situation which he outlined, which is of such grave importance in connection with the very welfare of the most cherished rights of the people of Canada.
I shall not stress the point further; I think it has been made perfectly clear that there is no government in this House. There are no ministers properly sworn in who could pass the orders in council under which my hon. friends claim they have a right to pose as acting ministers. I am not making a political speech, but we cannot let hon. gentlemen opposite come before this House and ask us to vote supply, or ask the right to take any stand whatever as ministers when they have not that right. To my mind it is not a question of political advantage; this parliament will go on and men now in this House will disappear, but I daresay this moment of Canadian history will be looked back upon by future generations and that the course we are now taking will be taken into account by those who will succeed us.
Before I take my seat I would like to raise one other point. I was very grieved with the stand the hon. member for Tort William (Mr, Manion) was about to take when very properly called to order. I know-and this will not be denied-that it is already the intention of hon. gentlemen opposite to go back to their constituencies and claim that once again the Tory party has been ultra loyal while the Liberals have not been so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I stand in the judgment of the Chair. I know that that is the intention of hon. members opposite; my hon. friend indicated it very clearly in his allusions and when he wanted this House to understand that the leader of the Liberal party had been disrespectful to His Excellency. Although a young member, I have been long enough in political conflicts to know what can be done with that sort of material when some hon. members get back to their constituents. If it is claimed by any Tory candidates in the coming fight that by taking our present stand to-night, that in fighting for popular rights and responsible government there has been an element of disrespect to His Excellency, I cannot agree with it. It has been said and emphasized that the crown

can do no wrong; certainly His Excellency can do no wrong, but His Excellency can be wrongly advised. I think His Excellency was. properly advised by the late Prime Minister when he was asked to grant dissolution, and when he was further advised that no other leader in this House could carry on. Now, after we have given that advice, we are asked to make it easy for others to carry on when in our opinion it cannot be done. Without the least intention of being disrespectful I say again that His Excellency should be advised by the Prime Minister of to-day that he cannot carry on with these shadow ministers who have no authority at all to act in this House. By taking that stand I say we are loyal not only to the crown but to the very best institutions of our country and to the dearest right of our citizenship Whether we win or whether we lose to-day or this week I am perfectly sure that in this fight the Liberal party has stood for the rights and interests of the country.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is with some diffidence and considerable humility that I rise to address Your Honour and the House this evening on the question now before us. In a recent discussion I stated that I would not be swerved from what I considered to be a reasonable course of action by any attempts of a purely party political character, and that course I have pursued from the very commencement of my parliamentary career. I intend on all questions to be governed by reason rather than political exigencies. Having that viewpoint, Your Honour can understand the position in which I now find myself. This issue is of immense importance because of its vital effect not only on our legislative relationship as between parliament and this so-called shadow government, or those who have usurped government for the moment, but because it also strikes deeper, to the very root of our whole status, and that is one of the reasons why I feel it incumbent upon me to address the House upon this subject.
The tremendous constitutional effects of the recent action should, I think, with all due respect to everyone concerned, be analyzed. As the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Rinfret) has intimated, His Excellency was probably ill advised and is now being ill advised in the position in which he finds himself. At the time of the resignation of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) His Excellency had two courses of action before him which would have been absolutely constitutional. He could either have accepted the advice of his ministers, his properly constituted and sworn ministers, and so be under no possibility of accepting respon-

Supply-Formation of Ministry
sibility or censure, or he could have telegraphed, if in doubt under the circumstances, to the Secretary of State for the Colonies and ascertained clearly the position in view of our relationship to the imperial parliament. That may have been done, but there is no evidence that it was done. His Excellency could have done that in order, first, to do that which was right, and secondly, to escape responsibility. I wish to pay at this moment a most earnest and sincere tribute to His Excellency the Governor General. He is a man-I have met him personally and I can speak with knowledge-for whom I have the deepest respect. I regard him as one of our great Canadians, as a man who has done as much as most individuals in this country, if not more than most, to instil into the hearts of our Canadian people a true Canadian spirit. I am satisfied that His Excellency is absolutely apart altogether from partisanship in any action he has taken, and in any action he may take, but we must look at facts as they are placed before us and ask ourselves what did he do? He accepted the resignation of my right hon. friend the leader of the late administration, and refused him a dissolution. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, about this:	Until recent years it had been
understood that the Governor General of the dominions did possess discretionary rights. The king himself did not possess those rights, excepting only in theory, and has not exercised them for heaven knows how many years.
We are asked now to imagine the position in this country-I am speaking I hope now with some effect upon my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) because I know his predilections in this matter; I know the sincerity with which he has approached the question of our constitution and our position as a national unit within the commonwealth of national units-I say to him that neither he nor I, holding the views we do, can be true to our trust and our own conscience if we let- pass this opportunity of registering definitely our assertion and our belief that the evolutionary movement in our political development has brought about an exact similarity of situation in the Dominions with that that exists in England herself. From the day Sir Robert Borden, greatly to his credit, secured for Canada the position that he did secure for her at the time of the signing of the treaty, we must assume in fairness to him and to national sentiment at that time, and since, that the moment we assumed national. status we took along with that national status, and exactly to the same extent, the constitutional position that was then existing in Great Britain as respects the king and parliament.
His Excellency on this occasion did not act as the king would have acted. He did not accept the advice of his ministers. One must ask oneself why he did not do it. There are two reasons only that I may assume at the moment, if one may do that properly: First, having in view the interests of the country, he decided that it was in the national interest that there should not be a general election if one could be avoided, and looking over the situation that faced him in this parliament he asked himself:	Have I any
assurance that there is any other group in this House that can act as my advisers, and that is capable of continuing to administer the affairs of this country? And so he undoubtedly called upon the right hon. leader of the acting government. When that question arose, did the right hon. leader of the acting government assure His Excellency that he had absolute power to carry on? Did he inform His Excellency that he could form a ministry that would have the confidence of this House? If he did that. I say to him that he did not advise His Excellency in accordance with the facts.
Before I dwell further upon that, let me refer to the last occasion in this Dominion upon which the Governor General exercised his so-called discretionary powers and avoided a dissolution. It was in the year 1858. Sir John A. Macdonald had just fought an election and had been returned to power with a majority of from twelve to fourteen. He met parliament, and shortly afterwards he was defeated in parliament on a matter which had not been discussed during the election. It was on a side issue, a question, if my memory serves me correctly, as to whether or not this city of Ottawa should be the capital of the Dominion. When he was defeated in the House on that side issue, Sir John A. Macdonald resigned, and His Excellency then called upon George Brown and Dorion and asked them if they could form a ministry. It was really Mr. Brown, and Mr. Brown, co-operating with Mr. Dorion, decided that they could form a ministry, and they so advised His Excellency. They were invited to form a -ministry, and did so, and on that same evening they were defeated two or three times in the House of Commons. With what result? With the result that they returned to His Excellency and asked for a dissolution on the ground that one minister having resigned, and they having taken office and having also been defeated, they should receive dissolution. At that time dissolution was refused. If the Governor General had the power to exercise discretion at that time, he exercised it against a dissolution because there was no need for an election, as

Supply-Formation of Ministry
the country had passed, through one only two months previously. Sir John A, Macdonald still had a majority in the House, and His Excellency had to make up his mind whether he should give a dissolution to Brown and Dorion or recall Macdonald. He recalled Macdonald, put him back into the seats of office, and Macdonald carried on. That is the last occasion in this country of which there is any record of His Excellency using his so-called discretionary prerogative.
On the present occasion we must ask ourselves this question: Did the right hon. leader of the shadow government advise His Excellency that he had sufficient strength in this House to carry on? I have stated definitely that if he did that, he ill-advised His Excellency, and for this reason:	The group which
now has asserted the right to govern knows just as definitely as the group which has just resigned that it cannot carry on in this House by virtue of its own numerical strength without entering into some co-operative understanding with the group to which I have the honour to belong. I stated yesterday and I state now again, that to my personal knowledge no such co-operative understanding has been reached. The leader of the shadow government never at any time since the resignation of the late ministry invited or called upon the group to Which I belong for co-operation as a group. If there have been any negotiations with any individuals I know naught of it. If the acting leader of the government has the greatest numerical strength in this House, made up of his own party and any individuals in this comer of the House, it is his duty to inform the House of that fact now.


Peter McGibbon: May I ask the hon.
member a question?


Edward Joseph Garland: With pleasure.


Peter McGibbon: Has not the House
already informed him by two different votes?


Edward Joseph Garland: Informed
him of what?


Peter McGibbon: That he has the
majority?


Edward Joseph Garland: That is
rather an absurd question.


Peter McGibbon: If the hon. member cannot read anything from the last votes I am entirely sorry for him.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think I can read. I certainly think I can read as well as the hon. gentleman and perhaps reason

a little better. The late votes did not give a majority in this House. The late votes were a censure on the administration of the Customs department and did not give hon. gentlemen opposite a majority. Nor could they get a majority unless they had entered into a co-operative understanding with the group to which I belong. If there is any understanding of that kind let them produce it. I know naught of it, nor have I access to any individual in my group who does know of it. Therefore I repeat that if the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen informed His Excellency that he was capable of carrying on, that he was capable of administering public affairs, he ill-advised and misinformed His Excellency.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put him out of business.


Edward Joseph Garland: An hon
member says "put him out of business." On that point it is very interesting to know just what might happen if we did put him and his friends out of business. His Excellency has refused dissolution to the right hon. leader of the late government, presumably on the grounds of expediency-that is that the general interests of Canada will not be served by a general election at the present moment. For no other reason could His Excellency arrive at the decision he made, being fully cognizant of the strength of hon. gentlemen opposite and the general situation in this House. Under no other circumstances could he be justified, I imagine, in refusing dissolution on the one hand and on the other hand allowing hon. gentlemen opposite to come into office. Now an hon. gentleman opposite says "give us defeat." If we did defeat hon. gentlemen opposite then what would happen? Do hon. gentlemen opposite presume to imagine for one instant that His Excellency, already in an unconstitutional position, could still further make himself unconstitutional-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward Joseph Garland: -by granting them dissolution?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward Joseph Garland: Why the idea is repugnant to the whole nation.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member speaks of the effect of the advice that has been tendered to His Excellency. There is no point of order.

Supply*-Formation oj Ministry


Edward Joseph Garland: I am referring to the advice extended to His Excellency and not to His Excellency himself.
Now, (Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening at the close of the constitutional debate of which this is the corollary-or perhaps we will say the second chapter, as suggested by somebody near me-the leader of the government quoted a very impressive passage from a speech made by Mr. Asquith and he appealed to hon. gentlemen sitting opposite to him, "Listen to what the English Liberal party says about this sort of thing. Listen to the position taken by Mr. Asquith, a position bolstered up subsequently by other Liberals in England.'' And the passage that he quoted was-I am not quoting from Hansard, Mr. Speaker, but from the report of the speech itself-the following:
The dissolution o-f parliament (said Mr. Asquith), is in this country one of the prerogatives of the crown. It is not a mere feudal survival, but it is a pert, and I think a useful part, o-f our constitutional system. It does not mean that the crown should act voluntarily and without the advice of responsible ministers, 'hut it does mean that the crown is not bound to take the advice of a [particular -minister to put its subjects -to the tumult a-nd turmoil of a series of general elections so long as it can find other ministers who are -prepared -to give it a trial.
Just imagine any responsible minister like Mr. Asquith making a statement of that character, that the only thing required was that some other group should be willing to give it a trial; no other qualification needed. As a matter of fact the hon. gentleman was quoting from a newspaper report of a speech made in Brighton, in 1922. However, that speech was contradicted immediately in the Times, not only by very many eminent constitutionalists but amongst others by Professor MacNeill. On the 29th day of the fifth month of 1924, Mr. MacNeill wrote to the Times and his comment upon the statement quoted last night by my hon. friend is as follows:
That doctrine-
The doctrine of the prerogative of the crown.
-for whose maintenance Mr. Asquith, with the approval of Sir John Simon and Mr. Lloyd George, had made the Liberal party responsible in his speech of December 18, of which he states on May 23 "he has not a word to retract or qualify," is contrary to the fundamental principles of constitutional morality, is absolutely unsupported by usage, and has never been reduced to practice since the era of parliamentary government. When Mr. Asquith, as spokesman of the Liberal party, propounded the doctrine I took occasion in the columns of the press, without fear of con-trad iction, and in most express terms, ,to deny (as I will do again), its existence, and to state there was no precedent and nothing that could be tortured into
a precedent in support of a position calculated to lower the dignity of the crown by the participation in .party politics of its wearer who is the outward and visible representative not only of the majesty of the state of Great Britain, but of the community of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.
My contention for which I cited precedents, has never been impunged. Mr. Asquith seems by his recent speech to repeat and emphasize an ill-founded exposition of the practice of the constitution which, in the words of Mr. Macdonald a day or two after Mr. Asquith's pronouncement, "found scant support in the best informed quarters, and was meant more for the ears of the King" than the ears of his subjects.
Could there be a more definite and complete refutation of the utterances of Mr. Asquith as pronounced by the acting leader of the acting government at the moment? If there is I am at an utter loss to find it. But, Mr. Speaker, we do not have to go to cases of that kind.
Now the hon. member for Fort William, for whom I have the deepest admiration and respect-I love his genial manner, the torrential nature of his utterances; they are a pleasure to me and I delight in hearing them- throws out almost without consideration at times the most extraordinary collection of figures, and at other times citations that are purely irrelevant and have absolutely no purposeful application at all to the debate concerned. For example the hon. gentleman, for whom I have a sincere affection, this afternoon quoted case after case which is utterly and completely obsolete. I admit the existence of every precedent my hon. friend quoted; certainly everyone must; but conditions change. We have passed on miles beyond that milestone in our political evolution. Would he have us go back to the aborigine days in Australia? At that time they had a tribal king who walloped everybody. The hon. "entleman smilss. Hs is laughing at Iiim-self.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member made a mistake. I am laughing at my hon. friend.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. member also mentioned Arthur Berrieda-le Keith. He quoted citations which would appear to offset quotations of hon. members on the other side, and he rebuked the ex-prime minister for having left off at a certain point in the quotation and not read a portion which he should properly have read, and which would not have been so satisfactory had he quoted it. But the hon. gentleman himself was no more fair, if there was unfairness, than the right hon. ex-prime minister, because I have in my hand the very latest works of Mr. Berriedale Keith published in 1921.

