1926-06-15

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, June 15, 1926.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. F. A. Anglin, acting as deputy of His 
Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber to-day at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. C. L. Pereira,
(for the Governor General's Secretary)



RAILWAY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac) presented the fourth report of the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RENE MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rou-ville) presented the second report of the select standing committee on Standing Orders.
He said:	I beg to move that the second
report of the select standing committee on Standing Orders be concurred in.
Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the House.


Mr. CAHILL:: I ask that this report be
allowed to stand, as I wish to present a letter to the House before the report is dealt with.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.
Motion stands.



TARIFFF ADVISORY BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Is it the intention of the government to have the evidence given before the Tariff Advisory Board made available for the members of this House?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My colleague the Minister of Finance is taking up that matter at the moment with the chairman of the board, and he will have something to state in reply to my hon. friend a little later.



CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: I
wish to ask a question in reference to the report on the salaries of the civil servants. I understand that action has been deferred pending the appointment of the two other commissioners, there being only the chairman at

Want of Confidence Motion
the moment. There being no Civil Service Commission fully appointed, will the question of salaries have to remain in abeyance until the next session of parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter
need not necessarily remain in abeyance until the next session of parliament; I hope the commissioners will be appointed long before that time. I think I can say to my hon. friend that any delay that may be occasioned will not cause any loss to the civil servants in any particular.
PRIVILEGE-MR. MULLIN&
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: Before the orders of the day are called I wish to bring up a personal matter. The correspondent of the Free Press sent out from the press gallery a statement that I was not in my seat with certain other members of the House last Friday night when the Hudson Bay railway was under discussion. That statement is untrue and unfair, and I have been subjected to a good deal of criticism in western Canada for being absent on that occasion. I am in receipt of letters from numerous parties in the vvest asking why I was not there as champion of the cause. I appeal to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), to my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Hay) and to my hon. friend from Neepawa (Mr. Murphy), who will certainly state that I was present in my seat all day Friday, and it is most unfair that a statement of that kind should be hurled agamst a member of the House.

National Research Council, report of the president and financial statement for the year 1924-25.-Mr. Robb.



SUPPLY-MOTION OF WANT OF CONFIDENCE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee of Supply.
['I am glad I talked this\ngrab bill out anyway, on behalf of the people of Ontario, and we will have a reckoning with the Ferguson government a little later and with the National railways, who together are playing the game of the private interests.']
Mr. FRED DAVIS (East Calgary) moved:: That the Speaker do not now leave the chair, but that it be resolved that this House, because of the failure of the government to implement promises contained in the Speech from the Throne, and for other causes, has no longer any confidence in the present government.
He said:	At the opening of parliament we
were presented with a Speech from the Throne forecasting certain legislation which was to be introduced in this House. The Speech from the Throne states that legislation will be enacted under which the natural resources of the province of Alberta will be restored to that province, and in an answer to a question I addressed to the Prime Minister yesterday we were assured that the government has no intention during this session of carrying out the promises it made in that Speech from the Throne. Following the Speech from the Throne an agreement was entered into between the government of Alberta and the government of the Dominion of Canada, which agreement was signed by ministers representing both governments. I submit that that agreement should be lived up to. If we flout the will of parliament and deceive the people we sacrifice that prestige parliament should enjoy in the estimation of the country. That is my reason for this motion. Having been a member of the legislature of Alberta, I in common with the present Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) and other members on the government side of the House, placed myself on record as favouring the restoration of the natural resources of Alberta to that province and with them supported a memorial to that effect addressed to this parliament. Now that that question is before the House I hope each member will give consideration, not merely to the question of the restoration of the resources to the province, but also to that of the fulfilment of the promise this government made to the government of Alberta. Upon that one question I desire through the medium of this motion to place every member of the House on record.


Mr. F. P. QUINN (.Halifax):: I offer no apology to the House for having my name coupled with that of the hon. member for East Calgary in introducing this motion. We have been in session since the 7th of January, and up to the present time, looking over the record of this government, what do we find? I submit that we can find very little, practically nothing, in the way of legislation. There is only one thing I desire to say in seconding the motion, and that is in connection with the matter of the appointment of the royal commission to invest'gate Maritime rights or the wrongs of the Maritimes? I will not say anything whatever about the personnel of

Want of Confidence Motion
that commission, but I wish to criticize the appointment which we have seen announced in the papers during the past few days of the two joint secretaries of that commission. The government has appointed as secretaries of that commission two gentlemen in the province of Nova Scotia, who are worthy, estimable and good citizens in every way, but who took such a stand against the Maritimes and what we call Maritime rights during the last campaign that I submit, Sir, their minds are too prejudiced in the matter and that they should not be appointed or permitted to	take	part in	the deliberations of	thatcommission. I submit if one secretary is to be	selected from	amongst those who wereoutstanding in criticism or opposition to Maritime rights the other appointee should be	one	who is	sympathetic towards	thematter.	I claim	it is unfair to have	two
gentlemen of the same political stripe on that commission.
Mr. T L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest): In referring to the return of the natural resources of the province of Alberta, 4 wish to say that the Minister of the Interior, on the 18th March last, placed on the order paper a resolution approving the agreement made between the Dominion of Canada and the government of Alberta respecting the transfer of public lands in the province of Alberta.
The government made this announcement in the Speech from the Throne:
Your attention will be invited, among other measures, to a bill to provide for the transfer to the province of Alberta of its natural resources.
On the 18th March a resolution was placed on the order paper by the Minister of the Interior to bring about this legislation. It practically has been dropped as the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of the Interior announced in the House. The Prime Minister only yesterday repeated the statement.


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: I rise to a
point of order. My point is that the subject matter of the resolution standing on the order paper in regard to the agreement made between the Dominion government and the Alberta government cannot be debated now under this resolution.


Mr. CHURCH:: I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister announced some time ago that the government were not going to go on with this resolution to which the hon. gentleman now refers. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) said the same thing
{Mr. Quinn.]
a month ago. The point is not well taken for May at page 249 says with regard to anticipation:
In determining however, whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, the Speaker must have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time.
I am not discussing the motion on the order paper. I am supporting the amendment now before the House and not touching the text of the resolution referred to.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: I
submit that the point of order is not well taken. We are not discussing one way or the other the merits of the resolution now standing on the order paper; we are discussing the failure of the government to implement its pledges, its promises. It would be a most extraordinary thing if a vote of lack of confidence on such grounds could not be moved simply because the government keeps on the order paper an order which it has no intention of going on with and the merits of which are not challenged in the present discussion.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Perhaps I would not have raised the point of order personally, but as regards the discussion of the matter I think the point is well taken. I would refer Your Honour to Beauchesne at page 38, section 146, under rule 13 relating to discussions taking place before going into supply or on motions that are moved before going into supply. This section concludes:
Provided that the discussion and the amendment-
The discussion as well as the amendment.
-if one is moved, shall not relate to any decision of the House during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of Ways and Means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
Therefore no discussion can be allowed before going into supply when it relates-that is the language-to a matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper. The discussion which the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) has started relates to a matter which is on the order paper.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I have very few words to say on the point of order. The point of order must go merely to the matter of the discussion and not to the matter of the

Want oj Confidence Motion
amendment itself. It is too manifest for debate that the amendment itself is in order. As to the discussion, it may be under the portion quoted by the Minister of Justice that the merits or demerits of a motion now on the order paper cannot be reviewed. I do not think the speaker though has got so far as to discuss the merits or demerits of the motion and consequently he would be in order. But is it not most extraordinary that the government, having abandoned a motion by official and specific renunciation in this House, can by retention of that motion obstinately and worthlessly on the order paper effectively shut out from the discussion of this assembly any matter related to it? I am indeed surprised that the government would suggest that they could be justified in taking such a course. If they are sincerely of the view that while they retain this on the order paper after having renounced it in this House as any portion of government policy it does interfere with discussion, clearly it would be their duty immediately to ask for its removal from the order paper.


Hewitt Bostock: Does any other hon. member desire to speak on the point of order? I will now give my ruling. I read in Beauchesne page 38, No. 146:
Whenever an order of the day has been read for the House to resolve itself into the committee of Supply or the committee of Ways and Means, the motion "That the Speaker do now leave the chair" must be proposed, except in cases provided by rule 17c. When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance, and it is not necessary to move an amendment for that purpose; provided that the discussion and the amendment, if one is moved, shall not relate to any decision of the House during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of Ways and Means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
This is based upon Bourinot, May, Red-lich and Bourke. In the present instance a motion has been moved that I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of Supply. To that motion an amendment is moved expressing the view that the government, not having implemented its promises, has lost the confidence of the House. I give the amendment in general terms. The amendment itself is drafted according to the rules and it is in order. But the discussion as stated in Beauchesne, according to Bourinot, May, Redlich and Bourke, must not bear on questions which are still standing on the order paper. The hon. member for Joliette has mentioned that there stands on the order paper in the name of the government a
resolution dealing with the return to Alberta of its natural resources. That is the point at issue. Can any hon. member, upon an amendment or a motion which is itself in order, discuss a question standing on the order paper? On that point I may quote from May at page 248:
A motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the House, whether it be a bill or an adjourned debate upon a motion. A motion is equally out of order, if it anticipates a notice of motion for leave to bring in a bill that includes a subject proposed to be dealt with by the motion. A matter already appointed for consideration by the House cannot be anticipated by an amendment, while a notice of motion as long as it remains upon the paper, whether for a specified day or not, prevents its subject-matter being discussed by means of an amendment to a motion or of a motion for the adjournment of the House, including a motion under standing order No. 10.
The same view is held by Bourinot, at page 320:
An amendment cannot anticipate a notice of mot on on the order paper.
It is true, as I have ruled, that the motion in amendment presented by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Davis) is properly drafted and in order; it is broad in its terms. But discussion upon that amendment must bear on the subject and must not impinge upon nor anticipate a question already appointed for consideration by the House.
I find in Denison's and Brand's Decisions on this point several instances confirming the view I have advanced. For example, at page 118, under the caption "Anticipating Discussion," the following decision is given:
Mr. Speaker said it was out of order to discuss amendments to a bill which would come before the House at a subsequent period of the evening. ... In a debate on the arrangement of public business, it is not in order to discuss a bill w'hich is to come on at a later period.
At page 119 this decision is given by Brand:
It is irregular to discuss a motion on the paper for a future day.
The question in this instance had reference to the treaty of Washington, and it bears an analogy to the present one. According to Brand:
An hon. member having placed a notice on the paper cannot, while another subject is before the House, refer to the subject of that motion, even under the plea of illustration.
Brand again, at page 119:
When a bill is before the House it is not competent, by a motion on the same subject, to anticipate discussion.

TFanf uj Confidence Motion
Denison goes still further:
When the further consideration of a bill is postponed it is not in order, by moving a resolution in the interval, to raise the whole question.
I rule, therefore, that while the proposed amendment is perfectly in order the discussion thereupon must be confined entirely to the subject of that amendment and must not embrace any question which is already on the order paper.
Mr. CHURC'H:	I accept your ruling on
the point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I have no wish in view thereof to discuss the amendment further, as I hope to have an opportunity later on of dealing with the whole Alberta resources question. However, I wish to point out that Sir Erskine May at page 249, twelfth edition, qualifies the rule respecting anticipation as follows:
In determining, however, whether the discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, the speaker must have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time.
The Speech from the Throne contains this definite statement of government policy:
Your attention will be invited, among other measures, to a bill to provide for the transfer to the province of Alberta of its natural resources, and to a bill amending the Dominion Elections Act.
This promise, although not carried out, was followed on March 18 by a resolution, still on the order paper, to turn the resources over to the province. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) both intimated that this resolution would not be gone on with, and so did the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in making his statement of policy on the orders of the day to refer the validity of the Alberta Act, 1905, and of section 17 particularly, to the Supreme Court, notwithstanding that its validity has never been questioned. The Prime Minister yesterday on the orders of the day, in answer to the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Davis), stated that it was not the intention of the government to make this transfer at the present session. There 'can therefore be no question of anticipation under these circumstances. Alberta should get her resources free of all conditions whatever.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before I discuss the
amendment, may I direct the attention of the House to the circumstance that this is

the first notification which the government has had of any intention on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to move a motion of this kind. It is a courtesy of long established usage and precedent that when a motion, in the nature of a want of confidence motion, is to be directed against the government, the leader of the opposition or some of his party notifies the ministry in advance of such intention. Hon. gentlemen opposite have not seen fit to follow this practice on the present occasion, and inasmuch as they must undoubtedly be aware of the custom, I can conceive of only one reason for the course they have adopted, that is the hope that by springing a motion of this kind suddenly, when all their members are present while some on the opposite side are possibly absent, they may be able to score against the administration. If that is the motive of my hon. friends, the sooner they score the better. If this administration does not enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons, the sooner we know it the better, and we will carry our appeal from parliament to the country.
This motion in its language is as general as any motion can possibly be made. It specifies nothing in particular, it simply alleges that the government because of failure to implement promises contained in the Speech from the Throne, and for other reasons which are not specified, has no longer the confidence of the House. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have not yet reached the conclusion of this session and that it is therefore impossible for the members of the House to say whether or not the government will implement the various promises contained in the Speech from the Throne. No one can make such an assertion until the last word has been heard in this House with respect to the several measures which have been mentioned in the Speech. If hon. members will read the Speech from the Throne they will, I think, be agreeably surprised to discover to what extent the government has carried out the promises therein made. I will make this statement without fear of contradiction, that never since this parliament has been in existence has it been possible, owing to one circumstance or another, for governments to fulfil all the undertakings they have set forth in speeches from the throne. The session is entered upon with every intention on the part of a government to carry out its entire programme as outlined in the Speech, but