Supply-Formation oj Ministry


Robert James Manion: The hon. member did not expect me to quote all his works.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, but I would like the hon. member to quote the last reasoned statement of the authority, and not to go back and pick out that which for the moment suited him, and I do not blame him any more than I blame the hon. member to my right. I am quoting now from page 10 of Home Rule in Practice, by Arthur Berrie-dale Keith in 1921:
The British rule has of late been followed in Canada as regards the Dominion government, in New Zealand, and the Union, but it is not yet established in the Canadian Provinces or Newfoundland.
And therefore all the provincial precedents quoted by my hon. friend have no direct application whatever to the situation which faces us here, because so far as the provinces are concerned they are dragging along, perhaps a step or two behind us, but they will soon come in line if my hon. friend will permit them. The citation proceeds:
The explanation is obvious:	it is in the larger
communities alone that there has been fully developed that sense of political responsibility among ministers which would render intervention by the Governor unwise and dangerous.
I emphasize those words, and I say to hon. members opposite that their attitude in this matter is unwise and dangerous. They have' not acted with due recognition of the immense responsibility of their position at the moment. I .turn again to another publication of the same authority, published in 1924, somewhat more up to date, and entitled The Constitution, Administration and Laws of the Empire, and on page 155 I find the following:
It might seem at first that the crown should be free to refuse a dissolution to a defeated ministry, as is still the rule in the dominions but there is no doubt such action would be unwise, and in view of invariable usage since Victoria's reign unconstitutional.
And the hon. acting minister would implant for all time, as a definite precedent, that the prerogative of the crown should be exercised in all cases wherever he so desired.


Robert James Manion: Oh no, I did not say that.


Edward Joseph Garland: Well, that is the implication. If my hon. friend establishes the precedent which he seeks to establish to-night he cannot escape that implication.


Robert James Manion: I simply suggest that he has the right to do it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I accept the position taken by the hon. member, and I
f Mr. E. J. Garland.]
suggest that it is infinitely more worthy of him than the implication his first utterance would carry. The quotation continues:
The electors are the true sovereign authority, and ministers who advise dissolutions are entitled to ask from .them judgment on their deeds.
Again at page 209, I find:
The constitutional usage in the dominions has not yet laid it down that as regards the demand for a dissolution, the Governor must act on .ministerial advice, although there are signs that this convention is on the way to he recognized in the more important cases. It was noted in 1914 that Sir R. Munro-Fenguson (now Viscount Novar), granted a double dissolution of the Commonwealth Parliament to a ministry with a bare majority in the lower House and scarcely any representatives in the upper. His predecessors in office had declined previous proposals for dissolution on the score that the possibilities of finding another ministry to carry on government without troubling the electors had not been exhausted, and had he acted on the same principle, it might have been possible to avoid a dissolution but he wisely conformed to the British precedents instead.
And I say it would have been much wiser if in our case His Excellency had been advised to adhere to previous constitutional practice.
That is the volume of 1924, entitled, The Constitution, Administration, and Laws of the Empire, by A. Berriedale Keith.


Miss MACPHAIL:: It sounds patriotic anyway.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes. The
question of our national status is inevitably involved in this matter, and I for one will not be a party to a retrograde step which will take from the people of the country one vestige of the authority which they have secured. All honour to Sir Robert Borden, all honour to Arthur Meighen when he acted aa he did at the Imperial conference, and I am satisfied that if he now held the views he held at that time he would not be acting the way he is acting at present. What has converted him? Is it political exigencies, is it the pressure of the need for partisan advantage, or what is it? I am at a loss to understand his change. I say the majority of the people of Canada will look with the greatest disapproval upon such a course, and they will register their disapproval in no uncertain terms should an election be forced upon them on this issue. There is not the vestige of a chance of hon. members opposite succeeding in an election fought out on this issue, and they dare not try it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a very confused idea of the status of these acting ministers. There is no authority to which I can definitely look with any hope of complete satis-

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
faction on the constitutional or legal position of an acting minister. I am at an utter loss, so far as references or citations are concerned, to find any authority which will enable me to come to a definite decision as to the exact legal status of hon. gentlemen opposite, but in driving or picking my way through this morass of legal debate, I must have recourse to the legal documents themselves. Referring to chapter 1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, I find in the interpretation clauses the following interpretation of ministers and deputies:
-words directing or empowering a minister of the crown to do any act or thing, or otherwise applying to him by his name of office, include a minister acting for, or, if the office is vacant, in the place of such minister, under the authority of an order in council, and also his successors in such office, and his or their lawful deputy.
That is the definition of a minister or one who is assuming that office.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the hon. member suggest that is the definition of a minister?


Edward Joseph Garland: It is the
interpretation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is it not a definition of certain statutes which may apply to a minister and therefore to an acting minister?


Edward Joseph Garland: If my hon friend wishes to describe it in that way I have no objection. The words speak for themselves.
We turn now to chapter 4 and we find in subsection 4:
The salaries of the following ministers, members of the King's Privy Council for Canada, shall be as follows:
Those are the statutory provisions made which have been increased by statute since that time. Just as soon as that interpretation is satisfied, just as soon as a man becomes a minister or an acting minister, unless it be definitely provided for in the order in council under which he is made an acting minister that there shall be no salary, no wages, no emolument, in the absence of that statement in the order in council we can only assume, irrespective of any assertions that may be made to the contrary, that the statutory provisions apply and the statutory rank applies. Now we turn for a moment to chapter 10, in which is revealed the humiliating position in which hon. gentlemen opposite will find themselves. Before I get through I will show, I do not care which position they occupy, that they find themselves on the
horns of a dilemma from which there is no escape. Section 10 of chapter 10 reads:
The independence of .parliament. Members of the House of Commons. "
Except as hereinafter specially provided,-
(a) no person accepting or holding any office, commission, or employment, permanent or temporary, in the service of the government of Canada, at the nomination of crown, or at the nomination of any of the officers of the government of Canada, to whic-h any salary, fee, wages, allowance, emolument or profit of any kind is attached; and no sheriff-
And so on.
-shall be eligible as a member of the House of Commons or shall sit or vote therein.
I charge that hon. gentlemen opposite, by virtue of the order in council which they claim is right and if it is right according to their claim, should vacate the seats which they now hold. That would be the strictly legal interpretation of the situation. But they have pleaded plausibly an exigent circumstance. They have said to
10 p.m. hon. members to my left, to myself, to others, in their speeches in this House: All we desire to do is to form a temporary administration so as to expedite the passage of the estimates and other legislation still left pending. When they place that position before us, they must say that there is no alternative. If there is an alternative, they must admit it.
Is there an alternative? So far as I can see, so far as the legal position declares, should hon. gentlemen opposite decide to resign they cannot secure dissolution. But should they decide to resign, hon. gentlemen to my right would naturally be called upon to enter the seats of office and to carry on for the balance of the session. Can they do it? The question arose in my mind yesterday and again this morning. Hon. gentlemen to my right having resigned their portfolios, having resigned the positions which they have just filled on those benches and sitting over here in opposition, going back to those that are now occupied by privy councillors just as they are privy councillors, would they be in any different position from that held by hon. gentlemen opposite. I was applauded to the echo yesterday by hon. gentlemen opposite when I asked the question. I got an answer that was not complete; but it made me seek further information, and I now find, according to the statute itself, that should it be decided that the late administration should return to the seats of office for the remainder of the session within one month of the time they resigned those seats, they have full power to carry on, to vote money, to pass
5284	COMMONS
Supply-Formation of Ministry
legislation and to perform all the other functions of parliament. I quote subsection 13:
Whenever any person holding the office of President of the Privy Council, Minister of Finance, Minister of Justice, Minister of Militia and Defence, Secretary of State, Minister of the Interior, Minister of Railways and Canals, Minister of Public Works-
And so on through the whole list of them.
-or any office which is hereafter created, entitling him to be a minister of the crown, and being at the same time a member of the House of Commons, resigns his office, and, within one month after his resignation accepts any of the said offices, he shall not thereby vacate his seat, unless the administration of which he was a member has resigned, and a new administration has been formed and has occupied the said offices.
Do hon. gentlemen opposite assert that they have "occupied the said offices"? If they do that, they are absolutely tied to the emolument clause. So I say to them: They find themselves on the horns of a dilemma that cannot be escaped. They are in a cul de sac of their own making. Their board of strategy led them up a blind alley. I must'presume, in view of the record of last session, that the board of strategy is operating overtime.
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the acting government, knowing the complete unconstitutionality of his position, not only is not entitled to dissolution, but should not ask for dissolution, and if he asks for dissolution he should not get it. The issue is this: Are we now to assert that in Canada the Governor General possesses a right over the people, over the parliament of this country, that the king himself does not possess in Great Britain? The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) will never subscribe to that doctrine, I do not care how partisan his inclinations may be. I know the hon. gentleman too well; I know that on this question-and I am pleading to him simply because I want him to be fully aware of the responsibilities of his position- the hon. member for South York will vote with us should a vote be taken on this question. Otherwise he could not face his people with honour after his fight of years on this question.
I stated at the very outset that Mr. Meighen did not seek the co-operation of this group. He has throughout the whole of this session, if not himself personally, through his satellites behind him, viciously attacked us, described us as those who were on the auction block, as those who were accepting bribes, who were bartering, who were guilty of almost every wretched act that could bring this parliament into disrepute. The right hon. gentleman is at least consistent. He has not to my knowledge invited co-operation at all.

We stand prepared in any constitutional position or under constitutional circumstances to extend to the leader qf that party on a legislative programme of a progressive character exactly the same measure of cooperation that we have extended to hon. gentlemen to my right. We are as free from partisan inclinations as a group to-day as we were when we came into this House five years ago. If any evidence of that is required, all Your Honour and the members of the House have to do is to study the attitude with which we have approached questions of this kind or questions of legislation and our votes thereon.
I have nothing further to say. I congratulate the right hon. leader of the opposition in this, that he has brought to the attention of the House and the country, in most eloquent terms, in most convincing sentences, in most reasoned arguments, one of the most important questions that has ever faced the Dominion, that in my opinion has ever faced the parliament in which I have sat for five years. I was so impressed by the right hon. gentleman's speech last night that in my opinion it would be to the national advantage to keep him in opposition for five years. If the right hon. gentleman will make speeches of that kind, then his place is over here. Unfortunately, however, there faces us a situation which is solvable only by one of two methods. There should be a temporary restoration to office of my hon. friends to the right, with power of dissolution, to enable them to complete the work of the session, and if a co-operative agreement could be arrived at, so much the better. That is one course. The other is to face the facts. It is utterly ridiculous that this parliament should be hampered, hamstrung, shackled and tied year in and year out by the worn out practices of the two-party system. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this House has a responsibility to recognize that no longer is the two-party system possible in this country. No longer is it advisable, for the people have advanced in thought, in economic opinion and in political education to a point which absolutely prohibits any continuance of the old system. It is simply absurd to suggest that on any question that comes before the House our decision must have regard to the fact that it inay defeat a government, notwithstanding that there may be no desire on the part of parliament to censure the government on its general policy. On one particular issue before the House, under the system that now prevails, members may be clubbed into subjection into a breach of principle, into a violation of their own

Supply-Formation of Ministry
beliefs, merely by the threat of dissolution. That is a violation of the rights of members; it is subversive of private rights. It is contrary to reason itself inasmuch as it compels men to vote against what they deem to be proper, in order to maintain in power for the time being a government generally proceeding in the public interest. This is something so obnoxious to me that I will do anything in my power, now or in the future, to free Canadian political life of such an anomaly.
Hon. members of this House missed an extraordinary opportunity a few years ago when they rejected a motion moved by the then member for East Calgary along the lines I have suggested. However idealistic or academic that gentleman may have been, he undoubtedly introduced on that occasion a practical motion of far-flung importance, embodying definitely as it did the principle that no government need necessarily resign as the result of an adverse vote unless such a vote were followed by a. non-confidence motion. That principle should in my opinion be adopted definitely and for all time. If it were recognized to-day there would be no deadlock of this character facing us at the present moment. Parliament could function, the public interest could be served, elections could be avoided when they were palpably unnecessary, and the business of the country could be properly administered. The national interest, national sentiment, the patriotism and loyalty of our forefathers who fought the age-long battle between feudal privilege and democratic right demand that this House go on record definitely against unconstitutional action under ill advice and stand firmly for the constitutional recognition of the status of this Dominion.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Chateauguay-Hunting-don):: We have debated this question the whole day and part of the night. As a layman I had no intention .of discussing a constitutional point such as this, but when hon. gentlemen opposite put up a medical man to speak for the government, I take it that it is quite in order for one who for some time has had something to do with the finances of the country to give the point of view of the people of Canada who pay the taxes.
We may differ, and honestly differ, upon the fiscal policy of this country, and we may have differences of opinion regarding our railways. We may differ with respect to such questions as the British preference or the reduction of income tax. But surely, Mr. Speaker, as a parliament we can .unite on this
principle, that in this Dominion, which to-day is entering upon its sixtieth anniversary of confederation, the people who provide the taxes to pay our vast debt have a right to know that their government is constitutionally formed and that those who are collecting the taxes, the tax-gatherers, are responsible to the country. Hon. gentlemen opposite are already receiving applications to sign contracts, and favours are being asked of them. Have not, then, the people of Canada" the right to know whether or not these gentlemen hold office constitutionally?
I have not one word to say against the character of the hon. gentlemen who claim to constitute this government. They have all been exceedingly kind and courteous to me and I have nothing to say against them personally.	But I do contend that these
gentlemen owe it to themselves and to the country to see that they are properly constituted in office.	My genial friend (Sir
Henry Drayton) has helped me through many difficult propositions and he himself admitted this afternoon that we had not a properly constituted government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Properly constituted, though temporary.


James Alexander Robb: I took his words down, but he can look them up in Hansard. He admitted that we had not a properly constituted government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Temporary, but proper.


James Alexander Robb: If I understood him rightly he intimated that we had no government at all. Now, Mr. Speaker, this question resolves itself into one of two propositions. If hon. gentlemen opposite are properly in office as ministers of the crown, having been sworn in, they have no right to sit in the House inasmuch as they have not been re-elected. If they are not properly sworn in, then we have no government. As I feel that the House has debated the question at sufficient length, and so that we may have a pronouncement upon it, I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) :
That ithe actions in this House of the hon. members who have acted as ministers of the crown since the 29th of June, 1926, namely the hon. members for West York, Fort William, Vancouver Centre, Argesn-teuil, Wellington South, and the hon. senior member for Halifax, are a violation and an infringement of the privileges of this House for the following reasons:
1. That the said hon. gentlemen have no Tight to sit in this House, and should have vacated .their seats

Supply-Formation of Ministry
therein, if they legally hold office as administrators of the various departments assigned to them by orders in council.
2. That if they do not hold such offices legally they have no right to control the business of government in this House and to ask for supply for the departments of which they state they are acting ministers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I rise to a point of order. In the first instance I desire to point out that motions usually must have two days' notice. Your Honour can rule that this is a motion of such an extraordinary character, however, that the notice is not required, and I have no objection to Your Honour so ruling. I merely rise to point out that although we are not insisting on notice in a matter of this kind the very least my hon. friend could have done was send over a copy of this motion before it was moved. In the circumstances I do not insist on the point of order at all.


Hewitt Bostock: I wish to be very clear on this subject. Do I understand that the point of order raised-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I stated the
point of order; I pointed out the discourtesy practised by the opposition in not furnishing us with a copy of this motion, and I withdrew any question of order.