Want oj Confidence Motion
until the government, as the session proceeds, discovers what may be possible, it is not in a position to make any final statement with respect to every item in the forecast.
One item has been mentioned, and only one, in regard to which the government apparently, according to hon. gentlemen opposite, is not about to make good its undertaking.. That is the item which appears as follows in the Speech from the Throne:
Your attention will be invited, among other measures, to a 'bill to provide for the transfer to the province of Alberta of its natural resources.
If I wished to take that language literally I could submit to this House that it has been fulfilled-the attention of the House has been invited to the measure.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not saying that I wish to take it literally; I do not intend to, but if I did I could point to the fact that the attention of the House has been invited to that measure. However, when that language was put in the Speech from the Throne-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I would remind
the right hon. gentleman I have just ruled that it is out of order to discuss the merits or demerits of the resolution he is referring o.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I have no desire to discuss the question of the transfer of its natural resources to Alberta. But I would ask your ruling as to whether or not I would be justified in informing the House why that particular measure is not being proceeded with at the present time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
only point I should like to know whether I am free to speak on.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, if I may
be permitted, I would support the Prime Minister's contention in every particular. I surely feel he has an absolute right to speak on that restricted point. *


Hewitt Bostock: According to all the
authorities I have quoted, it is not permissible to discuss the merits or demerits of a question which is already on the order paper. Of course, if both sides agree that the right hon.
gentleman may discuss the particular feature of the question mentioned by him, it is .permissible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
if there is any objection, as there appears to be to my making any mention of that particular point I shall refrain from so doing I have no desire to go beyond the rules in the slightest degree. However, hon. gentlemen will be able to conclude for themselves the reasons that have caused the government to indicate the course with respect to this particular measure that has seemed advisable to it.
Now. if one looks at the Speech from the Throne, the outstanding undertaking is that the government hoped in the course of this session as a result of its past policies and its present measures to be able to afford substantial relief to the taxpayers of this country, that it hoped to be able to lower the customs tariff on commodities that arc in general use by the people and that it hoped to reduce taxation in other ways. The House knows that after very considerable discussion in this chamber the government has succeeded in reducing the duty on automobiles by 15 per cent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But we have.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wonder that hon. gentlemen opposite groan; that is where the shoe pinches. What the people of this country are interested in at the present time is a reduction of taxation, and that has been the great objective of this government. Session after session we have made reductions, and this session we have made possibly the greatest measure of reduction in taxation that has ever been made in any session of parliament. On automobiles of $1,200 value and under we have reduced the customs duties by 15 per cent. In addition to that, with respect to automobiles of that value manufactured in this country, we have removed the war tax of 5 per cent, giving consumers the corresponding benefit. We have removed the taxation which wns put on receipts, a form of taxation which had come to present many difficulties to retailers throughout Canada, and which meant an additional burden to the people themselves. There has been a reduction in the income tax all along the line. Besides that we have removed taxation in other forms; for instance we have undertaken to say that on July 1

Want oj Confidence Motion
this year we will return to penny postage in the Dominion, and we intend to see that that promise is implemented. I might mention other things in the same category, in all of which the people are most vitally interested; but I will not take up the time of the House in going over the record of the administration in that regard.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to one remark made in the course of this debate, namely, that a great deal of time has been spent this session and verjr little accomplished. May I ask, who was responsible for the time that has been consumed? Hon. gentlemen opposite spent nearly a month at the beginning of the session discussing whether or not the present administration was to be permitted to carry on.


Mr. MANION:: Your party did just as
much discussing as ours.
Some hon. MEMBERS; Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the course of the discussion on the tariff, another debate lasting a month, more or less, took place, for which hon. gentlemen opposite, I think, ought to share the main measure of responsibility.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that to carry on government this session has not been an easy matter for the administration,-


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -but I do
say that no other party or group in this parliament could have carried on at all. I think the administration deserves the greater credit in that, under circumstances such as we have been confronted with, we have been able to carry on so successfully, and to give to the country the benefit of so much useful legislation.
May I repeat in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that this motion prefers no specific charge against the government in any way; it is a general want of confidence motion. It means, of course, that if this motion carries the government will have to consider the next step to be taken.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me tell
hon. gentlemen opposite at once the step that will be taken. If this government does not enjoy the confidence of the House it will lose no time in asking for a dissolution of parliament and making its appeal from the House to the country.
FMr. Mackenzie King.]


Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention not to let parliament close without making a protest against certain promises contained in the Speech from the Throne not having been carried out, and it was only due to the fact that I was endeavouring with some of my colleagues to draft a resolution to-day that would not be challenged on the ground that it dealt with a resolution now on the order paper that I was not in my seat this afternoon to raise this question myself.
Now, every hon. member is well acquainted with the situation we faced at the beginning of the session. At that time I did not see eye to eye with the majority of my colleagues as to the party that should be called upon to form the government. However, I was overruled. I then stated to them that I was down here to get certain legislation, and so long as the government would implement the pledges contained in the Speech from the Throne I was prepared to stand behind and assist it to carry on. Had the government done so, I would still consider it my duty to stand behind it. However, one of the questions that vitally affects the people of Alberta, a question in which they are all keenly interested, whether they be Liberal, Conservative or Progressive, is the return of the natural resources to their province. We have discussed this matter with the government, and some few days ago, I think it was on June 2, the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) made a statement to the House. On the day following I asked the government if they would not reconsider their position and bring in a measure to transfer the natural resources to the province of Alberta. The answer is on Hansard.
We have not taken the government by surprise in this matter. We have discussed it with them very freely. We did so yesterday, and we were told that nothing was going to be done this session, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned, while I have felt that I was in duty bound to support the government so long as they were willing to do their part, now that they have failed so far as Alberta is concerned in that one question that is vital to us, I feel that I am relieved from that responsibility, and I shall have to take my own course. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that if it had not been for a signed agreement, an agreement which was signed on January 9, this government wTould never have been in power to start with.

Want oj Confidence Motion


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has referred to some signed agreement. I do not know to what he is referring.


William Thomas Lucas: I will tell you. I hold in
my hand. Mr. Speaker, an agreement made on the 9th day of January, 1926, between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Alberta. It is signed by the Hon. Ernest Lapointe and the Hon. Charles Stewart, for the Dominion of Canada, and by the Hon. J. E. Brownlee and the Hon. Vernon W. Smith, for the province of Alberta. It is a signed agreement to deliver the natural resources to the province of Alberta.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know whether my hon. friend is in order in alluding to the natural resources, but if he is permitted to do so, and is going to read one agreement, I would ask him to read also the supplementary agreement which sets forth the exact terms of the bills which were to be brought into both Houses.


Hewitt Bostock: In view of the authorities cited and having regard to parliamentary jurisprudence, I cannot allow the agreement to be read. I assume it refers to the natural resources.


William Thomas Lucas: It was not my intention to
read this agreement. Mr. Speaker, but the Prime Minister asked me to what agreement 1 referred and naturally I had to state what it was.
I do not know that there is any need of going into a long discussion of this matter, but the hon. members from Alberta feel that they cannot go home to their people without having found a satisfactory solution for it. While I would prefer to have brought in a resolution which would have dealt specifically with this question, seeing that it is already on the order paper and cannot be discussed, a vote of want of confidence is the only way in which the matter can be dealt with, and I am therefore prepared to support the resolution.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, no matter what colour my hon. friends opposite may place on their resolution introduced to-day to show that they at least have no confidence in the government, the government realize full well what is behind the resolution. From the day parliament met until this very hour, even up until yesterday, the question discussed most in this House was not a question of any particular item mentioned in the Speech from the
Throne, but a question as between high tariff and low tariff. That was the question that was brought forcibly before the 3 p.m. country by hon. gentlemen who lead the opposition, and it was upon the question of high tariff or low tariff that they challenged our right as a government to carry on. We gave them our answer on the 15th of April when we brought down the budget, when we reduced the duty on automobiles, when we made reductions all along the line in the income tax, when we removed altogether the receipt tax, when we removed the ^sales tax from certain items in which the people of this country were most interested, and when we announced that on the 1st of July we would restore penny postage. Hon. gentlemen opposite may challenge the government's right to carry on, but I submit that the country is not going to be fooled by this resolution presented to-day. We are prepared as a government to have this question settled once and for all, and the sooner we have the vote and the sooner we know whether the policy of high and higher and still higher tariffs is going to prevail in this country, or the policy of the government, which is a policy that has led to the encouragement of our trade all over the world, the better it will be for Canada.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, a very
peculiar situation is before the House. My hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Davis) w has moved a resolution of a very general character and in the course of his address he stated that the ground of his moving it was one subject, and one subject only. Your Honour has ruled that that subject cannot be a matter of discussion in this debate, so that so far as this resolution is concerned, according to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, the matter referred to by the hon. member for East Calgary is eliminated from consideration by this House in this debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish):: My
hon. friends intimate that I am not correct. Let me say this: If the Speaker's ruling is right, then the one, and only one, question that my hon. friend from East Calgary siid he wanted to submit is not before the House at this time.
The only other matter that has been suggested as a reason why this government has lost the confidence of the country was supplied by the junior member for Halifax (Mr Quinn), who, while admitting that the government had carried out the promise contained

Want of Confidence Motion
in the Speech from the Throne, to appoint a commission to investigate the situation in the Maritime provinces, said that two very worthy gentlemen, Professor Rogers and Mr. A. F. McDonald, should not have been appointed secretaries of the commission. Is that a very serious question? Is that a reason, supposing that there were any basis for consideration at all, why the House should declare that the government had lost the confidence of the House? Let me say m that connection that my hon. friend from Halifax based his claim on that one point, and on no other. So, as far as the opposition is concerned, they are in a most ridiculous position in regard to their claims for moving this resolution.
What is the situation in regard to these two gentlemen who have been appointed secretaries to the commission? Both of them are very able men. Their position in regard to the commission will simply be that of carrying out the duties and instructions given to them by the commission, presided over by Sir Andrew Duncan; that is their position, and those are their duties, and those alone. Let me remind the House that this government carried into effect and implemented the promise contained in the Speech from the Throne that such a commission would be appointed. The appointment of that commission has been hailed with satisfaction all over the Maritime provinces. Everybody has recognized that that is the proper way to deal with the question, but because these two gentlemen, according to my hon. friend from Halifax, have spoken against what he conceives to be Maritime rights, then forsooth this government should be turned out! Those gentlemen who came here as Maritime righters were nothing less than Tories pure and simple-high tariff men, that is what they were. And at this late hour notwithstanding the splendid character of the budget, notwithstanding the overwhelming approval with which that budget has been received all over this country, the government is to be censured. Hon. gentlemen opposite, no matter what their views may be, must agree with me that the budget pronouncement of the Minister of Finance was received with greater acclaim throughout the country than any budget which has been presented for many years. And yet notwithstanding our record, we are to be turned out of office because two men that do not agree with the extreme views of our Maritime rights friends have been appointed as secretaries to the commission. That is where the issue stands at this moment.


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: May
I ask the Minister of National Defence if, in view of the gravity of the situation which confronts the steel industry in Nova Scotia,
he is now prepared to vote for an increase in the duty on steel?


James Alexander Robb: That confirms what I told my hon. friend a moment ago.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Speaker,-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has already spoken.


Arthur Meighen: It is not entirely surprising that the amendment before the chair does not meet with the enthusiastic approval of members of the government. Nor is it surprising to be confronted with the method of self protection which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) set on foot and in which he is supported now by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald).


James Alexander Robb: And supported now by the
member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley).


Arthur Meighen: No. The member for
Pictou will be found where he is always found. The Minister of Finance will be found on both sides of every concrete question, first, on what he thinks is the popular side, and next on the other side under cover, in ambush. But it is strange, Mr. Speaker, that in almost all debates which have taken place the members of the government have found bitter fault with hon. members on this side because they persist in importing the tariff question. We have now learned that there are some subjects which they prefer to leave alone even at the expense of introducing the tariff question themselves. There is one thing they would rather not have discussed even than the tariff question and that is their own competence under the circumstances of to-day to govern this Dominion.
The amendment declares that because of failure to carry through or to implement the promises contained in the Speech Irom the Throne, and as well for other causes, this government no longer enjoys the confidence of parliament. The Speech from the Throne is a most solemn method of embalming in the records of parliament the policy of an administration. That sentence applies to all speeches from the throne at all meetings of any parliament. But the circumstances which surround the present situation, including the insertion of the long list of governmental pledges in the Speech from the Throne of

Want oj Confidence Motion
this session, are so peculiar, so unprecedented, that a special importance attaches to the inclusion of these piedges and their implementing at the hands of this parliament. It is well known that this government after the election found itself wiih a following of only 101, and that others who were elected to this House, exceeded their own numbers by some forty, nearly all of them elected in direct antagonism to government candidates and to government policies, and in very direct antagonism to governmental record. The House was called-as declared by the Prime Minister in an official pronouncement- solely for the purpose of deciding which party had the confidence of the newly elected par-'iament. But in order to prejudice the decision, the free decision, of the House on this question, this government came before parliament with a Lew list of pledges addressed to certain specific members of this House, and declared that if hon. members elected against government candidates would come in and support the government this new list of pledges would be made law. As to the constitutionality of that procedure, history would be ransacked in vain to find a precedent; and as to its immorality the records of all pailiaments and of all legislatures would b* ransacked in vain to find its equal. To describe it within parliamentary terms you, Mr. Speaker, have declared the task impossible because the.mildest possible language has been pronouaced against the rules of parliament. Because of these circumstances a special responsibility rested upon the government of the day tc implement the pledges thus solemnly made to this House in the Speech from the Throne.
The government now is confronted with a motion which recites that this has not been done. I wonder would any member even among the followers of the government look his fellow in the face and say that those promises in the Speech from the Throne have been kept. I know there is not one; I know when they search their consciences they can not do so. Read the Speech from the Throne and tell us what is pledged therein. Read the outstanding pronouncements; not one of them is through parliament yet. It is true that one measure is through the House of Commons-in that respect the government has done its duty-but take all the others. Has the government fulfilled its pledge, for example, to bring in "provisions" to complete the Hudson Bay railway forthwith? Does anyone suggest that it has? Is that policy of " completion forthwith " consistent with the statement of the Minister of Railways, or of any member of the
government, when the vote merely for the improvement of the section already built was under way? "Provisions-for the plural was used in the Speech from the Throne- 'provisions' to build the road forthwith!" Hon. members will say "You are complaining because we have not voted twenty-six millions or fifty millions to complete the road." I am doing nothing of the sort. Because I do not agree with every section of government policy it does not follow that I must forgive the government for abnegating its own programme; it does not say that I must become a party to the prostitution of government pledges within the confines of the House of Commons. In respect of the Hudson Bay railway the government is undoubtedly in plain and defiant default. In that respect it has played fast and loose with the confidence of hon. members of this House, the confidence of those who supported it on the faith of a definite article of policy.
Let me refer for a moment to a subject which seems to be just now very precious to the Minister of Finance, the subject of the tariff. Looking across at his erstwhile Progressive allies he tells them:	If you dare to
vote for this amendment you vote for higher, and higher and higher tariff. Was there ever a more childish appeal addressed to members of this House? Does the Minister of Finance expect anybody to be quite so simple as not to see the trap into which he seeks to allure full grown members of parliament? And then ho says that because the member for Pictou is in favour of a readjustment and a higher duty on steel, that means the Conservative party is in favour of higher, and higher and higher tariff. But let us come to the relation of the tariff question to the amendment. Will the Minister of Finance look at the Speech from the Throne? Will he suggest to me that the government has kept its promise made there? "Oh," he says, "we reduced the duties on automobiles; reduced the duty and the sales tax on automobiles." Will he tell us where he promised to do that in the Speech from the Throne? Will he? Will he even tell us that he has done it? I know he did so for a few weeks with a flourish of trumpets and fanfare, and got his press going, thundering through the country about the taxes the government was lifting from the shoulders of the masses. But did he really do so? In the silence of the night, after he had got all the applause, when the echoes are dying away, he comes under ambush into this House and moves a resolution to restore the greater part of these duties and he has them restored to-day. He and his Prime Minister think, because they call

Want oj Confidence Motion
these restored duties "excise," that they are deceiving the House and the country. That they are trying to deceive both there is no doubt. The restored duties are called "excise" though they apply only to imports. Then he extends other help all at the expense of the treasury of Canada. With the two together he has placed the automobile people back virtually where they were before, so far as protection is concerned.


James Alexander Robb: Is that why the automobile
people are now advertising lower prices for their machines?


Arthur Meighen: Every dollar of lower
price they are advertising is at the expense of the treasury of this country-and that means at the expense of the taxpayer-and if the Minister of Finance will look upon his sales tax revision of two years ago he can reflect that the Liberal party to-day, under his guidance, has succeeded in making it easier to buy cars and harder to buy clothes. This is the last phase of Liberalism in Canada-more taxes on the clothes on the workman's back, and less taxes for the buyers of automobiles. But what does the Speech from the Throne say in this respect? This government went through a campaign in which they found they had disturbed the whole business community of the Dominion. Confidence in them was seriously shattered. The country knew they had no fixed principle of fiscal policy, and because the country so knew, there was stagnation of business enterprise and fear to invest money in any productive concern. What did ministers do? They went through the country and upon platform after platform proclaimed that if they, were kept in power the day of repentance would come: that the day of repentance indeed had already come, and they would never repeat this performance. They declared that the day of tariff tinkering was over, and if they were restored to office the tariff would be altered only after investigation by an independent body, a tariff advisory board. Incidentally they assured one-half of the voting population of our Dominion that a representative, a woman representing that half, would be a member of that advisory board. That solemn assurance passed to half the voters of the country, from the mouth of the Prime Minister himself, in virtually every speech he delivered in the campaign. That he did not intend such a thing to happen I am quite ready to concede; that the empty promise served its purpose I am quite ready to concede. The only purpose was to entice into the Liberal ranks as many women voters

as he could entice. Then it was ruthlessly cast overboard, the minute it served its purpose. But this other and more extensive assurance stood and remained to be embalmed in the Speech from the Throne itself, the assurance that a " Tariff Board " hereafter would by its investigation precede any alteration of tariff. More specific language never was used. The Speech from the Throne said:
My ministers are of the opinion that a general increase in the customs tariff would prove detrimental to the country's continued prosperity and prejudicial to national unity. In their view the incidence of this form of taxation should bear as lightly as possible upon the necessaries of life-
Such as automobiles.
-and on agriculture and other primary industries. They believe that in the interest of industrial development every effort shoulld be made to eliminate the element of uncertainty with respect to tariff changes; that Changes in the tariff should be made only after the fullest examination of their bearing upon both primary and manufacturing industries and that representations requesting increase or decrease of duties should be made the subject of the most careful investigation and report by a body possessing the necessary qualifications to advise the Ministry with respect thereto. A Tariff Advisory Board will accordingly be appointed forthwith.
Members of the government wilfully, recklessly, without the slightest regard for their obligations, without taking into account in the least the position in which they put His Excellency, without taking into account in the least degree the betrayal of the interests of this country which they had so solemnly pledged themselves to guard, came along and broke that pledge in their first budget in this House. I ask the Minister of Finance, if he can look across the floor to-day and say the pledge he there gave that tariff changes would be preceded by an investigation by a tariff board has been kept? He will not even shake his head, to say nothing of speaking a word to go into Hansard. He knows the pledge was broken, but he does not worry about the breaking of such pledge as this. The only pledge he worries about breaking is one which might affect horn, members to my left by whose vote he hangs to power to-day. If he has broken a pledge which affects them he is worried very much, and anxious to shift the discussion to some other subject.
At the conclusion of the Speech from the Throne the government declares:
Your attention will be invited, among other measures, to a bill to provide for the transfer to the province of Alberta of its natural resources, and to a bill amending the Dominion Elections Act.
I refer first to the last point. I cannot be very well impeded in my remarks, because in this respect the government has not taken the

Want of Confidence Motion
precaution to put a notice on the order paper, in order that the violation of their pledges, nowever flagrant, could not, under the rules, be brought home to them, within the life of this session. They did not take the precaution even to bring down a bill or resolution to amend the Dominion Elections Act. This pledge stands violated. The Prime Minister says: "You cannot tell what we ulay do between now and prorogation; wait. We still have a few days." It is only two weeks or approximately that time since the Prime Minister recited in this House all that they intended to do between that date and prorogation, subject only to such matters as arose out of the work of committees. No measure referring to the Elections Act was promised. Does anybody imagine or suggest that legislation on this subject may arise out of the
finding of any committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend will bear me out when I say that at the time I made that announcement I referred specifically to the Elections Act. I said the government was not contemplating a general election, but if hon. members were concerned about it we would bring in amendments to the elections act, and we will do it if hon. members want it.


Arthur Meighen: Then we are in this position, that a promise in a Speech from the Throne to produce legislation and submit it to parliament all depends upon how members of the House feel towards the end of the session. By that slender thread the government holds itself in office and defends its ebbing life. Well if that is the kind of government that hon. members feel is worthy of this country and of their confidence their duty is to vote against this amendment.
But let me refer to the first portion of the statement that I have just quoted. Hon. members know-and I cannot be swerved by any rule of parliament from saying this- that a great factor, if not the chief factor in determining the votes on the crucial division in this House which decided what party was to be in power, was the promise contained in the clause I have read with respect to the natural resources of Alberta. That was the greatest and most relied upon factor of all. The government say that they have not broken it. The' Prime Minister says: " Well, we put something on the order paper. We did not allow you to discuss it. We never got to that point. We never called it. But you saw it there in print and that ought to satisfy you. Not only have we not called it
nor given any person a chance to say a word about it, but we do not intend to call it; we have abandoned it." "Surely," he suggests, "that does not constitute a breach of our pledge." Hon. members who follow that reasoning with approval should vote with the Prime Minister.
It may be that the government encountered difficulties. Very well. The government should have had its difficulties surmounted before it made a pledge upon the faith of which it sits in office. The government should not bind and had no moral right at all to bind itself to a course of conduct until it knew that that course of conduct could be carried through. The government to-day stands in possession of the votes by which it stays in power, having obtained those votes on a pretence which was false, namely the pretence that it was in a position to carry through the pledge contained in the clause which I have read.
Has the government a right to those same votes this afternon? Will any hon. member suggest to me that that pledge was not a factor in securing in the division the majority by virtue of which this government is in office now? No member of the House will suggest such a thing. All hon. members, especially hon. members diagonally opposite who come from Alberta, know it. Hon. members from Saskatchewan also know that the great impelling factor was the promise of the return of the natural resources, a promise supplemented by a signed agreement, already quietly distributed, the contents of which were known to members of this House. That promise was the determining, the most determining factor of all the long list of pledges which this government, was permitted to lay before hon. members of this House in order to entice their votes They stand today with that promise unfulfilled and with a declaration that they do not intend to fulfil it, with a declaration that an amended agreement which they brought into this House has also been abandoned so far as this session in concerned. In the face of that the government pretends it still deserves the confidence of parliament. What right had this government, until it know that its difficulties were surmounted, that its mountains were passed, that it had an agreement by which it could and would abide, to get the votes of hon. members upon the basis of that agreement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I am in
order, seeing that my right hon. friend has been speaking at some length on this ques-

Want of Confidence Motion

tion of natural resources, I may say that if the government of Alberta will allow us to bring in a measure-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: It is all right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the government of Alberta will agree with this government to bring in a measure which both have agreed upon and will stand by that, the government will go ahead with the legislation it has.


Arthur Meighen: Will hon. gentlemen
contemplate where the government is now following this last statement of the Prime Minister? He says: We have abandoned the agreement by which we got the votes of hon. members of this House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say
that. I said: We will stand by it.


Arthur Meighen: The agreement of
January 9 referred to in the statement of the Minister of Justice?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The agreement come to between this government and the government of Alberta.


Arthur Meighen: That second agreement was not come to at the time this government got the votes of members of this House. This fatality of dates is very unfortunate for the Prime Minister. The agreement to which he is referring now was not in existence at that time. It had not the slightest influence in affecting any hon. members because it was not in being. But there was an agreement in being; that agreement the government laid before hon. members of this House. That agreement is the agreement referred to in the Speech from the Throne, for there was no other. The government declared that that agreement they would pass. Now they say that they made that declaration before they knew whether they would be able to pass it or not-and indeed they refuse to pass it.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Was the
agreement in evidence before the Speech from the Throne was brought down, or was it not a general statement that an endeavour would be made to transfer the natural resources?


Arthur Meighen: I know there was an
agreement in existence signed on the 9th January.


Charles A. Stewart: It was not
in evidence in parliament.


Arthur Meighen: But its terms were
known and I leave it to hon. members of this House whether they were affected by it or not. I know its terms were made known to them.


Charles A. Stewart: That may
be, but the right hon. gentleman says that the vote in this House was on the specific terms of th'at agreement which were afterwards amended. I say to my right hon. friend that that agreement was not tabled at that time but a general statement in regard to the return of the natural resources was tabled.	.


Arthur Meighen: I do not say it was
tabled before the vote was taken, but I say that many things were known to members of this House before being tabled and the terms of that agreement were, known.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is very adept at getting around sharp corners. He has been arguing-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles A. Stewart: Is there no
chance to ask the right hon. gentleman a question? I want to make it perfectly clear; my right hon. friend has argued that that agreement was in evidence and upon that agreement the vote was taken.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


Charles A. Stewart: That agreement was not tabled at the time.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
attaches an almost sacred importance to the word "tabled."


Charles A. Stewart: I do not.
It is my right hon. friend who attaches importance to it.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member
suggest for a moment that hon. members who saw that agreement were not influenced by its terms?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot say that they were.


Arthur Meighen: I leave it to hon. members of this House who had to do with it whether they were influenced or not.


Charles A. Stewart: I would say this that a number of members from Alberta were very well aware, but that is not the point.


Arthur Meighen: If they were well aware, that is all that is necessary for my argument..

Want of Confidence Motion


Charles A. Stewart: May I say this to my right hon. friend, that everyone knew that the Premier of Alberta discussed the agreement with members of this House?


Arthur Meighen: And members of the government too.


Charles A. Stewart: Undoubtedly. He made the agreement with the government.


Arthur Meighen: And members of the government discussed 'the terms with other members of the House. I put this question to the minister: Before the vote was taken which decided which party was to be in power in this House, is he quite so sure that that agreement was not indeed tabled?


Charles A. Stewart: That is my recollection. I may be wrong.


Arthur Meighen: I will not give my recollection until I am certain, but I am inclined to the view that it was. I do not however care a whit whether it was or not. I know as well as I know I am standing in this chamber that the terms of that agreement were known and on the faith of those terms the government secured the votes in this House. We cannot discuss the question whether the terms were right or not; it is not necessary to discuss such a question; the discussion would not have the slightest thing to do with the matter now before the House. Whether they were right and true and just or not, is not the question at all. The point is that the government got the votes of members of this House on the faith of tJhat agreement. The government sits in power because of that confidence so obtained. The government therefore is in default on the solemn pledge by which it sits in office. This is what we allege in the amendment before parliament. But there is something else.


Mr. CANNON:: Before my hon. friend
takes another point, may I ask him a question? Is it not a fact that this agreement passed between the federal government and the Alberta government and the resolution placed on the order paper were amended by the Alberta government and not by this government?


Arthur Meighen: I know the government has said so, but I cannot see what in the world it has to do with this matter.


Lucien Cannon: My right hon. friend knows it.


Arthur Meighen: I am not on that point- for it does not matter.
14011-286i


Lucien Cannon: Be fair in debate. My right hon. friend knows that an amendment was brought in by the Alberta government.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that any amendment was brought in by the Alberta government.


Lucien Cannon: Then you should know.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman
has a speech to make he will have his opportunity.


Lucien Cannon: It is gross ignorance on your part.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. gentlemen are very much excited, and no one can understand the reason more clearly than I do. I have not disputed any word or line of the explanation of this situation as given by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), but not a word nor a line of it has anything whatever to do with this question, namely, whether this government made a definite pledge on the faith of a definite agreement, and then failed to keep that pledge by means of which it sits in office at this hour.


Lucien Cannon: Will the right hon. gentleman allow me a further question? Can he declare before this House and the country that he is willing to accept the amendment brought in by the Alberta government?


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid the usual
discretion of the Solicitor General has for this moment been abandoned. Now the government has revealed the cloven foot; hon. gentlemen now see what the government wants to make a subject of discussion in this House. The Speaker has ruled that that subject may not be discussed, and I shall not either evade or conflict with that ruling.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. gentlemen would
like to discuss the merits of the last agreement as compared with the former. But who was the first to rise in his place to make sure that Mr. Speaker would rule that we could not discuss the subject? Was it not the Minister of Justice?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Arthur Meighen: The Solicitor General is really the subordinate of the Minister of Justice and now he disputes the tactics of his chief.