Hewitt Bostock: But as a question of
regularity-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I also pointed
out that you could rule this motion in order and go on.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion is in order Under rule 40 of Beauchesne will be found the following:
As a general rule every motion proposed in the House requires notice, unless it is of a formal or uncontentious character, or raises a question of privilege, or falls under rules 35, 36, 39 and 41.
I cited page 302 containing similar language in Bourinot a moment ago to the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). This is one of those motions which can be moved without notice.


Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: Before the House votes on this question I should like to speak at no great length upon the issues raised in it. Yesterday the House listened to a long and impassioned speech by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the constitutional question, and I would point out to the House in passing that the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is not that constitutional question at all. The point raised by tlhe hon. mem-

ber for Quebec East was that inasmuch as the acting ministers had been validly appointed to offices of emolument under the crown, therefore they had vacated their seats in this House and their recent votes should be expunged from the records of the House. That, of course, is a decidedly different position from the one urged by the right hon. leader of the opposition yesterday.


Hewitt Bostock: I must ask the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms to see that order is maintained in the corridors. I cannot hear the gentleman who is speaking, even though he is very near to me.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for Quebec East was absolutely different from the point raised by the leader of the opposition yesterday and to-day. The leader of the opposition said that in point of fact the acting ministers had not been validly appointed, and that being so they were properly in their seats; their seats have not been vacated and their votes were absolutely in order.
I do not intend to deal at any length with the speeches of the leader of the opposition yesterday and to-day, first because they were criticisms of the action of His Excellency the Governor General in refusing him a dissolution. That criticism was based, as I am perfectly certain all members of this House are well aware, and as everyone in the country must know, on a consideration of how that refusal, affected himself and his party. I do not suppose anyone harbours the delusion that the reason for that impassioned eloquence and indignation was any high constitutional principle or any desire to protect the liberties of our people. The whole question was how it affected himself and his party, and the chances of that party at the next general election whenever that may be. There is no need for me to defend the Governor General; His Excellency does not need the defence of this House, much less that of any private member.
Another reason why I have no intention of dealing at length with either of the speeches of the leader of the opposition is because they were both criticisms of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), and I am inclined to think the Prime Minister does not need any defence by a private member of this House. I am reminded of an incident which is stated to have occurred somewhere in England, where a travelling menagerie was the object of the attention of some boys. They had been teasing the lion in the cage and some of * the bystanders expressed indig-

Supply-Formation of Ministry
nation at their cruelty and tried to stop it. Finally one fellow said, ''Open the door and let him out; he will stop it himself." I have a feeling in my bones that when the Prime Minister of this country comes back into this House and the door is open, so to speak, when he is free to express himself from his proper seat in this chamber, he will be very well able to defend himself against any of the charges and assertions that have been made in respect of his advice to His Excellency or any other line of conduct taken bj' him of recent days.
I would like to remind the leader of the opposition of something that occurred not so many months ago, and which is still fresh in the memory of some of us at least. I do not know whether it is equally fresh in the memory of his followers or of himself, because sometimes it is convenient to have a memory which is not too retentive. The leader of the opposition played, as he supposed, and I have no doubt as his followers supposed, very effectively upon the enormity of the ,Prime Minister in having, as he said, misled His Excellency by wrong advice. I want to remind this House of what happened prior to and at the beginning of January last. Members of the House will remember that on the 8th of January the then Minister of Justice and the leader of the House (Mr. Lapointe) made a speech, which will be found on page 19 of Hansard, in which he stated the attitude of his leader, the Prime Minister, then without a seat, and these were the words he used:
The government met as soon as possible after the date of the election, and after having considered the situation as created by the result, the right hon. the leader of the government tendered his advice to His Excellency.
What was the advice? The speech continues:
-and in o statement which he issued and which appears in the Ottawa Journal of November 5, he said:
"After several interviews with His Excellency, at which the position brought about by the recent general election was fully discussed and all alternatives presented. I have taken the responsibility of advising His Excellency to summon parliament for the earliest practicable date in order to ascertain the attitude of the parliamentary representatives towards the very important question raised by the numerical position of the respective political parties."
That was the advice tendered by the then Prime Minister to His Excellency as to what steps should be taken. The notice published in the Ottawa Journal of November 5th proceeds :
His Excellency has been pleased to accept this advice.
as an official declaration of what advice he had given to His Excellency are plain enough. As I took the liberty of reminding the House some months ago, in connection with the debate on the Address, that advice was, in the language of the then Prime Minister himself, that the House should be summoned and that it should be asked at once which party, whether that led by the then Prime Minister or that led by the leader of the opposition, was in the opinion of the House as a whole best fitted to take charge of the government of this country. That advice His Excellency adopted.
On the same day and in the same speech the then Minister of Justice and leader of the House went on to say:
We were justified in retaining office and summoning parliament,-and in asking for the decision of this parliament as to who should be its executive.
I submit that the meaning is clear, the language is plain enough: "We were justified in retaining office and summoning parliament "for the purpose of" asking for the decision of this parliament as to who should be its executive."
Again the then Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) on the 11th of February in the same debate made a statement along the same line. He said:
The question before us is a very simple one. It is whether this government had the right, first of all, to meet parliament, and secondly, whether the government was justified in asking the members of the House of Commons to decide as to whether this government should remain in .power or as to whether another administration should be formed.
Later in the same speech we are told that the Prime Minister had to advise His Excellency. On what point? There was only one point upon which His Excellency was to be advised by the then Prime Minister, and that was the point as to who was to be the leader of the government, who was to be the first minister of the crown, who was to be the adviser of His Excellency. The then Solicitor Genera] said:
Now the Prime Minister had to face a novel situation as I have tried to prove, and not only a novel situation, but a difficult situation. A man with ordinary conceit might have thought he had enough experience, enough judgment, enough personal perspicacity to advise His Excellency, but the Prime Minister took another stand. He said, "It does not 'belong to one man in Canada, no matter how exalted his position may be, to decide a situation so novel and so difficult. I will have the greatest, the highest and the most competent tribunal cf the land to decide it, and instead of giving my own personal opinion I shall ask the two hundred and forty-five representatives of the people to make the decision".
Surely the words of that statement drafted Then speaking in this House 'this very by the then Prime Minister, and published afternoon one of the hon. members-I do not



Supply-Formation oj Ministry
just recall the constituency for which he sits- carrying out the same idea, enunciating the very same principle, giving the very same reasons for the assembling of parliament and the purpose that was in the mind of the Prime Minister, stated that the then Prime Minister said he would not retain office, that it was not for him to retain office until he had consulted the House. Surely that position is plain and clear. Yet what does he do? In the teeth of the advice he had given His Excellency, in the teeth of the very advice Which His Excellency had accepted and had acted upon-and I venture to say, being guilty of an abuse of the confidence of His Excellency-he does not carry out the decision and the purpose and the programme which he had laid down before His Excellency and which His Excellency had adopted. He does not call this House together and ask that question, who is to be the leader of the government and the first officer of the crown? No, he brings down a Speech from the Throne. In the teeth of what the hon. member said, to whose speech of this afternoon I have just referred, he assumes he is going to retain office. In one breath he said: It is not for me to retain office; it is not forme to advise His Excellency who is to be his government and who is to be his chief adviser. And in the next breath he brings down a speech from the throne which assumes that he is to be the Prime Minister, which assumes that he is retaining the office, which assumes that he is to be the first officer of the crown. In a statement made at that fime by the then Prime Minister himself he said that while the election of the Speaker was not to be taken as an assertion by the acting government of an intention to retain office, the very moment the Speech from the Throne was brought down that was a statement and an assumption and a declaration by the government that brought it down that it was in office and intended to retain office.
Now I ask the House, in view of those facts, to come to the decision, and I think surely the decision is not hard to arrive at, that the right hon. gentleman who carried out that course of procedure before this House assembled, and after this House assembled on the 8th day of January, has small right to talk about giving His Excellency poor advice, and has still smaller right to talk about having proved false to his trust or to his position, and having, so to speak, taken advantage of His Excellency and abused his confidence.
Now I pass on to another point. The third reason I am not purposing to discuss the speeches of the leader of the opposition, either the speech of yesterday or that of to-day, is

because both speeches were absolutely irrelevant to the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). As I explained a few minutes ago, the point of privilege raised by that hon. member was that the acting ministers had been validly appointed and therefore that their seats had been vacated. Well, in point of fact, the position taken by the leader of the opposition yesterday and to-day was that the ministers of the government had not been properly appointed at all-that certainly was his position yesterday-that they had not taken any oath of office and were not competent to carry on the duties pertaining to the departments of which they were the acting heads.
I do not intend to deal at any length with the speech of the ex-Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) except perhaps on one point. At the commencement of his speech he set himself out to make constitutional law so clear to the members of this House that everyone, even though not a lawyer, might perfectly understand the principles involved. He had not uttered very many sentences before some of us felt inclined to say, "You had better stop. We thought we knew something about constitutional law before, but if you go on much longer we shall think we know nothing about it at all." So far from making clear the principles of constitutional law involved in the issues that have been debated here, I think the hon. gentlemen rather beclouded them.
Now taking up for a few minutes the point raised by the hon. member for Quebec East, may I present his argument in as simple and clear language, and as briefly, as I can? This is what it was: That the acting ministers, in point of fact, had been validly appointed; that they had been validly appointed-and here was the second premise-to an office of emolument under the crown; and then there came a third premise, that inasmuch as every member appointed to an office of emolument under the crown vacates his seat by that action, so the acting ministers had thereby vacated their seats, were not properly in the House at all, were in point of fact strangers, and their votes that had been recorded the last two or three days on the motions on which the House had voted were improperly taken and should be expunged from the record.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: My hon. friends are welcome to applaud the clarity of the point. The question is not whether the point is clear, but whether the point is any good. If it is a bad point the clearer it is the worse it is for the point: If it is a bad point the best you can

Supply-Formation of Ministry
do to make it pass is to make it as obscure as possible so that nobody may understand what it is about. I am going to make the point so clear that everybody in this House can understand exactly what it involves. Now what it involves is this: First of all that the ministers were validly appointed; secondly that they were validly appointed to offices of emolument under the crown; and thirdly that they have thereby vacated their seats in .this House because that was a necessary consequence of accepting an office of emolument under the crown. All right. Let us examine the point and the different premises or constituent parts that go to make it up. If that contention is correct it explodes at once the mass of argument which was built up both yesterday and to-day tending to impugn the validity of the appointments. There is nothing in the argument of the bon. member for Quebec East, if the appointments were invalid-nothing in it at all; and there' is nothing in the argument of the leader of the opposition so far as that argument was directed to the question of the validity or non-validity of the appointment, if those appointments were valid. Therefore I think we may fairly leave it to the member for Quebec East to answer his chief, the leader of the opposition.
But let us look more carefully and clearly into the points involved. First of all it is assumed, as I have stated, that the appointment of each acting minister was invalid. The next thing assumed is that the appointment was to an office of emolument under the crown. Now I want to say before I pass on to the next point-that is to say the question whether or not the office was an office of emolument under the crown-that there was brought into the debate another point, a subsidiary argument, that whether the appointment was valid or was not valid there was no oath taken, and therefore even though the appointment was valid the ministers had no power to act and no right to ask this House to vote any money or Supply, no right to arrogate to themselves any powers. I purpose to deal with that in a few minutes.
Coming to the question of the nature of the appointment, that is to say the question Whether or not it was an office of emolument under the crown, the argument that the office of an acting minister is an office of emolument under the crown is based entirely on the Interpretation Aet. The hon. member for Bow .River (Mr. Garland) read to the House the section upon which it is based. It is section 31 of which subsection (1) is thus worded: 14011-3351
And I should like the House to follow this carefully-
-words directing or empowering a minister of the crown to do any act or thing, or otherwise applying to him by his name of office, include a minister acting for, or, if the office is vacant, in the place of such minister, under the authority of an order in council, and also his successors in such office, and his or their lawful deputy.
Now the words that are essential in this section are these words:
-or otherwise applying to him by his name of office.
Let me read again:
-words directing or empowering a minister of the crown to do any act or thing-
And so on. Now the provision in the act under which a minister of the crown is entitled to his salary is to be found in chapter 4 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, Sec. 4 of which reads as follows:
The salaries of the following ministers, members of the King's Privy Council for Canada, shall be as follows, that is to say:-
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General, $7,000 per annum.
And so on. The words of that statute, section 4 of chapter 4. attaching a salary to an office, cannot be said to be words either " directing or empowering a minister of the crown to do any act or thing," and therefore the first part of that section has nothing to do with the question before us. But we have the other words:
Or otherwise applying to him by his name of office, include a minister acting for, or, if the office is vacant,
in the place of such minister,
And so on. And it may be argued, inasmuch as section 4 of chapter 4 attaches a salary to the office of a minister, it will also attach a salary to the office or position or duties of an acting minister, because the words attaching a salary to the minister's office arc words " applying to him by his name of office ". That is the argument.
In answer to that I would say this; first of all, it is a very slim basis upon which to raise this large constitutional superstructure. They take three or four words of very general and wide import out of a statute, and build upon those four or five words of general import a huge superstructure, arguing that a salary that is attached to a minister must therefore come within the meaning of those words and attach to the acting minister. I want the House to realize the smallness of the foundation upon which the whole superstructure of the argument rests in regard to the salary of the minister as a minister of the crown-that the words giving the man a salary are words applying to him by virtue of his office. I think it is a fair interpretation

Supply-Formation of Ministry
of the statute that these words might be cut down by the operation of the very well recognized principle of legal interpretation, which is called the rule ejusdem generis. That is to say, explaining it simply, that where you have words of wide import, words that are apparently so wide in their import that they can gather into themselves all possible circumstances, all possible facts, if you have in front of those words, words of a particular import, the words of particular import will cut down, or tend to cut down, the width and application of the general words following. * What are the words that immediately precede these words of wide application? They are these: "words directing a minister." That is telling him what his duties are. Secondly, "words empowering a minister," that is telling him what his powers are. Those are the two essential things a minister wants to know: he wants to know first, what are pay duties; secondly, what powers reside in me to enable me to carry out those duties. That is what the act provides. The duties that pertain to the minister are the same as those that pertain to the acting minister, and the powers of the minister to enable him to carry on those duties are also the powers of the acting minister who stands in his shoes and carries out his duties for the time being. Following those specific and particular words we have the big wide words, "or otherwise applying to him by his name of office." I have stated that those words are very wide, and they must be very w'ide indeed to include the profit and enjoyment of the minister's salary. They must be very wide indeed before we can understand them to mean that the acting temporary minister is to have the same salary as the minister who is in the office, in occupation of the office and in possession of its powers. But those wide words are cut down by the preceding specific and narrow words, and are to be taken to refer merely to what pertains to his duties and his powers, and not to go the length of the salary.
What is there to strengthen this position? Because after all it is only an inference based on a rule of legal interpretation. In point of fact no salary, so far as we have been informed in the House by those members who have spoken to-day, is ever attached, except by some express enactment, to the office of acting minister. We have had case after Case cited in regard to that, and we have been told there was no salary attached to it. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) stated that unless some express words to the contrary -were incorporated in the order in council appointing a minister, the acting min-

ister would receive a minister's salary. We have had many acting ministers, and no case has been cited to this House where an acting minister had a salary attached to his position merely because he was an acting minister; but we have had case after case cited in this House where acting ministers have been appointed, have held office and acted for weeks and months under an order in council which contained no such excepting clause, or no suoli excepting words as those suggested, which merely appointed a member as acting minister of the crown, and did not go on to say, " without salary " or " without emolument." Therefore we have, in the first place, a general principle of interpretation which is in favour of the limitation of the width of the application of those words in the Interpretation Act. We have next the fact of long continued usage under which acting ministers did not enjoy salaries simply because they were acting ministers, and we have in the third place instances of appointments-and three of them were mentioned; the appointment of the then Minister of Defence, the hon. member for Antigonikh-Guysborough (Mr. Macdonald) the appointment of Senator Dandurand, and the case of another acting minister-three acting ministers appointed by orders in council, in which orders these -words "without salary" do not occur. These ministers were appointed by the late government, by the very members who have been raising this argument to-day. The saving words " without salary " were not in their orders in council; yet they sat and acted. They are not disqualified, the heavens do not fall, the British constitution is not changed. There is no outrage perpetrated on the fair name of Canada, and no attempt made to curtail the liberty of the subject. Magna Charta stands unimpaired, and the Bill of Rights, but the moment the same thing which has been done three times over by the last government is done by this government, the very foundations of justice rock, and the temple of justice, like the temple of Dagon, comes down. Surely it did not need all this to Show that this is nothing but a political gesture, just as much a political gesture as was the motion of yesterday. I may tell the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) that there is not a single fact, so far as the facts go, which were not known to him when he voted on the motion which was defeated yesterday. He or some speaker from that part of the House yesterday denounced that motion as a political gesture and no more. Everyone knows that it contained at its end or right through its body the sting of the tariff, of what was

Supply-Formation o) Ministry
stated to be higher and higher and higher protection; yet they repudiated it because it was a political gesture, and they were right.
The question of the tariff was not before the House. When the question of the tariff comes before the House, that will be time enough for hon. gentlemen to show on which side of the line they stand on that question. If this government is in power and this House is assembled next year, when the question of the tariff comes up on the budget members of the Progressive party diagonally opposite from me in this chamber will have ample opportunity to say wdiether they will help or resist the government, whether they will keep it in power, perhaps, or whether they will force it from power. But hon. gentlemen were very well advised to measure the motion of yesterday at its true value and to spurn the trap that was laid at their feet.
This gesture is more palpably a political gesture than was that of yesterday, because all the facts that are embodied in this gesture, with the exception of the question of the validity of the appointment, of whether the offices the acting ministers now hold are offices of emolument under the crown, of whether they are properly in their seats in this House, were known to hon. members yesterday.
I come to another matter and with that I close. As regards the question of the oath, hon. members on the other side of the House argued very strenuously that we were going to do violence to political principles and constitutional rights if we allowed ministers to act who had not taken an oath of office as ministers of the crown. By the way, may I refer for a few moments to the false analogies which the ex-Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) used in his speech? He is a past master in the art of introducing irrelevancies, of introducing spectacular play that has no effect upon anyone who understands the principles that are at stake or who follows his argument. Let me call the attention of the House to the arguments which he used: We cannot allow these gentlemen to act as acting ministers because they have taken no oath. Why, he says, even the Clerk of this honourable House cannot discharge his functions without having taken a solemn oath. We, the members of this House of Commons, have taken an oath. I can imagine their little chests'puffing out as they said to one another: We are not like these unholy acting ministers who have tried to discharge their duties without taking an oath. Now may I say, in answer to that: All the acting ministers have taken
the oath of privy councillors, and the oath of a privy councillor is the important oath in connection with the acts of a minister. Let me call the attention of the House to this passage in the second volume of Todd on page 194. I want hon. members to listen to it:
Moreover, the occasional appointment of a member of either house o*f parliament to a seat in the cabinet, without office, is no infringement upon the principle of ministerial responsibility.
Now listen:
Ministers of the crown are responsible by reason of their being privy councillors, not as members of "ihe cabinet," which, as a separate institution, is, as we have seen, unknown to the law.
In other words the essential oath is the oath of a privy councillor and the essential oath had been taken by the four gentlemen whose powers and positions are
11 p.m. being impeached to-day. That view is absolutely in keeping with the advice which the House has received indirectly and the information which was given to the House by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Lemaire. The House heard read a statement by the Clerk of the Privy Council that the procedure that had been followed in the appointment of these gentlemen as acting ministers was the precise procedure that had been followed in every case for thirty-five years. He was confirmed in that position by his assistant. Finally we heard read to us by the leader of the House a statement from the Deputy Minister of Justice that the proceedings and appointments had been absolutely valid and in accordance with the procedure that had always been followed; that in point of fact no law could be discovered requiring the administration of an oath to an acting minister without portfolio. I will be corrected if I am not right on this point.


John Warwick King: Do I understand that my hon. friend wants to be without the law?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If my hon. friend will listen I think he will see my point quite clearly. As I said, we had a communication read to us by the leader of the House from the Deputy Minister of Justice that the proceedings and appointments had been absolutely valid and in accordance with the procedure that had always been followed. I have no doubt had the case been reversed and had we been on the other side raising the same point, the Deputy Minister of Justice, under the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), would have given exactly the same answer and his wisdom would have been applauded; he would have

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
been a Solomon come to judgment. But juat because the case happens to be reversed, and because the hon. member for Quebec East is no longer Minister of Justice, the findings of law given by his deputy, which no doubt bad always been almost infallible during the tenure of office of the hon. member, are no longer infallible but are open to very grave question. However, let that be; this is my point. If I am wrong I shall be corrected in my statement that we were assured in this House on the authority of these gentlemen that no law could be discovered making it requisite for an oath of office to be administered either to an acting minister without portfolio or to a full minister with portfolio, but that in the latter case an oath was administered by reason of usage which had grown up. No law but usage in the case of a minister; no law nor usage in the case of acting ministers. That is the way it stands. That being so, what becomes of the argument of invalidity of appointment or impropriety in using their powers because they have taken no oath of office, when in point of fact no oath of office has ever been taken by acting ministers nor is required of them by law or usage?
The ex-Solicitor General thought he would get over that difficulty in connection with an instance which was cited where a member of his own government had not taken the oath. Oh, but, he said, there were then in existence a number of cabinet ministers who had taken the oath of office and therefore it was all right even though some of the others had not taken it. As I understood his argument, he spoke of the doctrine of the solidarity of the cabinet. I submit thjjt the doctrine of cabinet solidarity means only that the cabinet is one in respect of responsibility. If one of its members go wrong, as occurred in the late government, the cabinet must fall as a unit; that is the doctrine of cabinet solidarity. But by no possible stretch of argument can it foe contended that if an oath of office is necessary to one cabinet minister, to a second, a third, and a fourth cabinet minister, the oath may be dispensed with in the case of a fifth on the ground that four of his colleagues have taken theirs. That is the most absurd argument I have ever heard. The oath of a cabinet minister is his own personal affair, having to do with his own conduct of the department he governs, and it is indeed an extraordinary contention that because other cabinet ministers have taken the oath it may be dispensed with in a particular case.
The truth of the matter is that this House knows, as I am sure the country will know

when this debate is read, that the whole thing is a piece of camouflage, a smoke screen behind which the opposition is trying to get back into office. Hon. gentlemen are clinging to the idea of office with a tenacity worthy of a better cause and are throwing to the winds every shred of dignity which the government of this country should maintain, if not for its own sake at least for the sake of the people whom it represents, as well as of the other dominions of this great empire of which it is a unit; because a stigma upon the name of Canada by reason of a lack of dignity in her council chamber on the part of her chief ministers is a stigma upon the whole British Empire.


Mr. POULIOT:: Would the hon. member
propose the abolition of the oath in the three branches of executive power?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am not proposing the abolition of any oath, but my hon. friends opposite are trying to impose a legal necessity for an oath where none exists. That is the difference between us. In my humble opinion, speaking with confidence though a new member of the House, the duty of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he was Prime Minister was, upon his discovering that dissolution was not to be granted him, to come back to the House and to continue in office. Why did he not do that? He said that he could not carry on with efficiency and dignity, but he carried on under precisely the same conditions with the exception which I shall mention in a moment. Ever since January 8, until the twenty-ninth day of June, the right hon. gentleman held office without discovering that he could not carry on effectively and efficiently and with dignity. If he could carry on the business of the House, either in person or through his deputies, from January 8 to June 29, do you not think that he would have been able to continue for the few remaining days of the session so as to wind things up properly in the interests of the country? No, no man believes that. Everyone knows right well that the reason why, when he discovered he could not get dissolution, he handed in his resignation to His Excellency was that he dared not face the vote of this House on the Customs probe. But what he sought to avoid came after all. He handed in his resignation but that did not save his skin. The vote came. I say that the right hon. getleman's duty when he discovered that he could not get the dissolution was, not to have handed in his resignation but to have come back and wound up the affairs of the House and let

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
members go back to their homes. Not that this latter was of such importance; the prime importance is to get the business of the country done. But what did the right hon. gentleman do? He offered his resignation to His Excellency-with a string attached. He said, " Hold my resignation in escrow." Do hon. gentlemen know what that means? It means that he did not want his resignation acted upon unless it was necessary to do so. What was in the back of his mind was this; that if anything happened, if perchance Mr. Meighen found himself unable to carry on, then he could go back to His Excellency and recall the resignation which was being held in escrow. I suppose' there was some such thought in the 'back of his mind, but apparently His Excellency refused to accept the right hon. gentleman's resignation on that condition. His Excellency took the view that a resignation was a resignation and that was all. That is what makes the right hon. gentleman rather out of temper. That is what makes him forget the dignity due to his position and. more than that, the dignity due to the country over whose destinies he was presiding.
When the leader of the opposition was asked by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen). who was then in opposition, to co-operate with the government if a new ministry should be formed, he flatly refused to do so. He would Jiave no truck with the new government. They had made their bed and they would have to lie on it: that was his attitude. Was that consonant with the dignity of his position? I say it was the attitude of a petulant child. May I in closing read two passages. First I want to quote from Todd, volume 1, at page 318. I want the House to listen to this and make up its mind as to whether the principle here enunciated has been fairly carried out by the leader of the opposition:
In all ordinary circumstances, the ministers chosen by the sovereign-
Please remember that it is the prerogative of the sovereign to choose his ministers.
-are entitled to receive from parliament, if not "an implicit confidence" at the least "a fair trial".
Has my right hon. leader, the present Prime Minister, received that? He has received nothing which, by the greatest stretch of the imagination, could be even called a trial, much less a fair trial. Now let me read one more passage from volume 2 of Todd, at page 194:
In Queensland, on July 20, 1866, a new ministry was fonmed for the purpose of carrying out a financial policy differing from that upon which their predecessors had resigned office;-
In this case the new ministry was formed to carry out a different financial policy, but that is not our case; we are trying to complete the programme laid out by the late government; we want to pass the estimates they themselves framed; we want to complete the business of the country along the lines laid down by the late government.
-and as it was deemed to be absolutely necessary that certain financial measures should be passed without delay, in order to place the affairs of the colony in a more satisfactory position,-
Of course you will say that is a colony, but I am dealing with the action of parliament, not with the representative of the crown.
-the new ministers appeared in the legislative assembly simply as executive councillors, without departmental officers, with the understanding that immediately after the passing of those urgent measures, they should accept office, and go for re-election.
They did not go even so far as the present government has gone; they came merely as councillors, asking that parliament put them in the position of finishing the business and passing those financial measures, and they were sustained. Let me read the remainder, to show that:
The assembly consented, though not without remonstrance from the opposition to this course. And after these necessary bills were passed, the ministers vacated their seats, on accepting office.
We are asking this parliament to finish its course under the direction of the present acting ministers without portfolio. We are asking that this government be allowed to finish the work laid out by the late government. We are asking that which is no more than our absolute constitutional right, or at any rate we are asking for that which other parliaments and legislative assemblies have conceded in similar circumstances, although in my humble opinion the leader of the opposition took the wrong course when instead of continuing in office he threw down the reins of government and left the country in the condition in which we now find it. Under these circumstances the least he can do is make the progress of the remainder of the programme as easy as possible.
Mr. JEAN-FRANOOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	I have listened with very great
attention to the admirable speech of my hon. friend, and I realize that he and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-8t. George are the two big guns of the Tory party in this House. But the hon. member told you, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech that he would be short; he did not keep his word, but I make the same promise and I will keep my word.

Supply-Formation of Ministry
My hon. friend finished his speech with two very interesting quotations from Todd. I will go further back, and quote Lycurgus, that great Athenian, a man full of old Greek wisdom, who once said that an oath is the bond that keeps the state together. That is the great principle adopted by every civilized country in the three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial; the oath is the basis of good government.
What is an executive? If we take the British North America Act we find that an executive is an administrator, and there is a great difference between an executive councillor and a privy councillor. All executive councillors are privy councillors, but all privy councillors are not executive councillors; very often the honorary title of privy councillor is given a man who is not a minister of the crown, and these men would have no right to sit in the Privy Council as ministers. Executive councillors are acting temporarily, they are appointed during pleasure and when their term is over they are in exactly the same position as judges who have resigned their offices. When a judge is sworn as such he has a right to sit on the bench, but when he resigns for any reason he no longer has the right to occupy that office, and the same would apply to privy councillors.
Here, Mr. Speaker, we have a few ministers in front of us; I call them such through politeness, because they are no more ministers than are the back benchers of the Tory party. But they say, "A few years ago we were sworn as privy councillors; we are privy councillors for the rest of our lives." I know that is what they expect; I know that in the opposition they were not the good sports they are when they enjoy the sweets of power, but if you will remember, Mr. Speaker, they were ministers for a short time; they went to the country and were defeated and later in the papers we saw that the Meighen government had resigned and these gentlemen then ceased to act as' privy councillors. They ceased to act as privy councillors because the people of this country had kept them out of the treasury benches for very good reasons. Those people, after they had resigned as privy councillors, were no more privy councillors ;han any back bencher in this House. They know that if they were sworn in as ministers they would have to vacate their seats in this House, as their leader has had to do, and be elected, but as they did not wish to do that, what did they do? They say: We were sworn in five years ago as privy councillors, and we will act as such: it will be an [Mr. Pouliot.3
abuse of power, but never mind that, it will not be the first abuse of power of which the Tory party has been guilty; they have done it time and again, and they will do it now.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes we see men like Lord Shaughnessy, who was president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and Mr. Beatty, the present president of that road, having conferred upon them the degrees of LL.D. and D.C.L., but do they argue cases in court before even a justice of the peace? They do not. Mr. Beatty is a lawyer, I am reminded, but Lord Shaughnessy was not. He was a very capable man, but he would not have argued a case in court because he had not been sworn in as a barrister. And similarly with the case we have before us in this House, Mr. Speaker. People who assume office under the crown have to take the oath of office. If a deputy minister of a department has to take the oath of office, how is it that his superior, the minister, is relieved of that obligation? That is something I do not understand, and I would like my hon. friend or anybody else to answer that question to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the House. If a man came to me and asked if those people on the treasury benches opposite had any right to sit on those benches, I would answer, as a lawyer: I do not believe they have any right, and I would advise you to have writs of quo warranto issued to oust those seven marvels of the world from office-I should rather say the seven capital sins.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Speaker, I have before me the motion that this House has for consideration, and as I read it, I see that it has taken form from and is framed largely in the terms of the argument of the Solicitor General. In opening the discussion the hon. Minister of Justice made the argument-


Ernest Lapointe: Is my hon. friend.speaking for the future when he refers to me as Minister of Justice?