Lucien Cannon: I apologize to my right hon. friend; I was not present at the opening of the sitting. I am sorry.
450d

Want of Confidence Motion


Arthur Meighen: I accept the apology in the spirit in which it is intended. Now, Mr. Speaker, the amendment declares further that there are other causes why this House should vote want of confidence in the government, but the time taken would be too considerable if I were to undertake to review that phase of the motion. Those other causes are so numerous that little can be gained by discussing them at this time. I will, however, emphasize one of them, and about two sentences will end what I have to say. This government cannot enjoy the confidence of the country while it fails to present to parliament any definite policy upon any subject whatever. It is a government by compromise, a government by intrigue. This government sits in office because of intrigue. The government sits in office because of pretences, of promises made which it never intended to carry through. It sits in office because of solemn pledges made and repeated and embalmed in the most sacred form, which today it ruthlessly repudiates.
The Prime Minister says, "If this vote goes against us you men are going to have to go back to your constituencies and fight an election". There is the sword held over hon. members of this House. May I remind the Prime Minister that the question of dissolution is not one within his prerogative to decide. There is no region in the whole realm of autocracy into which the right hon. gentleman is not prepared to soar, if by so doing he can hold office for another week or another day. But there are regions into which he cannot enter, into which he is forbidden. This government conducted the last election campaign under its own auspices; it appointed its own officials. And, hon. gentlemen, I have heard one of them especially, his eye glancing in the direction of Peace River-declare	that
"Liberalism" is now more alive than ever. The result of the government's control of the election machinery is now public and open before the electors of Canada, and these Ministers should hesitate ever to ask to be placed in charge of election machinery again. But even if they do, this parliament was elected on the government's appeal; this parliament was elected under the auspices of this government, and if the government is not able to carry through its policy, is not able to retain the confidence of a parliament so elected, then its duty is to resign. That is the only right this government has. The Prime Minister knows this full well, but he believes that the threat of dissolution may be effective in turning one or two votes in a division. The threat of dissolution is launched only for the purpose of frightening those whom the Prims 
Minister believes to be timid and susceptible to such a threat. But, I repeat, neither the prerogative nor the right of dissolution is his. There are however open to him both a right and a duty, and these he can embrace only by the act of resignation, for he- must know that he has not the confidence either of this parliament or of the people of Canada.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: I have only now had an opportunity of looking at the amendment which has been proposed, for when I asked foir it a little while ago it was in circulation right and left. Evidently it is of much interest. I have heard the -comment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). and there is a good deal of truth in what the right hon. gentleman has said. As a matter of fact, if one w-e-re to take the history of parliament, session after session, ever since confederation, pretty much the same comment might be made upon the course of governments. I have sat in this House for eleven years, and have read to a considerable extent the records of parliament both before and since that period, and I cannot recall one single session in which the entire programme as announced in the Speech from the Throne has been fulfilled either by Conservative or by Liberal administrations. In that respect I make bold to say, at the risk of scandalizing some -of the virginal minds opposite, that I do not feel quite so exercised over the failure of the government to implement every paragraph of the Speech from the Throne by a specific piece of legislation. It is. I think, a mistake to put too much into speeches from the throne; it would be preferable to announce less and to accomplish more. This however has been the habit of governments; and I do not fancy that any member of this House who decided to support the present admin:stra-tion in preference to one formed from the Conservative party-because that was the only alternative-would be justified -in voting for this resolution for the reasons that have been advanced this afternodn and those that are contained in the resolution itself. Of course there is the qualifying -phrase "and for other causes", which is very broad. There may be many causes or reasons for voting confidence or want of confidence in a government. therefore put to hon. gentlemen the question I ask myself: Has anything occurred during this session which would warrant those of us who have elected to support this government rather than a Conservative government, led and inspired by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Meighen), and holding the principles which the party' opposite holds, has

Want of Confidence Motion
anything occurred to justify us in changing our attitude, in departing from the course we have followed for five months, and throwing down the government in office in order to gave their opponents an opportunity 'to take their place? Because that after all is the question.
Now, many situations connected with parliamentary government are illogical. Very often one is forced to choose between supporting a government in which he is not oveT-confident and putting into its place an opposition in which he has no confidence at all. or decidedly less confidence. To my mind this is the situation that presents itself to those of us who, not having been elected as members of the Liberal party and blind supporters of the Liberal government, have now to take their stand courageously and make their choice between the policies presented by the Liberal government and the policies presented by the Conservative party. There is no other choice. By supporting a resolution of this kind we cannot create a new party that will satisfy all we ask for. Members of the Progressive party can no more do it than can my two neighbours who represent the labour element; neither can I nor my neighbour to my left (Mr. Neill). There are features in the government policy which I do not like, or that I would rather see improved; but would I achieve my object by throwing this government down, and putting in its place a party which, on these very questions, would be further away from me and the people I represent than the party and the administration now in office?
This is the position, and the only position, which presents itself to the conscience and sense of public duty of those who have been elected neither as Liberals nor as Conservatives, but who have put before* their respective electors certain issues upon which they gave certain pledges, supplementing those pledges, as far as I am concerned, with the only declaration that I think an independent candidate could make, that, if elected, as between the two parties who possess enough votes to form a government he would choose that party which corresponds more faithfully with or comes more closely to his own policies, his own views and his own principles. It is one of the inevitable situations in which independent members of parliament, or even members of the respective parties with an independent turn of mind, find themselves placed on many occasions, not only in this parliament but in all the parliaments of the world. Hon. gentlemen opposite are apt to quote very frequently the precedents established by the British
House of Commons. I have respect for a good many of those precedents, provided they apply to us; but in the very words of a past leader of the Conservative party, in the words used by Sir Robert Borden in the conference of 1917 and the correspondence which followed prior to the signature of the Versailles Treaty, when Lord Milner appealed to him to abide by certain precedents:	The situation being
new, it calls for new precedents.
Now, up to a few years ago, the House was divided as between two parties. A few members once in a while changed their party, but most of the time, during the life of parliament, it was a battle of words between the government and the opposition, and finally when the election came the people decided in favour of one party or the other. But in the last parliament and in this the situation has changed; we have three main groups. One of them, the Progressive group, holds the balance of power to-day. True, it gives them great strength, but it also imposes on them great responsibility. I have no title whatever to appeal to them on any grounds. They know the needs of their country. I simply leave with them this general question for reflection: Whether the people they represent, whether the interests they have at heart, whether the worthy enterprise they have taken up, for the last five or ten years, to convince the people in the east that more sympathy should be shown towards the needs of the west, that those needs should be better understood in the east,-I repeat, is it in the interests of the west, is it for the better future of those interests that the members of the Progressive party should make it possible to let power, influence and legislation pass from the hands of the present government into the hands of the opposition? That is the question that presents itself for our consideration to-day. I will go further, because I must say that the sympathy I have borne for years towards the population of those western provinces and their needs is subordinated to the sympathy I bear towards the needs and interests of Canada generally. During this session we have heard much of the necessity of bringing closer together east and west, French and English, Catholic and Protestant. We have spoken of it, and it has been intimated in another sphere of this parliament, that confederation should be celebrated next year in the spirit and according to the principles of the men who made confederation possible. Well, here again, supposing the question were presented to us in this form:	Is the spirit
of confederation, the spirit of union between east and west, the spirit of co-operation be-

Want of Confidence Motion
tween French and English in the ranks of the Conservative party or of the Liberal party? Both parties, during the last twenty-five years, have committed many sins against the spirit and the principles of confederation. Whether it relates to the rights of various ethical and religious minorities in the several provinces, or whether it has to do with the relations between Canada and Great Britain, both parties have sinned against the spirit of confederation, both parties have prejudiced the rights of minorities, which was one of the most important principles upon which the men of upper and lower Canada and the Maritime provinces united to make confederation possible. The other cardinal principle was the maintenance and the development of the spirit of Canadian nationality against the encroachments of Tory imperialism, which had already shown itself in England in those days, but which was as strenuously combatted by Sir John A. Macdonald, the then leader of the Conservative party, as it was by the Liberal party, headed then by Mackenzie and by Blake.
-Since those days and at the present time where lies the best guarantee that- something at least of that spirit of confederation will be revived and maintained? I repeat, is it in the hands of the Liberal party or of the Conservative party? I am free to speak on this question. I have fought strenuously the Liberal party every time I thought they were abandoning some of those principles. I have denounced some of their actions which I considered detrimental to the general interests of Canada as well as to those two great basic principles of confederation-respect for minorities and the maintenance of Canadian autonomy against British Toiy imperialistic encroachments. But also I. found this out, that after every crisis, the spirit of repentance showed itself more quickly within the Liberal ranks than within the Conservative. At the present time, in the province of Quebec, a new group-the third or fifth reincarnation of the so-called Conservative spirit-is endeavouring to show that the present leader of the Conservative party is more nationalist than we are ourselves, that during the war it was the present leader of the Conservative party who prevented the application of the law of conscription in the province of Quebec. It endeavours also -to show that because the present leader of the opposition, after a great deal of ingenuity and much industry, has acquired a certain knowledge of the French language, he is therefore the best upholder of all French Canadian traditions. This is the campaign at present conducted in the province of Quebec, and undoubtedly the Con-
servative party would gladly try to reap that advantage as soon as possible before it is found out whether or not there is a basis for this new propaganda, for this new revival of the so-called Conservative Nationalism, or whether it is not simply of use at election time. It may be that there is some necessity imposing itself upon the present leadership of the Conservative party to haVe an election as soon as possible, so as to reap in the province of Quebec the benefits of this new campaign, while -at the same time preserving in Ontario and some of the western provinces the great advantage of having as their guiding star, as the vanguard, the rearguard and the flank forces of the Conservative party, the Orange lodges and all that their political influence means. I do not see why, for my part, I should make myself an instrument of those calculations. I do not see why, for my part, as a Canadain, I should play into the hands of a policy inspired' apparently by such motives, and carried on with this kind of propaganda.
I -may say at once, Mr. Speaker, that I regret -two things: first, that your ruling, which I think is quite according to the letter of the rules, does not enable us to discuss here and at once the whole question of the Alberta resources on its merits, and to find out where the responsibilities lie, right and left, to find out whether there is a real desire to abide by a word given, or whether there is a desire to try once more to take advantage of this situation to unbridle the devils of racial and religious animosity. I regret that we are prevented from discussing the whole question on its real merits, to find out where are the upholders -of the principle of confederation, of minority rights as
4 p.m. well as of the sanctity of con* tracts entered into between two governments. I shall not go further into that.
I hope some other occasion will be given to the leaders of the Conservative party to show in Ontario, as well as in the west, as well as in the east, in the same language and standing on the same principle, whether or'not it is true, as we are told in the province of Quebec, that what the Conservative party want is to re-establish the minorities in the west in their rights.
There is another thing I regret, individually speaking, and therefore it makes -me quite free in the vote I am giving. I would far rather have a solution right at once and a general election right now than go on at the pace at which we have been going this year. I would far rather have the situation cleared, and if I had any influence with the government, I

Want of Confidence Motion
would say: Take up the challenge; endeavour .to get a dissolution, if you can get it, and we will find out what is the people's opinion. Let us have a clear-cut situation. For my part I am not afraid of an election. I would rather have a clear-cut solution than such an uncertain situation as we have had for some time.
Is there need to say more? 1 fail to see that I need any more reason for voting against this motion, for the same reasons, and standing on the same principles which in my mind made me clear at the beginning of this session, and all along during the session, that, when it came to a matter of choice as between the Liberal party and the Conservative party as at present constituted, inspired, and led on both sides, I would rather vote for maintaining the Liberal party than putting the Conservative party in power. In fact, what has happened during the session, and the press campaign that has been conducted from one end of the country to the other, precisely with the object of making this Alberta issue a burning question, would be, if I had no other, a sufficient reason for me to support this government and to vote against the opposition. With regard to other questions as they come up, I repeat, all independent members of this House will remain as free as they were to oppose this legislation or that.
Hon. gentlemen opposite appear very scandalized because on certain questions the influence of the Progressive party, the influence of the Labour representatives, and perhaps my own influence, had something to do with government measures. Here again this is childish play; I do not want to qualify it in harsher language. If I did, I would say it is coming near to hypocrisy. There has never been a government, in any parliament of the world, that, in framing their legislation, have not taken into account the opinions, the feelings, and the influence of the members who support that government. If I were as expert as my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) in quoting British precedents, I could find a bushel of them without even going to the library to find my authors. I could remind him of the change of attitude of Sir Robert Peel on the Corn laws. I could remind him of the famous declaration of Mr. Disraeli, who, after having secured the defeat of the Liberal government on electoral reform, came back with a more radical measure of reform, and had to encounter the same kind of accusations that we have heard here during all this session, and again this afternoon. What did he reply? "We have
always acknowledged that the people were our masters, but since the last parliament we have educated our masters, and therefore we have more confidence in them than had the previous parliament.'' I could quote him the example of Mr. Gladstone, who, after having applied to Ireland more drastic laws and measures of political oppression than any Tory government ever resorted to, turned around in favour of Home Rule, and quite sincerely, but also a little because of the influence of Parnell and his party.
The whole story of British parliamentary government is one of opportunism, is one of compromise, is one of give and take. It is at once what I would call its contemptible : nd its most precious part. Of course, if you view it from a very high-minded point of vantage, if you enter into your 'tour d'ivoire' and philosophize upon the logic of politics, you may be entitled to view with some contempt and derision the efforts of all governments, especially governments weak in their support, to get votes from people who are not exactly of their own political allegiance. There are only two ways of getting those votes: one means is by corrupting individuals, and the other i3 by giving satisfaction to principle. I would rather have a government making compromises with members or groups that are neither their supporters nor their opponents, by adopting some of their principles, than a government trying to purchase votes by promising emoluments or personal advantages to a few individuals in order to round up a majority. The high-minded philosopher may condemn both ways, but where is the political man in Canada to-day, or where is the party, that can boast of such purity of motives and such virginity that he or it has never resorted to either of these means in order to secure or maintain a majority? No Conservative in this House nor in this country entertains a greater admiration for Sir John A. Macdonald than I do. To show how rabid a Liberal I was in my young days I do not think I have ceased for thirty years to repent my refusal to assist in an official capacity at the funeral of that great statesman. But later on I found out that I was a very foolish greenhorn. I studied Sir John A. Macdonald's political life and leadership, and if there ever was a man who has given an example of both means of making up or conserving majorities-I mean offers that appeal to principles or policies, and offers to individuals or groups having different principles or policies from his order to secure their support,-or even the practice of political