George Reginald Geary: It is more by way of compensating for the reference the other day to-him as the late-he interpreted it "deceased'' -minister. I should have said, the ex-Minister of Justice made an argument based on the statutes, referring to the Interpretation Act, to chapter 4 of the revised statutes, and' chapter 10 of the revised statutes. I must say that it did not strike me at the time that the hon. gentleman was speaking with any great confidence in his point of law. Section 10 of the statute the one the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) was curious about, says that no per-

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
son accepting any office to which any salary, emolument or profit of any kind is attached shall be eligible as a member of the House of Commons. The emolument to which a member is entitled, and which he receives when he accepts such office, is the basis of his disqualification. That section is one of a group of sections which are headed "Independence of Parliament," and the provision is against a member of parliament by virtue of his seat in the House procuring for himself a position to which there is an emolument attached.
Then my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice turned to chapter 4 of the revised statutes, which sets out the salaries of certain ministers. I do not think we need bother about that. As I understood his argument, he indicated that because a salary is provided to be paid to a minister, and because the Interpretation Act by section 31 (1) says:
Words directing or empowering a minister of the crown to do any act or thing, or otherwise applying to him by his name of office, include a minister acting for, or, if the office is vacant, in the place of such minister, under the authority of an order in council, and also his successors in such office, and his or their lawful deputy.
Therefore, he argues, a minister acting comes within the provisions of the statutes I have referred to. My hon. friend will recognize at once that the Interpretation Act and the words of the section that I have read are words directed to the jurisdiction and power of a minister, and where it says "words directing or empowering a minister of the crown to do any act or thing, or otherwise applying to him by his name of office, including a minister acting for," I point out to you, Sir, that as a matter of plain interpretation of these statutes, that does not import into the office of what I might call acting minister the position of minister. That is, the acting minister is not made the minister by that section to the extent that he is one of those who receives $7,000 per annum under section 4 of chapter 4.
Then my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice went on to section 11, of chapter 10, which provides that:
Nothing in the next preceding section shall render ineligible any person holding any office, commission or employment, permanent or temporary, in the service o-f the government of Canada, at the nomination of the crown, or at the nomination of any of the officers of the government of Canada, as a member of the House of Commons, or shall disqualify him from sitting or voting therein, if, by his commission or other instrument of appointment, it is declared or provided that he shall hold such office, commission or employment without any salary, fees, wages, allowances, emolument or other profit of any kind, attached thereto.
And says that to make matters right these acting ministers should have been appointed with a provision in their commissions that they were not to draw any emolument. Mr Speaker, that section has nothing to do with the case provided for in section 10, except it be a person who takes on a position that has an emolument, and as I have pointed out by the Interpretation Act and by section 4 of chapter 4, an acting minister is not one of those who gets any emolument, and so section 11 does not apply to him.
I think the ex-Minister of Justice was just taking a sighting shot with that argument. He was trying to prove that an acting minister is one who has a position of emolument, but if he will look at the concluding words of the interpretation section he will see that it obviously does not import into the word "minister" in all cases the words "acting minister." It simply gives the acting minister the jurisdiction and power of the minister himself, because by the language the jurisdiction and power is not only given to an acting minister, but also to his lawful deputy.
The ex-Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) made the argument, which I think has been carried into the motion, first, that if there was no legal appointment there is no government; and second, if the acting ministers were legally appointed *they have no right to control the business of the government. I take it that the second point is the same point that was argued by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and if my argument is sound now that there is nothing in the nature of disqualification in the " Independence of Parliament" sections of the act governing the appointment of an acting minister, then I suggest that part 2 of this resolution and the second part of the argument of the Solicitor General has no justification. If they do hold their offices legally it does not follow they are ministers. And the wording of the resolution does not attempt to go that far, because it says that if these men do not hold office legally they have no right to control public business. Nowhere does the resolution say that these hon. members are ministers or that they hold office as such; that has been very carefully avoided. So that the House is asked to say that certain men who are acting in a certain position are in one of two false positions:	Either they have no right to sit
as ministers, not being legally appointed, or else they do hold such offices legally and therefore are disqualified. If they have any right to sit are they legally appointed or are they not? I submit they are legally in their offices as acting ministers.

Supply-F ormation of Ministry
Nor is there anything in the arguments which have been advanced which indicates that these hon. members have not beeen properly appointed to take over, as acting ministers, the various departments which they control? I have not before me the opinion of the deputy minister 'but that ruling as I recall it when it was read this afternoon, and I should like to have it before me, is directly to the point. In plain terms it says that the appointment of these hon. members to be acting ministers was proper and regular in every way. I should have thought that it was useless to go beyond that opinion, I should have thought that the officers of the crown were the proper persons to adjudicate upon the regularity of these appointments that it should not be a matter for legal discussion in this House, nor should this House be required to pass judgment upon such a fine point.
Some trivial matters have been raised, such, for instance, as that an oath is required. My hon. friends forget that that begs the whole question. If the ministers are 'duly appointed ministers they do by custom take an oath. If they are appointed acting ministers, as in this case, there is no custom by which they take an oath; and the practice in the case of previous governments as well as in the case of the late government of hon. gentlemen opposite has not been for acting ministers to take the oath.
I do not want to labour the constitutional authorities, but will hon. gentlemen bear this in mind? I read in Todd at page 183:
Upon the resignation or dismissal of a ministry it is customary -for the sovereign to send for some recognized party leader, in one or other House of parliament, and entrust him with the formation of a new administration. Or, should the position of parties Ibe such that no particular person appears to the king to be specially eligible for the post of prime minister, he may empower anyone in whom he can repose sufficient confidence to negotiate on his (behalf for the formation of a ministry, and to present to him the names of the statesmen who are willing to serve His Majesty in that capacity.
By modern usage, it is understood that no one but the Premier is the direct choice of the crown. He is emphatically and especially the king's minister, the one in whom the crown constitutionally places its confidence.
The Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, in the present case, was chosen by the Governor General and took his place as Prime Minister. His Excellency summoned to the meeting of that Privy Council certain other members of the Privy Council, and they proceeded to make the appointments that are complained of. I ask the House if any government has ever been formed in this country, or could rMr. Geary.]
be formed, under any other circumstances? To begin with the sheet is clean. There has to be someone to commence with. There is no miraculous process by which a certain number of men are designated by some power we know nothing about to be ministers. Thus these men are brought together constitutionally and the Prime Minister, who was the one chosen by the crown, makes his choice of those who are to be ministers of the crown or acting ministers. That has been done in the present case as regularly as one could imagine any procedure could be carried out; and we have the authority of the law officers of the crown to the effect that the method followed is perfectly in order. Now one does not suppose for a moment that when the law officers of the crown were discussing this matter and were giving an opinion on it they overlooked section 11 of the statute, which says that in case of all commissions carrying emolument the commission must contain a provision that no emolument will be paid, to avoid disqualification? One cannot begin to think that the law officers of the crown overlooked the very next section to the one they were discussing. Neither can one admit that in saying that all the proceedings were regular those law officers overlooked a requisite which had not been complied with, namely the taking of an oath. There is no oath, even founded on custom, that an acting minister must take.
I want just for a moment to refer-because to my mind it is beyond debate that the procedure in the appointment of this ministry has been regular and correct-to the course of previous proceedings in this House. In September of last year the late Prime Minister inaugurated his election campaign; he complained at that time, in fact complained very bitterly, that he was not able to carry on a government, that he had been obliged to mark time, that the situation had become impossible, that he must go to the country in order to get some sort of endorsement that would enable him actually to carry on the government of this country. He did not come back here with a majority of this House, he did not come back endorsed by the people, he did not come back with the majority that he said was necessary-a majority of his own party-to enable him to carry on. It would be interesting to review his difficulties during the session, but I come at once to the .events of the last few days. The late government found itself in an impossible position, and on Wednesday this is what the Prime Minister said with regard to it:

Supply-Formation of Ministry
I came to the conclusion that to attempt to carry on public business with a condition sucih as we were witnessing towards the end of last week would be to bring the great and honourable institution of parliament more or less into disrepute; and having that view I was obliged to consider whether it was desirable to attempt any longer to carry on parliament. I went to His Excellency and said I was of opinion that I would not longer take the resposibility of carrying on as Prime Minister, believing that the best interests of the state were not being served by any government attempting to carry on under the circumstances, which now exist-
And so on. That was the position in which the Prime Minister found himself, and an even clearer statement was made by the exMinister of Agriculture, who said;
We ourselves have gone through six months of more or less excruciating agony, wondering at every moment what was going to happen next, and the only gratifying feature of that trial has been the knowledge that during that time, with the aid of our associates, we have been able to put a good deal of first class legislation on the statutes of Canada.
Further on the hon. gentleman said:
-and because of what we suffered, because of my own experience, I feel a certain amount of sympathy for hon. gentlemen opposite now that they are starting to sweat, so to speak. Just as we could not stand indefinitely the humiliation of being over there, neither can they. By the time they prorogue and get out of this House they will know what it is to occupy both benches.
That was the position in which hon. members of the government found themselves on Friday last when dissolution was determined upon. The government was not able to get dissolution, and later on I shall have something to say about that. It resigned and the present government came into office. On Tuesday the debate on the Customs resolution was resumed. The right hon. leader of the opposition has stated to this House that he could have avoided defeat on that resolution with reference to the Customs report. How he knows that is beyond me, because he suffered a slashing defeat at the close of that same day. He says he would have been able to carry on very well and get through the resolution under debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says this government suffered defeat on that day. Will he tell me what government motion was before the House that was defeated?


George Reginald Geary: The resolution containing
the censure of the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No government resolution before the House was defeated. How can the hon. member say the government was defeated on any resolution? A government is not defeated on resolutions of private members.
Mr. , GEARY:	It may not have been
technically a government motion, but it was a report of its own committee, and there were resolutions before the House which my hon. friends were opposing tooth and nail as a government, resolutions censuring the government and one of its members.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend say that the first vote that took place under this present administration, that went counter to hon. gentleman opposite, meant that they were defeated?


George Reginald Geary: No. This government
secured the biggest majority of the House during this session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In its history.


George Reginald Geary: We had a majority of twelve, or something of that sort, on a division, which shows that we retain the confidence of the House pretty well up to the present moment. However that may be, my right hon. friend says he knew he could have pulled through and weathered the storm. I disagree with him, and subsequent events show that he could not have done so. He saw himself face to face with disaster that could not be avoided, and that is the reason of his resignation. Up till Tuesday last there had been no word of any sort touching this question which is now said to be of more vital importance than any question which has come before this parliament for many years. On Wednesday did my hon. friends on the other side say that this ministry should not be in office, and that there was this great issue before the country? No they did not. They came with still another resolution purporting to be a tariff resolution. They asked this House to say that because of the tariff policy of this party, upon which, so far as I am concerned, I stand four square, it should not be permitted to continue in office. I tell them that that policy as enunciated in June, 1925, is still the policy of the Conservative party. It has been debated many times during this session of parliament. None of my friends o^ the Progressive party had any doubt as to where the Conservative party stood on that issue. It was nothing new to them, and still they were solemnly asked to censure this government by a vote on that question. However, the government was sustained in this House. The resolution my hon. friends submitted had no relevance whatever to the issue before the House and no relevance to t'he present situation; it was designed simply as a trick to draw votes against this government. That 'trick failed, and on Wednesday night we came

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
to the estimates., in order to pass them if possible. To the extent of many thousand dollars the estimates went through, and the first objection we heard was from the ex-Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin). His objection was not at all as to the constitutionality of this government seeking to pass money estimates, but only a natural curiosity on his part to ascertain if, providing it got supply, it would spend the money. It was after the ex-Minister of Customs was satisfied with regard to that inquiry that for the first time-after the attempts by side wind before spoken of to procure a vote censuring this government- this matter of constitutionality was brought up, and brought up, as I venture to suggest, not from any bona fide desire to test the constitutional question but as a last resort, a sort of third wave of attack, the other two having entirely failed. We had a strange spectacle when these motions were put. My hon. friends opposite burst out at once against their former friends in the Progressive party. One could imagine their thoughts and one could hear words uttered bitterly, but faintly, very faintly, representing these thoughts. They lost no time, one ex-minister after another, one member after another, came out with reproaches against the Progressive members who voted against the resolution.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Progressive group has 'become so accustomed to that attitude on the part of both parties that it makes no impression upon them whatever.


George Reginald Geary: Rolls like water off a duck's back. I am not concerned with the effect on my hon. friends. I have no doubt they can take care of themselves. I am only alluding to the state of mind of hon. gentlemen opposite on finding they had been beaten. One would have thought no friendship was possible henceforth between them, but the funeral bak'd meats were scarcely cold before they were flirting once again.
We have heard a great deal about the dissolution that was asked for and not granted. My hon. friend made a very long speech last night, a very vehement speech, but not good enough, so far as I could see, to be repeated as he repeated it this afternoon. I say that those who read that speech may judge for themselves upon what the right hon. gentleman is basing all the arguments that he has to offer. The people of Canada will find there his attitude in regard to the refusal of his request for dissolution and to any future request.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that we might

expect an announcement in a few moments that the House will be dissolved?


George Reginald Geary: Not that I am aware of.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The wish is father to the thought.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I would like to see a dissolution.


George Reginald Geary: The right hon. gentleman
has referred to that request for dissolution and 'has couched his thoughts in very careful language, but when he talks of what he hopes will soon come to pass, a request for dissolution, I shall quote his own language without putting an interpretation on it, leaving to those who read it to interpret it. What is moving the right hon. gentleman to use these words?:	.
I wilil wait and see what His Excellency does before I judge of the motive which governed with resipect to the non-aoceiptance of the advice which I tendered and which motive up to this moment I have never questioned.
He leaves it open himself to question not only what may be said on a future occasion, but of saying what he pleases about nonacceptance of the advice which he tendered. He goes on to say further:
Until His Excellency has had that opportunity, and until I see what course His Excellency takes as a consequence of it, I for one do not intend to offer any criticism whatever of the constitutionality of the course taken up to the present time.
He is still withholding what right he may think he has to say whatever he chooses on some future occasion. It has been said-and I have no reason to doubt what my hon. friends have said-that for many years no dissolution asked for has been refused. That will go to show only one thing, namely, that in all likelihood no dissolution has been asked for under such circumstances as would make a refusal of it proper. That gets us no further on this particular request for dissolution, which, with all respect, I say was properly refused. Todd says:
A valuable security against the improper exercise of this prerogative is that, before a dissolution can take place, it must be clearly approved of by the sovereign, after alii the circumstances shall have been explained to him, and he shall have duly considered them. Upon such an occasion, "the sovereign ought by no means to be a passive instrument in the hands of his ministers; it is not merely his right, but his duty, to exercise his Judgment in the advice they may tender to him. And though by. refusing to act upon that advice he incurs a serious responsibility, if they should in the end prove to be supported by public opinion, there is perhaps no case in which this responsibility may be more safely and more usefully incurred than when the ministers ask to be allowed to appeal to the people from a decision pronounced against them by the House of Commons".

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
Although technically there is said to be no decision as yet pronounced against the late government in the House of Commons, be that as it may, at all events Friday night showed plainly to the country at large that the government of the day had lost the confidence of the House when the Customs report came out. It had lost, too, what remained to it of the confidence of the people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just in connection with what my hon. friend is saying, does he not anticipate that unless a vote comes before dissolution is announced tonight. the present ministry will go out of office through a defeat?


George Reginald Geary: I am not a prophet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my hon. friend could tell us whether we are going to get the announcement of dissolution at midnight?


George Reginald Geary: I suppose the right hon.
gentleman wants to hear himself say that. That is the only reason he is asking me about it. Todd also says:	[DOT]
No minister of the crown should advise a dissolution of parliament unless he has a reasonable prospect of securing thereby a majority of members in the new House of Commons, who widl "honestly and cordially concur with him in great political principles".
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and members of this House, if the late Prime Minister could have thought he had any reasonable prospect, if he had faced the country on that Customs report, of getting a majority of members in this House to support him? What are we asked to do to-night on this matter which has now arisen? We are asked to say that there should be recalled to 12 m. the treasury benches a government which just two days ago suffered the deliberate censure of this House and made its exit from office in disgrace. That will be found upon the records of this House. It is clear to every hon. member that this House has without any equivocation set the stamp of disapproval upon the carrying on of the business of this country by the late government.
The hon. member for Bow River pointed to a section of the statute, and I may compliment h'm upon his interpretation of it, with which I have no fault to find. Section 13 states:
Whenever any person holding the office of President of the Privy Council, Minister of Finance, Minister of Justice, Minister of Militia and Defence, Secretary of State, Minister of the Interior, Minister of Railways and Canals, Minister of Public Works, Postmaster General, Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Inland Revenue, Minister of Customs. Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, Minister of Trade and Commerce or Solicitor General, or any office which is hereafter created, entitling him to be a minister of the crown, and being at the same time a member of the House of Commons, resigns his office, and, within one month after his resignation, accepts any of the said offices, he shall not thereby vacate his seat, unless the administration of which he was a member has resigned and a new administration has been formed, and has occupied the said offices.
He may be sound in his interpretation of the law; but is there nothing to influence the mind of anyone to whom advice is given but the strict letter of some statute? Must he not consider the equities, and is it at all likely that when advice is given in a matter of this sort, equities will be left unconsidered and that the strict letter of the law will govern? Speaking of the general judgment of reasonable wayfaring men, can one conceive of these men saying that a short two days after a government is censured as the late government was censured, they could come back and occupy the treasury benches of this parliament as though such censure had never occurred? I think it is proper to say that this is the third device that has been tried in two days to prevent this government from functioning. The hon. member for Bow River has imagined the advice that was given by the Prime Minister. I know nothing about it whatever.
Mr, GARLAND (Bow River): May I suggest to the hon. member that the most sincere indication his party could have shown of a desire to govern would have been to solicit co-operation with those on whose support they must depend for government? They took no action in that regard.


George Reginald Geary: I do not know about that; but I know that when wTe were at an impasse, so to speak, the then- leader of the opposition did ask across the floor of the House for some opportunity of discussion so that we could work out the business of this session, and he was curtly refused.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the hon. member be kind enough to quote the reference? I would like very much to see it.


George Reginald Geary: I have not the reference at
hand. What was the advice the hon. member for Bow River imagined was given by the Prime Minister? He imagined his going to the proper place and saying: I have a government that can carry on. If he said that, if that was the course the right hon. gentleman took, it certainly has been justified by events that have happened since then. The government has been able to carry on; the government wants simply to pass supply, close up the session's business and let some-

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
thing remain on the statute books as a result of this session. What is asked is not an indefinite running on of this government formed in unusual circumstances. It is simply to close supply and finish the legislation which only awaits the last touch.


Mr. PARENT:: It must be dene legally.


George Reginald Geary: No one has seriously raised the question of legality. The thing is perfectly legal. As I understand it, the question in dispute is the constitutionality of advice given to the Governor General.


Georges Parent: There is no difference between legality and constitutionality.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have now the quotation to which reference has been made, and it verifies absolutely every remark I made. It reads:
The only statement I wish to make is this. I th:nk on the question of the completion of the session there should b-e a conference between the Prime Minister and myself, in which conference I am prepared to engage.
Not a word there about co-operation; it Is a conference between the then Prime Minister and the right hon. gentleman now acting as Prime Minister. What has that to do with the situation?


Mr. HOCKEN:: What would be the purpose of a conference?


Edward Joseph Garland: Why not confer with the force which is really of use to the right hon. gentleman?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: In my judgment, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) owed a duty to the country to close the session in an orderly manner.


George Reginald Geary: A conference is not sought for the purpose of arranging a fight. One does not confer for that sort of thing. The object is to come to some understanding, and what does an understanding imply if not cooperation? It does not occur io me that we get very far by splitting hairs on the meaning of words.


Ernest Lapointe: In what capacity did the then leader of the opposition ask for a conference? He had not been summoned to form a cabinet at that time.


George Reginald Geary: I do. not care whether or not he had any capacity at that moment, but there was an opening that would lead to a conference between two positions which were sure to be established in the next few hours, as events very soon proved.


Ernest Lapointe: He had been so nice to us all along that he wanted us to facilitate matters even before he was summoned.


George Reginald Geary: One may take a narrow view of the question.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, we know where the broadminded people are.


George Reginald Geary: At all events the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) wi'l not say now that the next day, when the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was summoned to be Prime Minister, the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was prepared to enter into a conference.


Ernest Lapointe: I hope not


Mr. DOUCET:: We knew that.


Ernest Lapointe: That is my sincere word.


George Reginald Geary: Since the late government resigned a number .of attempts have been made in succession to divert attention from the blasting effect of the Customs inquiry Hon. gentlemen, opposite have endeavoured to secure a majority by some trick or subterfuge in order to get past that vote of censure, and now they are trying to have the House adopt a motion, the effect of which would be to whitewash them and put them back on the benches from which they have been driven.
The. ex-Minister of Justice on one occasion, describing something that had occurred on the other side of the House when we sat there, said that it was not cricket. May I ask whether the late actions of hon. gentlemen opposite are cricket? . They were given "out", and ever since have been grousing against the umpire's decision. I submit that the interests of the country demand that the government be given every opportunity to do what doubtless was implied in the advice tendered His Excellency, namely, to close out the estimates so that the business of the session may be brought to a conclusion. We have the formal declaration of the Prime Minister that the offices of ministers will be definitely filled, that the necessary elections will be held, and that every other procedure which may be required will be taken. It is not as though the government were attempting bo carry on for any length of time with the present ministry, which is temporary. The object is merely to close the work of the session so that the labours of these past six months shall not have been futile.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I had intended to consider in some detail the sections of Chapter 10 of the Re-

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
vised Statutes of Canada to which the hon, member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) referred this afternoon in opening this prolonged discussion. There can, I think, be no doubt whatever of the accuracy and the validity of the interpretation which the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) has given to the sections of that act which have been under consideration. The ex-Minister of Justice, whom I hope to see some day again prominently in the public life of this country-


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -failed to refer to section 15 of chapter 10, which has a very important bearing on the discussion. Construe the provisions of section 10, as you will, I can conceive of no other interpretation being possible than that which the hon. member for South Toronto has just now placed upon it. Nevertheless the only penalty provided in the act is contained in section 15, wherein it is enacted that upon a member of this House becoming disqualified, by reason of the acceptance of any of the offices for which any emolument or salary shall be paid, shall vacate his seat. If certain gentlemen have really vacated their seats by accepting offices to which emoluments attach, and for services in connection with which they shall be paid out of the treasury of Canada, then the only way, according to the rules recently laid down by the opposite party in this House, by which their seats may be vacated is by an appeal to the courts of the country, which have full jurisdiction to take evidence and declare as to whether or not any of these members have accepted an office, to which emoluments are attached, which come within the provisions and prohibitions of section 15 of this statute.


Lucien Cannon: Will my hon. friend allow me one question? Does he consider the point he is now making an answer to our contention that a minister must vacate his seat the moment he becomes a minister? This is not a controverted election; he is disqualified because he is a minister receiving salary.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am dealing with the very section which says that a member who accepted any emolument thereby becomes incapable of being elected to, or of sitting or of voting in the House of Commons. I say to hon. gentlemen that if they are attacking the seats of the hon. gentlemen referred to in this resolution, they may do so by bringing before the House, on a question of privilege, the issue as to whether these gentlemen are incapable of holding seats in the
House of Commons. They are presenting to this House a legal issue similar to that which was brought into the House recently as to whether the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) was entitled to sit as a member of this House. A proceeding dealing with the issue as to whether any member mentioned in this resolution has vacated his seat, by reason of the acceptance of some office to which an emolument or salary or profit is attached, is a legal issue which the courts of this country are quite competent to try. If the arguments advanced by my hon. friends the other day, which arguments obtained the support of a majority of this House, are to prevail in a case such as this, then why not take proceedings in the courts, or why not bring the issue fairly and squarely before this House by moving a resolution to the effect that a writ should now be issued for bv-eleetions in these constituencies?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend think a writ of quo warranto should be 'issued against each member of the administration to find by what authority he holds office and does he think that we should wait until the courts decide that question before the temporary government becomes permanent?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You must do that if you
accept the doctrines laid down and accepted by a majority of this House during the present session. That is one alternative, but the other is this: If they have vacated their seats, why not bring the issue fairly and squarely before the House on a resolution declaring that writs should be issued?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The resolution now before the House brings the whole matter squarely before us.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I doubt it. I will discuss
the resolution before the House in a moment, but I am now raising the preliminary point that the question may be tested in the courts as to whether these hon. gentlemen have vacated their seats. It may be tested in this House under a special resolution directed to that purpose, in respect to which the House, through the committee on Privileges and Elections, must take the necessary evidence which would enable the House to decide as to whether there are emoluments attached to, and received or receivable by them, in connection with the offices they are presumed to administer temporarily.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
another question?
Supply-Formation oj Ministry


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Just a moment; I am going to deal with the resolution itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I just wanted
to relieve my hon. friend's anxiety by saying that if we did not soon get a dissolution in the regular way we might have to begin legal proceedings to get hon. gentlemen out.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think possibly that will be the only alternative left to the hon. gentleman. The issue raised in this resolution is not primarily as to whether the hon. gentlemen have vacated their seats; the resolution says that the actions in this House of the hon. members who have acted as ministers of the crown are questioned. The brunt of this attack is against the actions in this House of the hon. gentlemen who have acted as ministers since June 29, 1926, and the resolution names them. By reason o-f what actions in this House are the hon. gentlemen attacked?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to mv hon. friend-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not asking my hon.
friend, because the resolution should state them, and it should not be left to the conjecture of any member of the House or to some hypothetical suggestions of the right hon. leader of the opposition as to what those actions are. The actions in this House of the hon. gentlemen who have acted as ministers since June 29, 1926, are attacked in this resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend referred to me just now as to their actions. I would say that the hon. gentlemen opposite who compose the ministry either have been acting or they have not been acting. If they have been doing nothing they should not be here; if they have been doing anything they are doing it illegally.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The right hon. leader of the opposition has repeated that some fifteen times. I think.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend does not seem to have grasped it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Simply because the position stated is so utterly absurd that it is almost inconceivable that any hon. gentleman should have ever made the suggestion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I admit the position is most absurd-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I ask for the floor in this case; if the right hon. gentleman has any questions I will try to answer them, but I am

not going to enter into a personal discussion across the floor of the House at the moment. These actions which are impugned are alleged to be a violation, an infringement, of the privileges of this House. What are the actions which are infringements of the privileges of the House? They are not stated in this resolution at all, but it is alleged that actions which are not stated, which are not expressed, which are not explained, are an infringement of the privileges of this House for certain reasons. First, that the said hon. gentlemen have no right to sit in this House and should have vacated their seats therein if they legally hold office as administrators of the various departments assigned to them by order in council. It has never been suggested that these gentlemen hold any offices; the orders in council, which were passed by a committee of the Privy Council, did not appoint any of them to any office. It is clear from the statements made to parliament that they have never been offered any office, and it is perfectly clear that they have never accepted any office. It is therefore perfectly clear that they are not now holding any office under the crown, except that the Prime Minister of the country occupies the offices of Prime Minister and of President of the Privy Council. You can go through the authorities and find score after score of cases where members of the [DOT]British House of Commons have been offered or tendered offices in the government, and even the signification by such members that they would accept those offices was not sufficient to vacate their seats in the House. In order that the seat of a member of the House of Commons, who has been offered or tendered an office under the crown to which emoluments or salary attach, may be vacated, it is not only necessary that he should have been tendered the office, it is not only necessary that it .mould have been accepted by him, but it is necessary that there should have been an actual appointment to that office as well as the taking of the oath of office for its due administration by the person so appointed. Nothing of the kind has taken place with regard to the hon. gentlemen mentioned in this resolution, and in view of the facts which have been adduced, and which are admitted, concerning which no member of the House can have any doubt, it is perfectly clear that the first reason given in this resolution does not apply to any of the hon. gentlemen therein named. The first reason is:
1. That the said hon. gentlemen have no right to sit in this House, and should have vacated their scats therein, if they legally hold office as administrators of the various departments assigned to them by orders in council.