Want o] Confidence Motion
corruption for the purpose of reinstating himself or remaining in power,

it was Sir John A. Macdonald. But nevertheless he will stand high in the annals of Canada and in the annals of the British Empire, because after all, . the means he took to maintain or to gain power were always with a view to carrying out a policy beneficial to the whole of Canada. So that as far as corruption goes, or compromise, or government by conference, and all that, the argument which has been advanced is, to any man who has studied the politics of this or any other country, purely childish. It is not convincing, especially on the lips of 'hon. gentlemen opposite. During the war, when the preceding government wanted to accomplish a certain object, contrary to the solemn pledge they had given to all classes of people in this country, the most solemn pledge that could have been given by a government to any people, namely that they would never resort to conscription in order to carry on the war-I am not discussing now whether they did right or wrong -what did they do? They approached members of the opposing party, not to offer them compromise on principles but to offer them offices of emolument; and they secured their majority and they passed their legislation in the teeth of the will of the people of this country, or at least a large portion of them, because they had secured such a support from individuals who were pledged like themselves to vote against the legislation which they enacted, not to speak of other pieces of legislation, making their action good later on at elections won as we know the elections were won in 1917.
Now, Sir, when it is found out that in the history of all political parties, in this country or in other countries, there have been such exchanges of view, such acts of compromise, so as to secure legislation and secure government, let us place ourselves in the position in which this parliament is now. Of course the thing has been threshed out throughout this session. The whole of this debate, the whole object of this amendment, is nothing but a repetition of what happened at the opening of the session during the debate on the Address, and later on during the debate on the budget. The situation is not a new one, it is the same, so that we have to repeat what was said on previous occasions. What was and what is the position? Is there a group or party in this House capable of carrying on the government of its own action? No. The present leader of the opposition, especially with that very tender and scrupulous conscience which has developed in him since he has found out that he is not master  .
of the administration of the country, could not carry on the government without having recourse to the same means of compromise; and his speech to-day has been an appeal to Progressive members to help him in doing now what they did not consent to do at the beginning of the session,-nothing else. I repeat that it is the business of the hon. members in question and they 'know their business. They know their political situation; it is for them to decide whether or not the bait offered to-day is more acceptable than it was at the beginning of the session. I simply say that the situation is exactly what it was at the beginning of the session. The Conservative party could no more assume and exercise power at the present time than it could at the beginning of the session; it could do so only with the support of some members of this House who were elected against that party to as great if not a greater degree than against this government. Is the leader of the Conservative party prepared today to offer the Progressives terms of agreement which he was not prepared to offer at the beginning of the session? If so what becomes of his political conscience, what becomes of those great principles of political honour to which he has given expression? My own -choice would be that we should have an election right after this session and perhaps the good of the country would be better served by following that course. For my part I am not afraid of it; whether I come back or not is immaterial. As to that I am wholly indifferent; in fact in many respects I would rather stay at home than come and lose six months of my time here. But we have to take the position in the light of circumstances as they have been created-I will not say by the will of the people, although there are some who set up that contention. I do not believe the people of Canada want the actual situation to be as we have it now; I do not believe they desire matters should remain as they are at present. But a growing number of people in this country are losing faith in politics, in politicians and party shibboleths, a growing number of people are prepared to vote for any party, for any group of men or for any individuals, in whom they think, rightly or wrongly, they will find a little more satisfaction from their point of view, from whom they expect a little more legislative and administrative action, inspired by the will of doing the right thing by Canada, rather than by the thought of maintaining in office a certain number of individuals calling themselves Liberals or calling themselves Conservatives, who fill up the judgeships or senatorships by appointing sometimes old,

Want oj Confidence Motion
worn politicians and at other times young politicians who have rendered them service, but most of the time nominating their own political servants and friends.
The need for a broader national spirit and for politics inspired by broader minds is growing fast in Canada and that sentiment is a good one. How will it resolve itself? I do not know; that is something the future will settle. But no doubt the existence of that feeling is the main cause of the development of the group system, whether we like it or not. So long as important groups of the electorate in this country desire to send to parliament men of such a type to represent them rather than men elected by the funds of political parties, so long as the people of this country chose to send men with different types of mind and various programmes of policy, there will be no government possible, unless it is a government of compromise between two or more of the groups. It will be such on the surface at all events; and what ought to appeal to gentlemen opposite, is the fact that that will become the standard of politics in this country as it has got to be in England. I refer them to English precedents of which thev are so fond. There have been such governments formed in England during the last forty years. Since the time of the break of the Liberal party on the Irish question, every government in England, with a few slight exceptions, has been a government of compromise. No policy of economics, no policy of social import, no policy of internal government or external affairs has been possible in England, during the last forty years, without the party in power, sometimes the strongest, but not always, having to resort to the same means of action that this government has resorted to. Gladstone, Lord Salisbury, Lord Rosebury, Mr. Asquith, in fact every one of the great leaders of British politics in the last few years, had to go to some of their opponents and ask their support on this ground or that ground of policy, for which they had to pay by making concessions to the men whose support they were seeking. Otherwise, the government of the day could not have been carried on. Are we going to be told that all politics in Great Britain has been dishonest? I should like to hear the great upholders of British loyalty, the sturdy unfurlers of the British flag, tell us that England is on the way to political decay, and that all English politicians are dishonourable, and that every leader of government in that country has dishonoured his conscience and has done the most horrible thing that could be imagined under responsible government. I stand half way between those who will have nothing of
English precedents, who will have nothing to do with English principles, or practice or policy, and those who are blind admirers of them. I am neither one nor the other. I am a Canadian; but Canada, having inherited and adopted the basic principles of British government, it is a good object lesson for us to follow the trend of events in England, and to study the practices and policies introduced in English public affairs for the last twenty-five years. I do not say that they should be copied entirely, but they might be studied and adapted to our own situation.
The British constitution is much more elastic than the American or the French or our own constitution; not only much more elastic in the definition of political power, not only much more elastic legally speaking; but precisely because of that indefiniteness of the British constitution in pure matters of law and in matters of practice also, there, has developed in the mind of the English statesmen a facility, or rather an aptitude, to adapt themselves to new circumstances which I am always surprised to find is much less developed in our own country, even in spite of all our boastfulness of British loyalty. Why do we not try to adapt ourselves in the same manner as they do in England? I would not go the length of saying that we should copy the government instituted by Queen Anne, when half of the members-the whole of them being sworn to her-were in correspondence with the Pretender and trying to prepare for the downfall of the queen. They were friendly with the queen in England, but conspiring against her on the continent. I do not think the hon. member for West Calgary would ask us to be admirers and copiers of such British precedents; but without going that far, are we going to lay down a rule to-day that whenever a house of parliament is divided between various groups, none of which is strong enough to form a government which will receive the constant support of the House during the parliamentary term, there shall be no government; or that the one group having a number of seats will	hand over the government to that group which has the largest number of followers, incapable in itself of ruling the country, not having received, as it has not received, the confidence of a clear majority of the people of this country? No sir. What is sauce for the goose to-day will be sauce for the gander to-morrow. If that condition develops in the next parliament as in this one, most likely there will be no clear majority, because really I do not think the new tactics of the great "board of strategy will be successful. I do not think the people of Quebec will be convinced that the whole future
4'.12
Want oj Confidence Motion

of the Catholic faith and the French race is in the hands of the Conservative party, and especially of that wing of the Conservative party headed by the member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken). I do not think it will carry, but suppose it carried in Quebec, how will it adapt itself to the line of argument used by the powerful wing of the Conservative party which goes everywhere in the province . of Ontario and the western provinces, with its organs, proclaiming that the country is abandoned to French domination, that the member for Labelle is imposing legislation upon the government as against the rights of the provinces of the west? How will that carry? Is that in 'full accord with the high sense of honour, with the high spirit of straightforwardness of which we have heard so much this whole session and again this afternoon from the right hon. member? Is he going to be the John the Baptist of Quebec and the William of Orange of Ontario? No, he cannot be, and as far as we in Quebec are concerned we would rather have-I was going to say an unchristian, but I will simply say, a Canadian pure and simple, whether Catholic, Protestant or English speaking, or French speaking; we would rather have a Canadian standing by certain basic principles which we consider essential to the welfare of this country west and east. Any government that offers us a guarantee that we can accept, that in their hands the interests of the minority will be better preserved than in other hands, and that in our dealings with Great Britain and foreign countries the interests of Canada will be upheld against the interests of Great Britain or any other country, is worthy of support and will have our support. Any government which will be the true inheritor of the spirit of the Conservative party of Macdonald and Cartier, will have our confidence even if we think it is weak or deficient in some respects, and even if it does not do all it can do. We are reasonable enough and British enough to understand that the absolute good, such as everyone, every individual, every group of men and every party in the country conceives it to be, is impossible of realization unless it be accepted by some other man, or some other group, or some other province to carry on. We would rather have a relative measure of good for the better welfare of the country, for a better feeling between consumers and producers, farmers and manufacturers, French and English, west and east; we would rather have a fair, level policy of justice to all than a policy based upon the narrowest appeal to French feelings in Quebec and to anti-French feelings outside of Quebec. I know that Liberals have resorted to that kind of appeal. Of course, 
some have resorted to it; all parties have. It would be another piece of hypocrisy to claim that appeals to racial feeling are the fault of only one party.
First of all, racial feelings are noble and natural in themselves. The men or the nation that would not have feelings connected with their blood, their traditions, their aspirations, would be worthy of all the contempt which the leader of the opposition has expressed towards a political group standing in his way. Right appeal to racial feeling is essential to the maintenance of the ideals of a nation. I would have nothing but contempt for the Canadian of English origin who would not be proud to be a scion of that great nation, nothing but contempt for the Scottish-Cana-dian who would not take pride in the history of that marvellous race that has filled up the British Empire with the works of its genius, nothing but contempt for the Irish-Canadian who would not sympathise with the twelve centuries of effort of that heroic nation to maintain itself in spite of British domination.
Likewise the French-Canadian would be contemptible if he were not attached to everything that is dear to him, to his language, his religion, his family traditions and the school system which enables those great inheritances to be perpetuated. By so attaching himself, the French-Canadian is not only doing his duty to himself but rendering the best service he can to confederation. Thanks to his religion, his language, his separate schools, his traditions, he is the only moral and social obstacle to the penetration of Yankeeism which has been justly denounced by an hon. member on the other side, but which is so powerfully helped by the same school of politics to which that member belongs and which finds an enemy everywhere there is a French word pronounced, everywhere there is a school conducted according to our conscientious beliefs, everywhere there is an effort on "the part of a French-Canadian group to maintain those traditions, not by the oppression of any other group, but by the free growth of our ideals alongside of those of British birth and of Canadians of English, Scottish or Irish origin.
It may be said that this is out of place. I do not think so. If this motion is, in its short and curt form, a challenge to the conscience of parliament and of the people to choose between the two parties who have governed Canada alternately for the last twenty-five years; if it is a challenge to the public to make a choice between those two parties as at present led, inspired and influenced, as a



[Stage Direction]
Want oj Confidence Motion
French-Canadian and as a Canadian I say that I take up the challenge. As a true lover of Canada from one end of the country to the other I take up the challenge. It is not that I have any prejudice against the Conservative party. I have worked with many Conservatives in public affairs. Strange to say I found this out: Every time I attacked the Liberal party for what I considered lack of duty, every time I reproached them for making concessions to the enemies of French-Canadians or to imperialism, those Conservatives who worked with me were more rabid in their denunciation of imperialism, of everything tending to enhance the interest of Great Britain in this country than myself, my true Nationalist allies and the Liberals who detached themselves from their party to help us. They were always ready to go to one extreme or the other. Some men connected with the present board of strategy of the Tory .party in Quebec went so far, in 1911 and 1917, as to reproach me for being half a traitor because I was not prepared to raise rebellion on the streets of Montreal and Quebec to shoot down the leader of the then government of which the present leader of the opposition was a member. They are now trying to make the people of Quebec believe that the Conservative party is the anti-imperialistic party; that it was thanks to the Conservative party that conscription was so mildly applied in Quebec; that it was thanks to the present leader of the opposition that so many young Canadians escaped going to the war. Is that going to be the gospel preached in western Canada? Is that the great policy of national unity upon which the next Conservative government is going to rule this country? So long as the true spirit of Macdonald and Cartier is not revived in the Conservative party, right and left, west and east, among French and English, hon. gentlemen opposite, I am sorry to say, must quit the hope-I will not say of gaining power: that is a very small matter in my opinion-but of regaining the true confidence of the people. They retained power in 1917 by the means of which we are all aware, but they lost it in 1921 though a reaction which was the punishment of the means resorted to in order to retain power in 1917.
Likewise the Liberals lost power and would have been out of power for many long year's, because of the mistake they made from 1896 to 1911 in courting imperialism, Toryism and protectionism. One straight Liberal of Toronto, a man who has remained a Liberal all his life, English-bcrn and a Protestant, told me at the time of the South African
war: "The greatest mistake our leaders can make, both in Toronto and Ottawa, is to try to cover themselves with a thin coat of Toryism and imperialism; they are simp'y educating the people to the doctrines of their opponents; and the time will come wdien no Liberals will be able to stand up in Ontario because they have not at the present time the courage to stand by their principles and traditions." Let the present day Liberals think of that. In justice, it must be acknowledged that some effort has been made by this government to come back in the right direction.
I also want to do the leader of the opposition this justice. I never, either with his Liberal opponents or with some of his most ardent apostles in Quebec to-day, denounced him as being anti-French or anti-Catholic. Never a word of mine yet spoken or written has sent forth that kind of propaganda. But what I have stated and what I state is that neither he nor any leader of the Conservative party as at present constituted is capable of presenting a true national policy to the whole of Canada. He might do it if left alone, but he is impotent in face of the split which occurred in the Conservative party thirty years ago and which was so aptly described by an old Conservative leader, a staunch Orangeman of true spirit, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, when he said, 'You have turned this government into a nest of traitors." I shall never forget meeting the old gentleman, because he was a perfect gentleman, at one session when he spoke some words which have remained with me ever since. He had taken a fancy to me, I do not know why; but at any rate we were quits friendly, and he said, "Bourassa, remember what I say. I'm an old man and you will no doubt survive me. But of two things I am absolutely convinced: There is no safety for Canada until a Conservative government, inspired by Conservative principles and putting into effect a true Conservative policy, is in power in Canada. But-he added-that day is far distant, because the spirit of the nest of traitors is still active." That was indelibly impressed on my mind, and I have had many proofs of the truth of it. The right hon. leader of the opposition has also had many proofs of it, for he has seen, the eggs in that nest of traitors hatching right and left.
An hon. MEMBEK:	St. Lawrence-St.
George.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No; St. Lawrence-St. George as at present represented has always been straight and fair both to friends and to
Want of Confidence Motion