Supply-Formation of Ministry
Now everyone admits that they do not come under that heading. If they did, it would not be for them to vacate their seats, for if they did come under that heading their seats would become vacated by virtue of the statute. So that part of the resolution does not apply.
The second reason which is urged why the actions in this House of these hon. members are a violation and an infringement of the privileges of the House is:
2. That if they do not hold such offices legally they have no right to control the business of government in this House and to ask for supply for the departments of which they state they are acting ministers.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman says, "hear, hear." But what does it mean to say they have no right to control the business of this House? Who controls the business of this House? This House controls its own business. This House is in supreme control. The members of this House control the business of this House under the direction of His Honour the Speaker. Even when the right hon. the Prime Minister in former days was sitting in the House, he did not control the' business of this House. If he wished to make a motion that a certain order of business should be proceeded with, he made it, and the House could adopt or reject the motion as it saw fit. This House has control, under the direction of the Speaker, of its own business. Therefore hon. gentlemen who sit in the seats to my left, and who have been designated as acting for and on behalf of the Prime Minister, selected by him in order to temporarily supervise, during this interregnum, the various departments of the government of which he is Prime Minister-they do not control the business of government in this House.
Let us see what is the other reason. I quote again:
2. That If they do not hold such offices legally-
We admit they do not hold the offices at all, and therefore it is immaterial whether they hold them legally or illegally. They do not hold them at all. But this part of the resolution says:
Thai .f they do not hold such offices legally they have no right to control the business of government in this House.
They do not undertake the control of business in this House. This House controls its own business under the direction of the Speaker and in accordance with the practice and rules of parliament. It proceeds:
They have nu r'ght to ask for supply for the departments of wh'eh they state they are acting ministers.
When did they ask for supply?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yesterday.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Never. No minister ever asks for supply. His Excellency the Governor General comes to this House with an Address and asks for supply for his government, and, in the ordinary course, any member of this House, when once he has the authority of His Excellency the Governor General to submit the Address from His Excellency dealing with supply, if he has that authority, as a member of a committee of the Privy Council, whether he holds any ministerial office or not, has the right to rise in this House and make the ordinary motion for going into committee of Supply, and when in committee of Supply, to move for the passing of the various items submitted by His Excellency. I have always had the highest opinion of the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and I will venture my reputation that he never drafted a resolution such as that, which it is inconceivable that any member having an intelligent appreciation of the powers of this House and of the action of His Excellency the Governor General in addressing this House for. supply, could ever have drafted and submitted to the House.
If I might be allowed to diverge for one moment, Mr. Speaker, to consider the case of privilege which was stated to this House this afternoon, in the discussion of which Your Honour allowed very, very wide departures, if I may say so, from the single definite issue placed before the House in the statement of privilege which was first made, a whole mountain of constitutional controversies was erected in that connection, and now we find that this mountain has laboured and given birth to this ridiculous little mouse which we find in this resolution, the whole tendency of which is to present to the House, by a circuitous way, a motion of want of confidence in the existing government.


Charles Avery Dunning: But you say the government does not exist.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The government exists as
long as there is a Prime Minister in this country who is sworn into office and has the right to select the other members of his ministry, and, under our practice, he is given reasonable time to do so. W hen the government of the right hon. leader of the opposition came into office he was allowed a reasonable time of several weeks in which to form his ministry. How did he form it? What is the basis for the extraordinary criticism made here with respect to a meeting of the com-

5304	COMMONS
Supply-Formation, of Ministry
mittee of the Privy Council at which certain orders in council were passed? When the right hon. leader of the opposition was selected to form an administration he himself undoubtedly was first sworn into office as Prime Minister, and possibly as the holder of the office of President of the Privy Council. Then he summoned other members of the Privy Council; he could summon any members he might see fit, who were present in Canada. He had the constitutional right to summon them as a committee of the Privy Council, empowered to act further, and he did so. And when the right hon. gentleman sneers at the present Prime Minister for making appointments by orders in council, the latter is following exactly the same practice as the right hon. leader of the opposition followed when he first constituted his own cabinet; and the same practice has been followed in the constitution of each and every government since 1867.
But, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call attention just to one other phase of the question. I listened, as we all listened, with admiration to the address of the hon. member for Bovf River (Mr. Garland)-I think it was one of the most eloquent and, on the whole, most impressive addresses that we have heard during this session of parliament. I do not agree with all the hon. gentleman's interpretations as to the law, and I think he overemphasized certain interpretations which he gave to existing constitutional practice. The leader of the opposition stated his position very fully last evening. He says that he visited His Excellency the Governor General on Saturday and discussed with him the question of a dissolution of parliament; that he approached His -Excellency on Monday about noon, in accordance with a previous appointment, and fie then again discussed the question of dissolution; and that His Excellency declined to follow his advice and to grant a dissolution of parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In order that the record may be complete I should say that I also had an interview with His Excellency on Sunday. I did not say anything about that previously.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We will take it that the
right hon. gentleman had interviews with His Excellency on Saturday, on Sunday and on Monday. It was the bounden duty of the leader of the opposition, as the then Prime Minister, to have informed His Excellency with respect to recent proceedings in this House, and recent proceedings in the special committee investigating the Department of

Customs and Excise. We know therefore that, if the Prime Minister of that day performed his duty, His Excellency was well informed as to the report of the Customs committee, as to the Stevens amendment moved to that report, as to the fact that that amendment was a reflection, and a serious reflection, upon the administration under the direction and control of the then Prime Minister, who now leads the opposition. His Excellency must have been informed also of the three votes in this House-possibly they were not direct votes of want of confidence, dealing with them in a strictly technical sense-and His Excellency must have been in a position to know that a dissolution of the House, on the advice of the then Prime Minister, would render it impossible for the House, in the exercise of its constitutional functions, to pass the amendment introduced by Mr. Stevens, as amended by one subamendment at leas' which reflected very severely upon the administration of the government of the day. Now I ask the leader of the opposition to search the records-and he will search them in vain in recent years-to find a case in the British parliament, or a case in any of the dominion or colonial parliaments, if you distinguish between them, in which a prime minister was allowed a dissolution which would have the effect of preventing a legislature then in session from passing a resolution then actually before it, reflecting upon and discrediting the administration of the day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What will my hon. friend have to say if we get a dissolution before the present resolution is voted upon?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That the present resolution is perfectly ridiculous. I say, and I do not think the right hon. gentleman will deny it, that if the resolution .dealing with, the Customs report then before the House had been passed when on Saturday, Sunday and Monday the Prime Minister advised dissolution, it would have reflected very seriously upon his administration and have rendered it impossible for the right hon. gentleman to continue any longer in office.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just to show how mistaken my hon. friend is, I really and honestly believe that if I had not resigned because my advice for the dissolution of parliament was not accepted, the criticism that has been levelled against the department would not have been passed at all.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Oh, well!

Supply-Formation of Ministry


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am pretty sure it would not have been.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not want to enter into a discussion with the hon. gentleman. But I give him credit for being the most optimistic man I ever came into contact with in public life, and the genial optimism he displays even to-night in the suggestion, that he may come back as Prime Minister by a double shuffle within a week or two, surpasses the reasonable and intelligent anticipations of others who are not equally as sanguine as himself. But coming down now to the question, the right hon. leader of the opposition last evening stated:
In being declined the right of dissolution I be!.eve I was declined that right because His Excellency had the honest belief that some other member oif this House could be found who as Prime Minister could carry on the business of government in this country in the way it should be carried on, befitting the dignity and honour of parliament, and which would therefore avoid the necessity of a general election.
There the right hon. member frankly admits that under the constitutional practice His Excellency the Governor General in the selection of an hon. member of this House, who could carry on the business of the government of this country and avoid the necessity of a dissolution and general election, would be acting within the constitutional practice; and, if the hon. member so selected were able to do so, he would entirely vindicate his selection by His Excellency the Governor General. The present leader of the opposition further says:
I believe that His Excellency the Governor General sincerely believed that the present Prime Minister would be able to carry on the government of this country dn a manner befitting and in accordance with British traditions, in a manner which would accord with the recognized principles of responsible government; and believing that, His Excellency undoubtedly ashed the present Prime Minister whether he was prepared to assume office on those conditions. Now if the right hon. gentleman can demonstrate to the country, if he has demonstrated to this House and this parliament, that he is able to do that, after what we have seen and are witnessing in this so-called ministry presented to us to-night, then I say that His Excellency's judgment in the matter has been sound and right, and there !s no criticism to offer.
That is the statement he made last night, clearly and distinctly to thi3 House and to the public of Canada. That was before some member on the other side, I do not know who, had had a night to cogitate upon the matter, and to concoct this singularly ludicrous resolution which has been presented here tonight by way of a vote of want of confidence in the existing government; but that the constitutional practice thus stated by the right 14011-337
hon. leader of the opposition last evening is the constitutional practice in this country cannot I think be doubted. For instance, in this late work of Keith's, the edition of April 19, 1924, to which the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) referred this afternoon, I find in the introduction, which undoubtedly is somewhat later than the writing of the text, he deals with the fact that in England there are now three recognized parties; and the fact that three parties exist and that at any time no one of those parties may have a complete majority in the House will tend to evolve possibly, and probably, a new constitutional practice. He says in dealing with this question:
The constitutional issue, therefore, has again been raised as to the position of the crown in regard to the dissolution of parliament. It has been suggested that the practice in the dominions-
Mind you, this is written in April, 1924.
-which empowers the representative of the crown to decline to grant a dissolution to a premier, provided that he is able to find a politician willing to carry on the government and to accept responsibility for the refusal, should be regarded as applicable to Great Britain.
There it is made clear that the practice, which in 1924 prevailed in the dominions of the empire, was to the effect that, provided His Excellency the Governor General was able to find a member of parliament willing to carry on the government and to accept responsibility for the refusal to dissolve parliament, His Excellency would be acting in accordance with recognized constitutional practice in calling upon such member to form a new ministry rather than to dissolve the House on the advice of the preceding prime minister. He says in effect: That now, in view of the fact that there are three parties in Great Britain, the question is mooted whether that same practice, Which prevailed in 1924 in the dominions of the empire, should not now be accepted as also applicable to Great Britain, and as in the interests of the people of Great Britain. He further states:
The question presents considerable difficulty when treated in the abstract. It is, for instance, obvious that the crown could not constitutionally grant a pr'.me minister, who had obtained one dissolution and had been defeated, a second dissolution of parliament if any other means of carrying on the government could be found.
That is stated by Mr. Keith to be the present constitutional practice in Great Britain, and how does it apply to the present conditions in Canada? In September, 1925, the then prime minister of the country, the present leader of the opposition, approached

5306	COMMONS
Supply-Formation oj Ministry
the Governor General and aaked for a dissolution. We have on reeord what purports to be a complete statement of the grounds which he presented to His Excellency the Governor General in asking for that dissolution. Certain issues were raised which he declared to His Excellency should be placed before the people of this country for a decision, and it was still further stated that for him to carry on the government of the country it was necessary to increase the number of his supporters in this House of Commons so that he would have a majority over both parties in opposition in this House. The result of that election is well known. The right hon. gentleman came back with a minority, with a very substantial reduction in the number of members who supported him in this House, and the two parties which had opposed him in that general election were together in a very considerable majority. What happened then? The Prime Minister of that day, although it was admitted that he had not secured papular support either of the electors or of the members elected by the voters of Canada, approached His Excellency the Governor General and asked that parliament might be summoned in order that the issue, as to whether the majority of parliament would support him for the time being, might be placed before parliament. His Excellency the Governor General granted that request and parliament was convened.
Then came another issue. We now know and it is clear that the usual constitutional practice was to summon parliament; when parliament convened, to have it elect a Speaker, and to place before parliament the issue as to whether the Prime Minister and his government had the confidence of parliament at that time, before any speech from the Throne could be brought down. Still, when the request was made to His Excellency the Governor General, he, to a slight extent, departed from the recognized constitutional practice in order to show to the existing Prime 'Minister every consideration and assistance possible in the administration of the government of this country.
We then had a speech from the throne brought down which contained little or no reference whatever to any issue placed before the people of this country in the preceding general elections, a speech which contained captivating references to proposed legislation which was likely to receive the favourable consideration of one of the groups in this House. The leader of the opposition, then Prime Minister, prior to that point, so far

as we can see from the outside, certainly had received as favourable and as considerate treatment as it was possible for the crown to give to a Prime Minister who held the complete confidence of the crown. But then this matter of the administration of the Department of Customs came up; charges were made in this House and referred to the special committee, and that committee of nine members, four of whom were supporters in this House of hon. gentlemen opposite, brought in, through the chairman of that committee, also a supporter of the Prime Minister, a report, adopted unanimously, containing serious reflections upon the government which had been administering the customs laws of this country. Even if that report had passed, of itself it contained such severe reflections that no Prime Minister having a proper regard for the dignity of his office and his personal selfrespect would have continued to hold office after that report had been adopted. Amendments were proposed to that report reflecting more seriously upon the administration of the government, and the temper of the House was indicated by three votes, none of which technically may have been a direct vote of want of confidence in the government, but each and every one of which reflected the studied and considered judgment of this House, to the effect that this House was prepared to approve and to pass the amendment which reflected so seriously upon the government.
Those facts being known to His Excellency, the Prime Minister of that day, the present leader of the opposition, according to his own statement, approached His Excellency and asked for a dissolution, at a time when a resolution of censure was before the House, when it was perfectly clear that that resolution of censure would be adopted although opposed by hon. gentlemen who composed the ministry. There was then a discretion in His Excellency the Governor General, as stated by all the authorities, as there would have been a discretion in the crown of England, to refuse to grant that dissolution at that time and under those conditions, until the right hon. gentleman and his government had submitted themselves to the judgment of this high court of parliament to which they had appealed.
Talk about a storm arising in this country over the action of His Excellency! H there ever should be a governor general holding that high office, who should become such a partisan of any party as to grant dissolution to a prime minister in order to enable him

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
to escape from the censure of the parliament then sitting, you would have a storm from the Atlantic to the Pacific that would rock the very foundations of constitutional government in this country. But here we have His Excellency refusing to act on the advice of the Prime Minister; refusing to grant a dissolution and, following the constitutional practice laid down by the leader of the opposition himself, in the effort to ascertain if there is some member of parliament who was prepared to accept the duty of forming a new administration, His Excellency called upon the then leader of the opposition, the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen. The office of Prime Minister is now filled. It is now quite open to the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) to bring before this House any motion of want of confidence that he deems fit.
We still have, despite all the right hon. gentleman may say to the contrary, responsible self-government in this country, on exactly the same basis as responsible selfgovernment exists in England, with regard to all matters which are within the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament, or I a.m. within the administrative jurisdiction of the government of this country. If hon. gentlemen opposite think that this government now existing is not worthy of the confidence of this House, let them take the manly and courageous way, bring in a direct resolution of want of confidence and test the House. Let them not be content with this flimsy production, which does discredit to an ordinary, illiterate schoolboy, dealing with the actions in this House of certain members who admittedly have conducted themselves with most perfect decorum.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the House were to pass that flimsy, contemptible resolution, would it not be a horrible vote of want of confidence in the government?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It might possibly be considered a vote of want of confidence, but why has not the hon. gentleman the frankness and the courage to come forward with a direct motion having that object in view, instead of a resolution which may with difficulty be distorted in some way into a motion of want of confidence?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon,
gentleman wants to know why we have moved this-what does he call it?-flimsy, contemptible-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not say contemptible. That would have been unparliamentary and I should have been called to order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At any rate
something awful.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, more than that, something ridiculous and discreditable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of course it
is all that because it gives the reason why the opposition have no confidence in the government. But surely we cannot help it if a ridiculous situation exists opposite.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: All I have to say is that
both reasons indicated in the motion are absolutely false and without foundation, and the motion could have been brought before the House only for the purpose-well, I had better not finish the sentence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One or other
of the reasons must be true.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not necessarily. I have
cross-examined witnesses too many times not to be able to frame a question to which no answer could be given that might not tend to convict the accused. I see my hon. friend, the ex-Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) sitting beside the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and as I know he is an adept at framing such questions, I rather suspect that he may have drafted this resolution,
Mr, CANNON:	If this motion is of so
little importance why speak so long?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am trying to do justice
to the inordinately long speech which the leader of the opposition made last night and! which he has continued to-day. I have so much respect for the right hon. gentleman that really I could not with propriety reply, in less than an hour.


Lucien Cannon: We are enjoying it,


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is suggested by one'
bright mind-it may have been the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland)-that possibly we may have a repetition of the double shuffle such as we had in 1858, when a government went out and came in again, and its members resumed their former offices. May I point out to the leader of the opposition. however, that, even if the double shuffle should now occur again, there is one member of the opposition who would not come in to office, and that is himself, for the simple reason that for a considerable number of years now in this country the office of Prime Minister has carried an emolument and the moment the hon. gentleman, no matter what

Supply-Formation of Ministry
might happen to his ministers, took the oath of office, he at least would have to vacate his seat in the House. A good deal would also depend upon whether the Prime Minister recently resigned for himself and his ministers as well, or whether his ministers put in their individual resignations. Undoubtedly under the statute as it exists to-day, a minister who tenders his individual resignation may within thirty days be appointed to and fill another ministerial office without a by-election. But the leader of the opposition, even if this resolution passes and the present government resigns, will not be in a position to attend sessions of the House and conduct the administration.	-
This resolution does not ask that writs be issued to fill vacancies; it does not ask that an address be passed in this House reflecting on .the conduct of His Excellency the Governor General, which has formed the whole body of hon. gentlemen's criticism. It is a resolution which I have described in apt terms as so ridiculous that it would not do credit to the skill of an ordinary schoolboy, and it does not contain a single statement of fact which can be relied upon. In other words it is an imposition on the intelligence of the House.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: I would not take part in this debate but for the fact that the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) referred to my views regarding the future of Canada and the status which she should hold in the British Empire. I believe that a great federation of British parliamentary commonwealths, a federation greater than the United States of America, is in process of formation now and within that federation every unit will have absolute independence in the conduct of its own affairs. That has always been my belief. The chief feature of such a federation will be in my opinion an absolute equality as between one commonwealth and another in self-government.
I was impressed with what the hon. member for Bow River said, as well as with the remarks of the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), to the effect that any parliamentary principle that obtains in the Mother Country should be respected in any of the dominions. If the Prime Minister has the right in the Mother Country to advise the sovereign, with the assurance that his advice will be accepted, the same right should obtain in this country. And I believe that will be the view of the Prime Minister now in office (Mr. Meighen). What is good enough for the Old Country should be good enough for Canada and Australia and all the other commonair. Caban.]
wealths of the empire. Unless we have absolute self-government here at home we shall not be able to compete with the great republic to the south of us.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


William Findlay Maclean: Hon. gentlemen applaud that statement. Well, the Conservative party has always held that position. It was the view held by Sir Robert Borden and I am sure the present Prime Minister will hold it. Now we must take a step forward and, as I say, if we have not complete home government wTe shall be unable to compete with our neighbour. Canada must be put on an equality with every other country on this continent in the matter of government, and nothing will help to bring this about so much as the co-operation of the Mother Country.
I cannot support the motion before the House; it is more or less a subterfuge. It is a subterfuge in view of the recent finding of a committee of this House in regard to the Customs scandals; that is a finding of the House and a finding of the country, and the people want an opportunity of expressing themselves in regard to it. I Lave been in this House perhaps longer than any other member; I hope the new Prime Minister will back me up when I say we should have dissolution right away and that this question 'should be submitted to the people. While I am saying that on my own account I believe it is what the people ask for. The Globe, the leading Liberal paper of Ontario came out three or four weeks ago demanding dissolution; the Montreal Gazette, expressing Conservative opinion, came out this very week with a similar demand, while the Winnipeg Free Press, which represents 11.western Progressive element, calls for the same thing. I hope the Prime Minister will find a way to go to the country on this question in order to clean up affairs in Canada. The present situation is most unsatisfactory; we can no longer bear the bad name which we have acquired. We must try to clean up the situation and to my mind the only way it can be done, and the way which will be insisted upon, is an appeal to the highest court of Canada, the men and women who constitute our electorate. They are the people to clean it up; they are ready to do so, and I am sure the public opinion now forming will be effective, possibly under the leadership of the new Prime Minister, in having 'this matter cleaned right up. I am sure that opinion will be supported by members on both sides of the House, because there are men patriotic enough, men who have studied the constitu-

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
tion enough to believe that they should take their part in cleaning up our public affairs. We want better administration; we want cleaner administration; we want to get away from distillery rule in this country, and we want to get away from the ru'e of great interests or anything of that kind. We must have a number of reforms, and the reform which I have advocated from my first day in this House is that great principle of public ownership. To-day the people of Canada have the greatest railway in the world.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


William Findlay Maclean: Hon. members opposite are applauding me now. This great railway is in jeopardy to-day, yet it is succeeding as no other railway ever succeeded before. The west is asking for lower freight rates; the industries of this country are asking for lower freight rates, and the way to make our country great is to consolidate our railways into one, re-route them to get a greatly improved service, and have lower freight rates by land, rail, sea and air. It is not a question of railways alone; it is a question of transportation, and the people in power in this country must deal with this question in all its phases.
That is the main thing I have to say to-night; I am quite willing to do anything I can to assist the new Prime Minister in appealing to the country, and I am sure some hon. gentlemen opposite will help also. I would not be surprised if the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) would help, and perhaps the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) would do something also.
I am not going into the merits of the whole question, but a way must be found to clean up this situation. We have- been saying that parliament is supreme; I say the men and women voters of Canada are supreme in this country, and they want an opportunity of deciding the issue now before us. I have not taken much time in saying this, but I hope it will produce some response, because the country is looking for some gesture towards the clean-up of affairs which have existed in this country. Much as I admire the speech the leader of the opposition made last night, he is out of the running for the present; he has to take care of the scandals and revelations which have come out. We must have integrity in our public men; if we have it there we will have it in our whole public service, and that is the great requirement of our country to-day. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House to join hands in cleaning up conditions, in getting better and cleaner government and
in making Canada what it is on the eve of becoming, namely, the greatest example of free parliamentary government in the world. This country has the richest resources of any country in the world; consider our agriculture, our mines and our industries, and most of all consider the desire of our people to work out their own destiny.


Mr. J. L. STANSELL (Norfolk-Elgin):: I do not profess to be a lawyer, to understand constitutional questions or to be able to debate them in the able way they have been debated by hon. members on both sides of the House. I have, however, a firm belief in the common sense of the people of Canada, and I believe that applies as well to members of this House. Most of us know very , well why this particular debate has been precipitated just now; we have seen speakers on the other side of the House work themselves almost into a frenzy over the danger to our constitution. But let me say just here, Mr. Speaker, that if the same zeal and energy now displayed by the leader of the opposition for the welfare and wellbeing of the people had been displayed when he was in power, the sordid conditions revealed in the Customs report would not have existed, and this matter would not have been a live question to-day. If the right hon. leader of the opposition had had the same zeal for constitutional protection when this House was summoned last January as he displays to-day when in opposition, we might have had a different story to tell.
I can recall no member of this House who has been louder in his declaration of the supremacy of parliament than has the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). I know of no members who have been louder in their protestations that the day has long since passed when our procedure should be determined by musty precedents and rulings centuries old than have the hon. members who sometimes occupy the seats diagonally opposite, just now conspicuous by their absence. They say. We want something more up to date, something more along the lines of common sense, something that will enable parliament to function more intelligently than it has done in the past, and not this system of party warfare. I am somewhat concerned to know what these champions of change in par-liamenltary procedure will do on a question like this. They know just as well as any hon. member in this House that this discussion has been brought on, in the judgment of many of us, to distract attention from the real question before the House and the country, and to attempt to gain once more by some desperate means the seats of power. In that I have full confidence, Mr. Speaker, that they will be disappointed.

Supply-Formation oj Ministry
With many of the arguments that have been presented by able members on both sides of the House I might be in accord if they were applied to a government assuming office under ordinary circumstances, if it was a government that was attempting to bring down a speech from the throne and submitting a programme or initiating legislation. But that is not the situation at the present time. All that has been attempted by this provisional government is simply to bring order out of the chaos into which the country has been thrown by the action of the former Prime Minister. The action that has been taken in this case has been an honest, patriotic effort to make sure that the legislation that we have worked on for months in the interests of many portions of this Dominion should not be lost, and that supply should be voted. In connection with the voting of supply, if any of the estimates are extravagant in character or improper in any way, hon. gentlemen on the other side must know of it, but we are willing to assume that the estimates were properly and carefully prepared.
The spectacle we have in this House is that certain estimates have been passed, but not all of them. Hon. gentlemen opposite have refused to pass further estimates and to make provision for the carrying out of their own legislation, which had 'been nearly carried to completion, and would have been carried to completion but for certain investigations and disclosures reflecting on the late administration. All that this provisional government is doing is not to initiate legislation at all, but simply to endeavour to carry to completion the legislation and the estimates that are before the House and which have been approved by hon. gentlemen opposite, who are now unwilling to carry it to a completion.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Will the hon. gertle-man permit a question?


John Lawrence Stansell: I think that sufficient
time has been taken by hon. members on the other side. I intend to speak for only a few minutes and I should like to conclude.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish):: Your
group has spoken for the last two hours, obstructing the vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You have done that for two days.


John Lawrence Stansell: I shall finish in two or three sentences, and then my hon. friend may put his question. I do not think it is too much to ask hon. members in this House to reserve criticism until there is something to criticise. They have anticipated what may
[Mr. Stansell.l
be going to happen in the next few days or the next few weeks, and they have proceeded to criticise, and most of the criticism has been directed against an individual or individuals not in this chamber. It would appear to me to be the sound and proper thing to do, in view of the circumstances, to finish up the actual business of the House in a common sense way, and then go to our homes.


Frederick George Sanderson: What would the hon. member call the common sense way, and what does he mean when he refers to a provisional government?


John Lawrence Stansell: I would call the common sense course the direct opposite of that which has been taken by my hon. friends opposite yesterday and to-day.


Hewitt Bostock: I declare the motion
carried.


Lucien Cannon: Before you declare the
motion carried I wish to call the attention of Your Honour to the fact that five members have voted whose vote can be challenged. However, I do not wish to bring this question up to-night; I am simply calling Your Honour's attention to the fact that I reserve my right to take any further action which may be necessary.


Hewitt Bostock: I would remind the House that the challenging of the vote of an hon. member cannot be made by raising a point of order. There must be a direct charge embodied in a substantive motion.


Mr. HANNESSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had1 I voted I would have voted against the motion.


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


Mr. MORIN (St. Hyacinthe):: I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. FONTAINE (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chabot). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BIRD:: I wish to explain to the House, and with extreme regret, that I was paired with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) who had retired from the House on account of indisposition, and I cast my vote inadvertently.


Georges Parent: Mr. Speaker, I think the
rule is that once a vote has been cast and recorded it cannot be recalled.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The rule is that when a vote has been recorded, when the result has been proclaimed, and when the motion has been declared carried or lost, that expresses the judgment of the House. This principle is to be found in May, who says at page 343 that a vote once given cannot be withdrawn.
As regards the claim made by the hon. member for Nelson that he was paired, May, at page 336, says:
5312	COMMONS
Supply-Formation oj Ministry
The^e cannot be any (parliamentary recognition of this practice ((pairing) although it has never been expressly condemned and it is therefore conducted privately by individual members or arranged by gentlemen known as the whips, who are entrusted by their political parties with the office of collecting their respective forces on a division.
Therefore, the . hon. gentleman having voted in the House, the vote must stand as it was proclaimed by the Clerk.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do you refuse to
recognize the practice of pairing?


Hewitt Bostock: I rely on the authority of May as set out at page 336, which I have just quoted, and on the constant practice of this House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In the first place, let me congratulate my hon. friends-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -upon the partial success they have achieved.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Partial!


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, upon the
partial success they have achieved, which was made possible by the accident which has occurred, The next matter I want to refer to is the statement which the ex-Solicitor General was kind enough to make with respect to the votes cast. There is no charge here within the meaning of the rule. I may say that hon. gentlemen have different ideas as to the propriety of the action taken.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend would allow me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Lucien Cannon: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I may draw the attention of the House to the fact that when there is a direct charge against anybody-


Lucien Cannon: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Lucien Cannon: I was making no charge
against my hon. friend, and he knows it, but I say that when the seat of any member, in view of a motion, is in question, he is not entitled to vote. The motion just disposed of is a motion of that nature. I make no charge against my hon. friend and he knows it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It. sounded like it. This is not a charge against the seat in that connection at all, but I wanted to make it clear that there were two ways of fighting; one we believe in and one we do not believe in. When there was a direct charge in connection with the ex-Minister of Customs, we

said nothing against his vote and allowed it to be recorded. I want to say one further thing. I am now rising for the purpose of-[DOT]


Hewitt Bostock: There are only two cases provided for in the rules of the House in which members can be debarred from voting The first case is covered by rule 69, where the seat of the member is in jeopardy. The second case, covered by rule 22, is that of a member who has a pecuniary interest in the matter at issue. I have studied the matter in connection with the vote taken the other day, thinking perhaps the point might be raised.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have never raised such a point.


Hewitt Bostock: As the hon. member
states, and as I said a moment ago, the vote of an hon. member cannot be challenged unless it is by a direct charge embodied in a subsequent substantive motion.


Lucien Cannon: A motion. I gave notice that I might make a motion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I rose originally, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of moving the adjournment of the House, in order to consider the position in which the government finds itself in view of this vote. We had in the first instance to consider the vote of this House censuring the former administration, which was carried by a majority of ten, and we now have the vote which has just been taken, a tie vote if the proper votes were counted, censuring the government. I move that the House adjourn.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall assume, in. view of the decision that the Plouse has given on a very important motion, that the Prime Minister who is advising His Excellency will immediately advise His Excellency that this House hag declared that his government has no right to be in existence and that he has found it impossible to carry on.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In answer to my right hon. friend I would assume that the Prime Minister, reporting to His Excellency according to the facts as they actually occurred, will have to tell His Excellency that in this House his administration stands at least nine votes .better than my hon. friend's party.
Motion agreed to and the Plouse adjourned at 2.15 a.m. (Friday).



DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
The Fifteenth Parliament was dissolved on Friday, July 2, 1926, by proclamation of His Excellency the Governor General.