foes. There has never been any baseness of mind nor any resort 10 low tactics either for or against others so far as that hon. gentleman (Mr. Cahan) is concerned. But the leader of the opposition knows quite well how true is the remark of Sir Mackenzie Bowell which I have repeated. Now where is that nest of traitors? Bather, I should use the plural: Where are the traitors of that nest? The right hon. gentleman is to-day in an unfortunate position. He is a man of talents, bis personal integrity is unquestionable, and he has a sincere desire-he knows that I speak what I think-to do the right thing by his country as well as by his party. But he is incapable of putting those qualities to use because of that dual spirit which was created after the death of Sir John A. Macdonald. There is no longer that united desire to give to Catholicism and to Protestantism alike the same equal consideration, to give equal satisfaction to Quebec and to Ontario, uniting both sections of the country under one dominating principle of true Canadianism before everything else-Canadianism against Britain if need be, as well as against the United States. The Conservative party has been split into two wings, one parading in Quebec as more French and more friendly to the Catholics than the Liberal party-because of the attitude of the Greenway government and of the old traditions of George Brown-the other appealing to the province of Ontario. Formerly the Conservative policy was that England might be at war any time she chose, but that Canada was at war only when she was threatened. That was the Conservative policy; but now the policy of the party is pro-British in one section of the country and anti-British in another. And more than that, attacks are made in the name of the Conservative party upon this government because it does not give positions of emolument to French Canadians. Appeals are made to all the smaller and narrower prejudices of the French against this government in relation to all sorts of petty questions of patronage. It is, I say, unfortunate for the right hon. the leader of the opposition to be at the head of such a party, because after all it is to the detriment of the country that his talents should be lost. But they are lost and they are lost irretrievably. Even if he assumed power as the result of a snap vote or of an election waged under the same conditions as obtained in 1917, when ballot boxes were stuffed in the pretence of saving the empire, although damning the morals of the country, the right hon. gentleman's usefulness would be impaired so long as he and some 
men of broad mind and strong hand in his party failed to crush the eggs that are being hatched in the nest of traitors season after season.
Now I have gone beyond the letter of the motion, but I think iit was just as well. If this amendment is to be the preface to an appeal to the people of Canada it is well that a few men, who are absolutely free to say what they think of one party or the other, should stand up here and speak in the name of those numerous Canadians in Quebec and in Ontario, in the east and in the west, who are thinking less from day to day from the narrow point of view of party and more and more from the standpoint of a true national policy for this country. Whether one party or the other does the right thing is utterly immaterial to me. Suppose we had an election and came back to the House, as is likely, and found ourselves in a situation similar to that which faced us at the opening of this session. Suppose hon. gentlemen opposite had the advantage of numbers to start with; suppose they formed a government. I think I voice the feeling of those men and women who have given me their confidence not only in the small portion of Quebec which I represent but throughout the province, the men and women who rightly or wrongly have chosen me as their mouthpiece for some years past, as well as the feeling of a growing number of English-speaking Protestants in Ontario, in eastern and in western Canada, when I say that the government which under such circumstances would command the respect of the people would be not one which would attempt to secure a victory by means of a snap vote, but one which would consult the interests of the country at large. Let us who speak independently for the people admit that we are a very small body of men; but I venture to say that the party which will win and retain the enduring confidence of the people of Canada will be that party which will espouse a policy the most Canadian and the most national in military matters, in foreign affairs, in economics and in relations between race and race whether within or outside of Canada. It will be the party which will do the most to re-establish, as the basis of government, equal rights as between the various sections of the country and mutual respect as between east and west and as between French and English. This end will not be attained by any attempt to take advantage of the first opportunity to rouse the Orange lodges against the hierarchy or to enrage Quebec at the expense of Alberta. It will not be done that way. It will be done

Want of Confidence Motion
by a constant effort upon the best minds in all the provinces and in all parties to look for the broader, for the bigger, for the most solid and enduring policy. If we do that we will find that we have turned a long circle and come back to what was once the standard policy of the Conservative party, the policy which enabled the alliance of Macdonald and Cartier- not upon any small calculation as to the misdoing of their Liberal opponents in this little matter or that little matter, not upon the advantage that could be gained by getting the support of the bishops in the province of Quebec and of George Brown and his clear Grits in his appeals against Romanism in the province of Ontario. No, it did better than that. Macdonald and Cartier took the leader of those men, George Brown, in their government; *-I admit they did not keep him long, but they kept him long enough to muzzle him while confederation was consummated, to prevent him from introducing in the new-born nations the poison which he had been distilling for so many years in Upper Canada. The result endured for some time; but unfortunately, the venom had not disappeared. It started again in Ontario, it extended to the west, and it was taken up by some Liberals and by some Conservatives.
What did it achieve? What has been the result to Canada as a whole, morally, socially or politically, of every encroachment made by any government, Conservative or Liberal, upon the principle of minority rights? What has been gained to Canada by any abandonment of the sound national policy with regard to participation in imperial affairs? What has been gained, I ask? More prejudice to-day as between French and English than there was fifty years ago; more cleavage as between Catholic and Protestant than there was fifty years ago-less violent, I admit, but perhaps more subtle. That is in regard to inter-racial matters in Canada. With regard to outside affairs there is to-day less unity in matters of national import. Why? Because we have appealed alternately to the British to think of Britain first and of Canada second; and to French Canadians to enlist and fight for France instead of remaining here and working for Canada. Thereby we have revived the old colonial, racial spirit in every group in Canada.
But the reaction is on, and I am happy to say it is perhaps to-day stronger in English Canada than in French Canada. I venture to predict that the party that will win the heart even of British Canada within the next ten years will be the party that will unfurl, not the Union Jack-the Union Jack will be
respected so long as the present system continues, so long as we remain in a free alliance with Great Britain-but the flag of Canada, the party that will put itself courageously, frankly and intelligently at the head of the nationalistic instincts of the people of Canada east and west, English and French. I know this looks venturesome, I know this may be considered as the back thought of an old eccentric; but that old eccentric has kept some of the youth of heart and mind in him, has remained in contact with both old and young Canadians in all parts of Canada, and he receives daily communications from people in Canada born in the Old Country. Let me take this only as an example. One English-born Canadian told me, not long ago: You express our feelings, but we are yet too much under the domination of racial pride and the prejudice of tradition to admit it; but go on speak your mind-which is ours- and the time is coming when our sons, who will be one degree more Canadian than we are, will go in advance of you because you will be too British for them. I a*m beginning to find that out.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in this long-I will not call it oration-rambling, if you like, I have given time to gentlemen on all sides of the House to make due reflection. I noticed when I began to speak there was some excitement; now some hon. gentlemen are on the point of sleeping, which is a good cure for nervousness. At any rate, they have had time for reflection, which is a good thing for the mind, and therefore I hope when we come to vote on this amendment it will be in one of two ways. If judged within the narrow circle of its wording, well, it will be treated as all similar motions have been treated this session; it is the same thing in different words. If, on the contrary, it is taken in a broad way, I for one am prepared to thank the right hon. gentleman for having enlarged the scope of the motion, for having talked outside it and made perhaps what he expects to be his first electoral speech, in which event I think we should follow him on that ground. But then, this motion is not worded in such terms as to inspire those thoughts or reflections that will enable any member of this House or any ordinary elector to see that it leads to anything. It is no declaration of principle on the part of the Conservative party. It is such a vague denunciation of the attitude of the Liberal government that really no Conservative can find much solace in it; and I do not think Liberals can be much exercised over it, except perhaps if they are short of a sufficient
Want oj Confidence Motion

number of votes to give them a majority, which from a certain point of view is absolutely immaterial to me. But surely it is not upon a motion of this nature that a great party, boasting its historic traditions, lays all its future hopes of success. But perhaps that should raise my hopes, for it shows there is more conscience in the Conservative party than I gave them credit for; they feel they are so far away from their great traditions that they must not express them, they must minimize their policy in as few words as possible, and in words that carry as little significance as possible. I think that is a form of sincerity which is to be commended. It proves that they are in the process of evolution. Perhaps within a session or two, or after a couple of elections, they will have found their way to Damascus, they will have seen some of the true light. It may blind them at first, but after the cure has operated-of course if they have grace enough to be worthy of cure -they will see things through the new medium and will change their tactics. I do not mean their board1 of strategy. I do not know the gentlemen composing that board, but I am quite sure there must be in it men who do not see things exactly as some others do, there must be some few differences in aspirations, in ideals and even in polities. I am quite sure of it. I should not like to calumniate the gentlemen opposite with such stupidity as to imagine that nine or ten of them could always agree upon everything. There must be a tendency upwards and downwards. I think unfortunately I am expressing the view of a large number of people outside the House when I say that the tendency downwards has manifested itself quite often during the session. We have heard heroics about the great principles of economics all connected, as I have said before, with the four wheels of a motor car. We have heard tremendous denunciations, but, after all, what has it come to? To a few motions of nonconfidence, very unhappily worded. In fact, it looked at times, and I said so at the beginning of the session, as if the government had to thank the Conservative board of strategy, for it has certainly saved this government on more than one occasion, and it ought to be as successful this time as it has been on previous occasions. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I need not say that I would not think for one moment of supporting this motion. I am sorry the session should end with such a poor, meagre, expression of opinion on the part of the great Conservative party, previous to what they expect to be an appeal to the people either this year or 
next. I think it behooves them and would be to the advantage of the country if the Conservative party would decide at last to frame a great policy in clear-cut words that would really express something to the minds of the people who are thirsting for ideas and principles, much less for words and for tactics.


Mr. A. M. BOUTILLIER (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, coming from t'he province of Alberta and' being deeply interested in this question, I feel that in my feeble way I should like to say a few words. Being but * a child in parliamentary life and experience I feel that it is a high honour to be permitted to follow one so experienced and so eloquent as the hon. member for La'belle (Mr. Bourassa), who has just sat down. While I am compelled to admire his power in debate and the many admirable qualities which he possesses, I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot see eye to eye with him on the matter that is now before the House.
He has mentioned the word " party " a number of times in his address, I think perhaps with a degree of nervousness. We have been told time and again in this House that principles are greater than party, and I claim, Mr. Speaker, that a principle is involved here which is greater than any party. The hon. member for Laibelle has also shown a great desire for Canadian unity. With that I am in full accord, because I claim there is no member of this House who has a greater desire for Canadian unity than myself. Like the hon. member for Labelle I can also claim to be a Canadian. The blood of four or five generations of forebears runs through my veins. When my ancestors came to Nova Scotia in the year 1753 that province was wooded right down to the shore 5 p.m. line, and those men had to go into the forests and hew out a place in order to provide themselves with humble homesteads. I have lived in the province of Nova Scotia half of my lifetime. The other half I have lived in the province of Alberta, that great province which in a few years will hold its millions of people, and in which I am proud to represent the important district of Vegreville at the present time in this House. I say I am very anxious for Canadian unity. I hold up my hands, while living in that province, to the province of British Columbia on the west, to the prairie provinces, to the central provinces, and to the Martime provinces down by the sea. I want to see them all bound together in one spirit of national unity that will be conducive to the prosperity of this great Dominion of ours.

Want of Confidence Motion
Reference has been made to a certain agreement. When the executive of this group called upon the Prime Minister in the early days of this session, I was given to understand that that agreement was signed, and the signing of that agreement, as stated by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas), had considerable influence in directing the minds of the members from the province of Alberta. Not only did I understand that that agreement was signed, but I was shown the pen which was used at the time the agreement was signed. When the announcement was made on January 22 or 23-I forget the exact date-at a large farmers' convention at Calgary, that Alberta was going to get her natural resources, it evoked a great deal of enthusiasm and deep satisfaction, and when later the Prime Minister rose in his place and made the distinct announcement that a certain measure by which Alberta would get her natural resources would not be proceeded with at this session, I was greatly disappointed, and I felt that any agreement or any responsibility that I had in regard to supporting the government ceased from that moment. The pledge given, as I considered it to be at that time, was deliberately broken. That is the way I felt about it. I do not intend to detain the House any longer, because hon gentlemen know my mind. I rose merely to place myself in full accord with all those sentiments that have been so ably expressed by my hon. friend from Camrose.. In regard to the action of the Prime Minister, let me say that if I voted against this amendment I should be saying to the people of Alberta that I approved of his action. That Mr Speaker, I cannot do.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, with the subject matter of the amendment I have no quarrel and could have none. One who is aligned with or supporting any political party is bound to meet with opposition from the opposing party. It has always been so, and I presume always will be so. But notwithstanding the fact that we may divide into groups, there will always be but two sides to any question, and we will find ourselves aligned on the one side or the other. I have no exception to take to the motion of my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Davis). He may at any time test the feeling of this House with respect to the confidence that may be reposed in the government. The mover of this amendment did not embody in it its real purpose. That is evident because immediately after moving the amendment he took the opportunity of stating the grounds upon which
is was based. The amendment simply alleges that the government has not implemented its pledges as announced in the Speech from the Throne. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the leader of the opposition, who spoke for the party responsible for the amendment, and save in one particular he has not been able to find any particular fault with the actions of the government in regard to the legislation introduced at the present session. The one shortcoming of which he complained is that we have not introduced, up to the present, legislation for the amendment of the Election Act. Stripping all verbiage from the speech of my right hon. friend, that is the sole particular as to which he makes complaint, with one exception, and I will deal it in a moment. That is the only respect in which he finds fault with the government and charges it with being recreant to its pledges. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has made some sensible comments with respect to the procedure adopted by governments in the past -and this does not apply to any particular party, it affects both the two old parties-in the matter of announcing legislation in the Speech from the Throne and introducing it subsequently into the House. So that the criticism of the right hon. leader of the opposition falls to the ground in that particular respect. If the present government had been the only sinner in the matter complained of, my right hon. friend's criticism might have had some weight and effect. In view of the actual facts it has no weight whatever. The right hon. gentleman has failed to recognize the fact that in almost every particular the promises contained in the Speech from the Throne have been implemented by legislation. Some of that legislation has met the fate that legislation of a similar character encountered in former days in the other chamber. As to that I have nothing to say.


Arthur Meighen: To what legislation does my hon. friend refer?


Charles A. Stewart: The legislation on old age pensions.


Arthur Meighen: That is not named in the Speech from the Throne at all.


Charles A. Stewart: That does not make any difference, it was part of the sessional programme of this government. My right hon. friend was criticizing the Speech from the Throne, but he took good care bo refrain from alluding to legislation of a very vital character to the people of Canada that was introduced by the government and passed by the House at the present session.

Want of Confidence Motion


Arthur Meighen: What .particular bill is my hon. friend alluding to now?


Charles A. Stewart: There have been a half dozen measures at least, I am not going to take time in enumerating them this afternoon. The government has reduced the taxation, and it was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. Nevertheless my right hon, friend had nothing to say about it.


Arthur Meighen: It is a sham.


Charles A. Stewart: My right
hon. friend has made the same statement about the tariff amendments. He is not fair in that regard, neither is he fair in what he has to say about the reduction in the duty on automobiles.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles A. Stewart: Most
assuredly there has been a reduction in the duty. I say that without fear of contradiction. My right hon. friend himself knows that.


Arthur Meighen: You do not know it.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh yes I
do. I quite apprehend the right hon. gentleman's purpose. Has not the statement been deliberately made that there has not been a 15 per cent reduction in the duty on automobiles of $1,200 in value and under?


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: Has that not been repeatedly said? My right hon. friend still maintains that statement.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: My right hon. friend argues that because we eliminated the luxury tax it does not mean a reduction in the tariff.


Arthur Meighen: On Canadian made
goods.


Charles A. Stewart: It is most
unfair for my right hon. friend to take any position of the kind.


Arthur Meighen: Are we children?


Charles A. Stewart: Let me say this to my right hon. friend:	I agree with
him that the elimination in question will not reduce taxes, but to argue that it does not reduce the tariff is-perhaps I had better not say it-an unadulterated fabrication, or a statement that will not hold water. Nobody knows that better than my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: I know what the facts
are all right.
Mr. C. A. Stewart.]


Charles A. Stewart: I accept my right hon. friend's statement that the elimination of the luxury tax means that the treasury of this country will suffer to that extent; but to argue that the removal of the duty means an increase of protection is so far from the truth that I am surprised my right hon. friend should attempt to argue it. The fact is that we have implemented our promises.
My right hon. friend goes to the one question that we are not permitted to discuss, the one matter I have laboured harder to bring to a successful issue-I say it with all sincerity-than any other with which I have had to deal. If I am permitted to discuss it, I will say that having laboured zealously for at least ten years to bring about its settlement in the interests of the province which I represent, I see a shadow arising that will prevent that accomplishment perhaps for years to come. This government has not said that it has abandoned the hope of securing for the province of Alberta, its natural resources, not by any means. I, perhaps more than any other member of the administration, am desirous of bringing that question to a happy issue. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Boutillier), who has just resumed his seat, says that he is anxious that national unity should prevail in Canada. May I say that even beyond my desire to secure for Alberta its natural resources I am anxious that we should have national unity in this Dominion. I am more desirous that nothing should happen to disturb national unity than I am of anything else. We who know something of the difficulties encountered in the past in connection with the question of provincial autonomy are not desirous of questions arising at any time that will tend to unfavourably influence and retard^ that national unity which should prevail in this country from one end to the other. Personally I rather welcome the fact that some of us are restrained from discussing, this matter frankly and freely at the present time. Because I do feel that if opportunity is provided difficulties that are now looming up can be got out of the way, and what I have zealously and earnestly laboured for so long-namely the return of its natural resources to the province of Alberta-will become an accomplished fact.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Who is responsible for the restraint?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend knows perfectly well that I am not permitted to discuss this question.

Want oj Confidence Motion


John Wesley Edwards: The question I asked was who is responsible for the restraint?


Charles A. Stewart: It requires
two to make a bargain, and that has been the difficulty all along.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, and it requires
two to keep it.


Charles A. Stewart: No one is
going to deny that difficulties have arisen in connection with this matter, but I have not the slightest doubt that those difficulties can be overcome. Still if this issue is plunged into the maelstrom of politics I fear that the fond hopes of the representatives from Alberta will be dashed to the ground and we may have to wait another hundred years before we in that province obtain the natural resources that rightfully belong to us. That is my feeling with respect to the matter. Apart from that I welcome the amendment as a test of the confidence of hon. members in this government, as to whether it has or has not carried out its promises in the Speech from the Throne as far as possible and given to this country good and economical administration. If the vote should go against the government, I for one am perfectly willing to go to the country on the record of this government, even during the last session of parliament, and take my chances.


An hon. MEMBER:: We welcome that.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon,
friends say they will welcome it. May I be permitted to doubt their sincerity? Notwithstanding the attempt that has been made by hon. members opposite to place the representatives of the province of Alberta in a position which they think will embarrass them. I am going to vote on the amendment in full confidence that the people of Canada and my constituents will understand that the avowed policy of the Conservative party is one of protection and that that is the issue we are facing at the present moment, because that is all hon. members opposite have to offer. They are asking this House to put this government out of office and vote them into office. The Minister of Finance put it in the most emphatic and clear-cut language. That policy of protection, according to hon. members opposite, is the one panacea for every ill, and the only one in their view. If anyone ever heard of any other policy put forward by them I shall be glad to know it. They wish to put this government out and place in office a government that will give them increased protection.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: The last time this government was challenged in this House it was on the question of tthe grading of eggs, and the motion was moved by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). I do not know exactly what happened, but something seemed to backfire on that occasion, and1 my hon. friend from South Wellington did not seem to secure the support from his own side that he wanted. Now my hon. friends are taking up another problem, which is more momentous but entirely different. The amendment today is a challenge to the government on the ground that they have not carried out their sesssional programme as set out in the Speech from the Throne. That should be very easy of verification or refutation. We have the record and it is very easy to ascertain the facts. I have gone over it very hurriedly during the last hour. First, I refer to rural credits. In the Speech from the Throne the statement is made:
To this end a measure will be introduced offering wide facilities for rural credits.
The whole House was tumbling over itself to see who would be the first to propose a resolution relating to rural credits. One of my hon. friends opposite had a resolution on the order paper but withdrew it, and the government resolution was put through. That promise was carried out 100 per cent. That is tally number one.
Then the next matter to which I refer is the statement in the Speech from the Throne with respect to the tariff, which reads:
A tariff advisory board will accordingly be appointed forthwith.
Was that done? We hear a great deal about our not doing it quickly enough, but we did it as quickly as it could be done. Is the personnel of that board objected to by hon. members opposite? Is even the secretary objected to, as has been done this afternoon in the case of the secretary appointed to the Maritime Rights Commission? But in this case not even the secretary is objected to. That is 100 per cent again. Tally number two.
Then further:	_
Every effort will be made to further reduce expenditures. To aid in the reduction of expenditures in administration certain of the departments of the public service will be consolidated with others and government services more effectively co-ordinated.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Elliott) took over the department of Soldiers' Civil ReEstablishment. Is that an accomplishment?



Want oj Confidence Motion
That has been carried out. Tally number three. Further on:
In this connection a trade agreement entered into with the British West Indies, Bermuda, British Guiana and British Honduras will be submitted for your approval.
Has that been carried out? That has been done, no thanks to the Tories opposite from whom we heard nothing but yapping from start to finish. Hon. members talk of loyalty, patriotism and all the rest of it, but when it comes to doing anything practical there is nothing but talk. But there was not sufficient talk to stop the progress of this piece of legislation. I think that is score number four.


An hon. MEMBER:: Number five.


William Richard Motherwell: Will somebody keep the tally? Then the next:
My government propose to submit provisions for the completion forthwith of the Hudson Bay railway.
Is that satisfactory to those who are most concerned in this enterprise? Do you hear one objection from any friend of the government in the west? The amount is $3,000,000. Is that not the exact sum my right hon. friend promised on one condition, namely, that that sum would be sufficient to complete the road to the bay, which he knew was impossible? We have placed it iD the estimates, it has gone through and it has not been challenged. And what has my right hon. friend to say, about it. Had we not talked so long in this House we might have got this put through earlier. I do not know of one single fair critic particularly friendly to the government who is not satisfied that we have done everything he anticipated with regard to that great enterprise. How much more could be spent? Would you want the whole estimated cost of $26,000,000 put' in the estimates? On one occasion we voted $350,000 and a great deal of dispute ensued, because we had not time to spend that amount, as it was late in the session. My right hon. friend cannot make any capital about the Hudson Bay vote up to the amount mentioned by him. There is no reservation by us that this will do the trick.
The next matter to which I refer is the statement in the Speech from the Throne that a royal commission will be appointed to inquire into the claims and the rights of the Maritime provinces. Has that been done?


An hon. MEMBER:: Not yet.


William Richard Motherwell: Has any exception been taken to the personnel of the commission?


An hon. MEMBER:: When will they start?


William Richard Motherwell: Some objection was taken to the secretary. One hon. member said he was a fine estimable gentleman, quite qualified in every respect but he had taken sides in the recent election, apparently against my hon. friend. Are you going to disqualify him because of that? Surely not. There we have another 100 per cent, and that is tally number six. I come now to the forbidden one.


Arthur Meighen: Why did the hon. member leave out certain very important ones on the way?


William Richard Motherwell: I am taking them as they come.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member left
out two or three.


William Richard Motherwell: The right hon.
member will not have another opportunity to speak, but he can give the tip to some of his admirers to bring up what I miss. I have not finished yet. The next is a bill to provide for the transfer to the province of Alberta of its natural resources. Mr. Speaker, you have forbidden a discussion of that subject; but a good many hon. gentlemen have been eating the forbidden fruit if I know anything about the matter, and I wonder if you will let me get as near to it as they have. As the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) indicated, it takes two to make a bargain. There was a bargain put down in black and white, that this government concurred in, that the Alberta government concurred in. A resolution in regard to it was placed on the order paper. There it remained as was indicated by the recital of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in this House a few weeks ago. We cannot force that on the Alberta government.
There must be two parties to a contract before it can be consummated. If one backs out the other cannot make the bargain with himself, unless there is concurrence and agreement in these matters. We could not have any June weddings without two parties to the contract. If one party defaults, the other cannot marry himself or herself. All they can do is to wait for a more favourable day, present their admonitions, and continue negotiations towards the desired end. Js that not what will be done? A more fortunate, a more acceptable time will no doubt come to the Alberta government, a time when it will be more opportune for them to accept the agreement than now. We do not know the minds of the members of that legislature. We know what was said to be the reason, but we do no* wan* tr repea* or to

Want o) Confidence Motion
elaborate it. The fact stands out that we can "resolute" from now to doomsday, but we cannot alone make a bargain. We are prepared to carry out the bargain on the terms mutually agreed upon by both sides. What more do hon. gentlemen want? This resolution is more absurd than the egg resolution of the other day. There was something to that resolution. It seems to be assumed by hon. gentlemen opposite that we can carry out this agreement ourselves, or in other words that one party can make a contract.
If my right hon. friend has anything to suggest as to what has been omitted from what the Minister of the Interior has indicated, it may be the amendment to the Elections Act. Was there any uproarious demand throughout the country for an amendment to the Elections Act? At the time that paragraph was inserted in the Speech from the Throne it was generally assumed by nine out of ten that we would need an election this summer. Was there the same apparent evidence of that during the last month? Was there the same necessity for it? Have we not had a long session? Is it not the natural thing, when you reach the June days, the hot days and the dog-days of summer, to eliminate anything that is least pressing that has been referred to in the House? Will there be any great alarm or anxiety or indignation throughout the country if this one item is not carried out? We can carry it out yet if that is required, but I do not see any evidence of any pressing need for it.
Let us consider some of the things that do not appear in the Speech from the Throne, but that nevertheless were forthcoming. Let us suppose that there is a balance on the wrong side with regard to the return of the natural resources. Something happened through no fault of ours. What about the introduction of the penny postage, mentioned for the first time by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in his excellent budget speech? This is an old Liberal policy introduced in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's time by a former Postmaster 'General, Hon. Mr. Mulock. I know when the Tories came into power they raised it to three cents, a war tax if you like; but along with many other taxes we have removed this one cent war tax on letters and restored penny postage. If that had come from the party of ultra-loyalists you would have heard some hurrahing about it. That was not promised in the Speech from the Throne, and that is so much superabundance over and above what was pledged in that Speech
14M1-2871
What about old age pensions? I think it has been slain above or below, I do not know which. Was that promised in the Speech from the Throne? It is a comparatively new question outside of this House, but an old one in it.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: A
supplementary address.


William Richard Motherwell: The legislation?
That is what I am saying; it is supplementary to the Speech from the Throne. It far more than outbalances the omission of an amendment to the Elections Act wihidh, after all in my estimation, was not required this session. It has met a sad fate, it is true, but is that our fault? Exactly the same arguments were used in the upper house that were used in this House against the bill. It was said that there should be a contributory clause in it. They objected to it because it was a non-contributory plan of old age pensions and the same argument was recited in the other house. There may have been no connection between the two. I am inclined to take the word of my right hon. friend that he would rather it had passed; I believe that is his view.
After the experience of so many Liberal candidates in this province being flayed and slain in the manufacturing centres of Ontario and elsewhere, not many low or moderate tariff men expected to see much reduction in. the tariff this session. We came here on the 7th January feeling that it would be a case of marking time in the matter of tariff; that, there would not be very much doing. But even under adverse conditions this government has dared to carry out its general policy of removing or remitting taxation wherever it was bearing heavily upon the people and it has done so. We are ahead on that count No hon. gentleman can stand up and say that we fell short of our expectations as regards lowering taxation through the tariff and in other ways. The income tax reduction was a prize package to hundreds of, thousands of people in Canada who never expected to get any remission, and the delight was greater when it was found that the remission applied to the year which we had gone through. That was very much in excess of what was promised.
My hon. friends are quite quiet now. I am going to refer to this 5 per cent luxury tax that the leader of the opposition spoke about the other night in high dudgeon. He had first rehearsed his speech in the breezy west-Winnipeg-[DOT] to see how it would go there. He did not need to go there to find out how it would

Want o) Confidence Motion
go; I could have told him. I wish I could indicate his manner of speaking, but I do not think I could, with his hands going around like those of a man flailing peas. Why was the hon. gentleman angry with us for undoing something that he said put us in wrong? If we had put our foot in so badly, should he not have been glad, should we not have seen his face all smiles-though we do not see that very often? He should have taken our action in that way, but instead he was in high dudgeon because of our remitting that luxury tax. The fact remains that the 15 per cent reduction on the smaller cars stands, 7i on the more expensive ones, and in addition to that there is a remission of the 5 per cent luxury tax on the smaller cars. That really means a reduction of 20 per cent. Now let us analyse it, and perhaps in the process we may be able to drive some Liberal ideas through the cranium of a thick-headed Tory. Formerly this 5 per cent was paid by the manufacturers to the government. Is not that right? Will anyone object to that statement? I repeat, formerly the 5 per cent luxury tax w'as paid by the manufacturers to the government.	[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: You are absolutely
wrong.


William Richard Motherwell: There is a voice
under the gallery. What is the hon. gentleman saying? I did not get it. I say, this five per cent used to be paid by the manufacturers to the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are wrong.


Mr. KAISER:: It was collected by the
manufacturer from the consumer and handed to the government.


William Richard Motherwell: And now the remission of the tax will be passed on by the manufacturers to the consumer in the form of lower prices. The consumer will get the benefit of it instead of the government. Is that not right? I call the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) to witness, for he himself has "said that it will be passed on. He said so the other night when he stated his belief that the motor car manufacturers would keep their signed word and pass on this advantage to the purchasers. I am not quoting the precise words of the right hon. gentleman, but that is the substance of what he said. And the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) intimated that if the purchasers were not given this benefit the tax would be taken off corresponding cars of other makes than Canadian. The thing is as plain as noonday. It is obvious that this is one more remission of taxation; it is so much

money going from the treasury of the country into the pockets of the consumers. It is as much a remission of taxes as the reduction in income tax or the reduction in postage. Yet my hon. friends will cut up didoes and go through ail sorts of verbal gymnastics in their endeavour to conceal the truth. But they will not succeed. The people are not fools, and when they get the new price list they will find out what has been done. When they compare the new prices with those that formerly obtained they will discover that the government has made not only one but two reductions in respect of motor cars.
You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that hon. gentlemen opposite have quieted down. They are fading away. Why? Because they cannot reason against the facts. There has been one more remission of taxation and they know it, and the trouble with them is that they are mad because we have made this remission. They would rather have seen Oshawa close its shops so that they might have a real justification for howling; but instead, the order will be given for full steam ahead. Yes, these hon. gentlemen are staunch loyalists and very great friends of the manufacturers. But we know exactly what is aimed at.
The leader of the opposition declares that the government has no right to dissolution; according to him we have only a right to hand in our resignation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


William Richard Motherwell: Well, let us look
into that, too. What is the usual evidence by which one is led to conclude that a government is either losing or gaining in the confidence of the people? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that by-elections constitute one infallible barometer. And have we been losing any by-elections which might tend to suggest that we were going down in the estimation of the country? Let us see. The first by-election was held in Prince Albert, where the Prime Minister was returned with a majority which we reckoned in thousands.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


William Richard Motherwell: That is all the contribution some hon. members can make to the debate-a guffaw. Another by-election was held in Regina a reasonably safe fighting proposition from the standpoint of the opposition. A year ago this month one of two provincial cabinet ministers was defeated in Regina, and there is always a strong Tory contingency to be found in that capital city. Well, the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) presented himself for election in that riding, and

Want oj Confidence Motion
it was impossible to get a Tory or anybody else to toe the scratch at all. Is there any evidence there of a decline of t!he government in the affections of the people? Then we come to Ontario, where it was predicted that the government would not dare open a seat. It was thought that from one end of the province to the other it would be impossible for the govemrhent to find anywhere a safe constituency. We went to West Middlesex where the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elliott) ran and was elected. Some hon. gentlemen opposite, genial, affable good fellows, went into West Middlesex to try their hands at throwing out the minister who stood for election. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) went up there, and you know the result. He was ably flanked by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins), and you know his usual theme. Well, by the time we got there we found that the fight had been already won for us; the Liberal contingent that went into the constituency on the last Saturday need not take any credit. Those two hon. gentlemen alone could have won the election for the Minister of Labour, and as a matter of fact they did contribute largely to that end, if I am to believe one-half of the unsolicited testimony of many electors. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if ever I get into a tight place again-it has happened once or twice-I shall issue a special invitation to my two hon. friends to come and help my opponent.
In view of all these evidences of the confidence which the country has in this government, why should we not be entitled to dissolve parliament? It is our right and we will get it too-


An hon. MEMBER:: How?


William Richard Motherwell: -if it is required. Now, for a few brief minutes I will review the events in parliament during the past few months. It has been a most interesting time and I would not have missed it for anything. A number of precedents were established; a number of others were dug up; some of the old ones died and were buried; and some brand new ones were bom. And we all know how nice it is to be at the birth of some new institution. The principle of government by a majority of parliament was recognized and we have carried on, under difficulties, it is true, upon that principle. But we have carried On. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was not 'by resolutions alone that hon. gentlemen opposite endeavoured tq shake us out of these seats. They resorted to every invective which waspish tongues could utter: we were a rum government, a remnant government, and
a ramshackle government. When I was at school they used to teach the three R's but these gentlemen have introduced a new trio- rum, remnant and ramshackle. The hon. member for Fort William is, I think, responsible for the last mentioned. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), after all hopes had been disappointed, would turn around upon the Progressives and you could see the bristles on the back of his neck fairly rising; and we all remember how the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) did his coquetting on that occasion. But he was not quite happy in this unaccustomed role; it is so long since his courting days that he has forgotten how to play the part. But the Progressives did not respond and, when persuasion failed, hon. gentlemen's affection turned to wrath and bitterness; it was ashes in their mouths. They were ready to devour every Progressive or anybody else, for that matter, who was not a Tory. They would eat a Progressive any morning before breakfast without salt. Why, they hated them with the most venomous hatred.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


William Richard Motherwell: Don't look so
amazed. If my hon. friends knew how they looked after that first vote they would not care to see a photograph of themselves. They would not recognize themselves in moments of reflection. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) particularly distinguished himself by shouting; "Why don't you get out? Resign!" Those were the cries that came to us from across the floor. Well, we did not resign, we are not out yet. Those tactics simply rebounded upon my hon. friends opposite; they did not work. Now here is a resolution that they hope will work-a resolution that we are forbidden to speak about; only the first speaker had that opportunity. The rest of the programme has been carried out in its entirety with the one possible exception referred to. In fact we have given full measure, running over, for we have introduced half a dozen supplementary pieces of very important legislation that were never referred to at all in the Speech from the Throne.
I find this query among my notes: In the event of a general election how will Saskatchewan go? I will not speak for any other province. I think we on this side of the House can view with the utmost equanimity the prospect of a general election. Why? Right on our record this very session that my hon. friends opposite are criticizing. If all other provinces go the same as Saskatche-
Want oj Confidence Motion

wan, there will not be a Tory left in this House. True, there is not one from that province here now, and they cannot have less than a duck egg, but the result will be repeated at the next general election.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, when things were at their worst, and they were pretty bad the night of that first vote, we were all pretty tense and anxious-we might as well admit that now-for we knew there was going to be a close shave. The galleries, I think, were even more concerned than we were. About that time the officials of my department had to put in force quarantine regulations with respect to dogs because rabies had attacked our canine heroes throughout the country. Well, Mr. Speaker, I was beginning to think that some of our political opponents were suffering from political rabies, for they were snapping and biting at everybody within reach, and I was wondering if my officials would have to prescribe muzzles or leashes for my hon. friends opposite. It seemed we would have to put the mouth clamp on them. -I guess that was done, too, when the closure was applied. But, I repeat, it was nothing short of a species of political rabies that ran right through the opposition both in the House and outside during the first two or three months of the session. But just as the canine disease has run its course, so have these manifestations died out in our friends opposite. At that time they were scarcely human beings, they were scarcely fit to live with. That day is past and they are now pretty good fellows. We used to wonder how in the world anybody wanted to elect such representatives. Now we understand they are pretty much like ourselves, human beings, asserting the right to challenge the existence of the government. They have that right, I accord it to them, and so far as I am concerned I am quite willing to abide by the result of the vote on this motion.
One other incidental conclusion I might arrive at in connection with this challenge. Up till to-day the trump card that it was hoped would pull the trick was the customs inquiry.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: I am out of order, Mr. Speaker?


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman is straying in that direction.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, I think I have gone far enough to indicate it. I think, Mr. Speaker, you will admit that all the other speakers went much further in connection

with the natural resources matter, so if I strayed a little bit I suppose you will forgive me. Anyhow, in addition to the other demonstrations, the House has not forgotten that famous snap verdict. After all the grimaces that were made against us, after all the denunciations of this government-


THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING

A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the House went up to the Senate, and having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to provide for changing the names of certain Pension Fund Societies.
An Act for the relief of Joseph Robert Crow.
An Act for the relief of Stanley Bennett.
An Act	for	the	relief	of	Katherine London Foley.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Edith Annie Say.
An Act for the relief of Ysabella Stewart Carmichael Wilson.
An Act	for	the	relief	of	May Maud Mary Johnson.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Roland George Wickens.
An Act for the relief of Marjorie Durham Morgan. An Act for the relief of Amber May Wolfenden.
An Act for the relief of Enda Beatrice Burley.
An Act for the relief of Bessie Hyde Lanyon Calhoun. An Act for the relief of Bleecker Foy Maidens.
An Act for the relief of George Almon Wickett.
An Act for the relief of Mabel Ellen Barrett.
An Act for the relief of Mabel Victoria Westerby.
An Act	for	the	relief	of	Morgan Hart.An Act	for	the	relief	of	James Arthur Breadon.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Marjorie Esther Siplan.
An Act for the relief of Gladys Orme.
An Act for the relief of John Andrew Reid.
An Act for the relief of William Thomas Charlton Spence.
An Act for the relief of Gladys Lucie White.
An Act for the relief of Robert Stewart McIntyre. An Act for the relief of Goldie Luella Russell.
An Act for the relief of Arthur Atkinson.
An Act	for	the	relief	of	Lillian Edith Hudgin.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Mary Booth.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Bernard Ernest Sleeth.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Elsie Fray.
An Act for the relief of Cecilia Marrie Peters Kendall.
An Act for the relief of Elias Malky.
An Act for the relief of Ethel Beatrice Walker.
An Act for the relief of George Elgie Dulyea.
An Act for the relief of John Wilson.
An Act for the relief of John Sydney Wright.
An Act for the relief of Lillie Torrance Cascadden.
An Act for the relief of James Thomas Young.
An Act for the relief of Copland 'William Evans.
An Act for the relief of Arthur John Harman.

The Royal Assent
An	Act	for	the	relief of Annie Rebecca	Herbert.An	Act	for	the	relief of David Joseph	Potter.An	Act	for	the	relief of Walter Harold	Bingley.An	Act	for	the	relief of Ethel Harriet Little.
An Act respecting The Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate The Pioneer Insurance Company.
An Act respecting The Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company.
Ah Act respecting the Grand Orange Lodge of British America.
An Act >to amend The Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act.
An Act to amend The Customs Tariff, 1907.
An Act to amend The Railway Act, 1919.
Ah Act to amend The Canadian Red Cross Society Act.
An Act to amend The Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
An Act respecting the Chicoutimi Harbour Commissioners.
An Act to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the Public Service.
An Act respecting trade relations with British West Indies, Bermuda, British Guiana, and British Honduras.
An Act to amend The Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1923.
An Act to incorporate The Canadian Dexter P. Cooper Company.
An Act to amend The Railway Belt Water Act.
An Act for the relief of Samuel Wexler.
An Act for the relief of Samuel Lehman Stouffer.
An Act for the relief of Robert Douglas Ian McLeod.
An Act for the relief of Mary Margaret McColgan Vinnette Graydon.
An Act for the relief of Alexander Charles Boyd.
An Act for the relief of Charles Day.
An Act for the relief of Albert Wilson Denning.
An Act for the relief of Margaret Lambert.
An Act for the relief of Jessie Patterson.
An Act for the relief of Ernest Ashton.
An Act for the relief of Evelyn Christine Stewart.
An Act for the relief of Ernest Love.
An Act for the relief of Charles Stanley Reed Riches.
An Act for the relief of Mona Aileen Davies.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Wright.
An Act to amend the Excise Act.
An Act to amend The Income War Tax Act, 1917.
An Act for granting to His Majesty a certain sum of money for the public service of the Financial year ending the 31st March, 1927.
An Act for granting to His Majesty a certain sum of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1927.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock. COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS
Mr. W. F. KAY (Brome-Missisquoi):: With the unanimous consent of the House I beg leave to move that the House return to the order for motions.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the hon.
gentleman wishes this motion to pass in order that a private bill, which has not yet been before the Private Bills committee, may be given a chance to be considered by the House


Arthur Meighen: What is the bill in question?


Frank S. Cahill: The Gatineau Transmission Company bill.


William Frederic Kay: This bill was introduced in the Senate, but owing to the time prescribed having expired it had to come before the Standing Orders committee in order to get their approval. I now move that the second report of the select standing committee on Standing Orders, which was presented this afternoon, be concurred in.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House that the second report of the select standing committee on Standing Orders be concurred in?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what the report of the Standing Orders committee is, but at the present moment we are in the midst of a debate, and I never heard of any motion to return to the order for motions at such a time.'


Hewitt Bostock: The report was presented at two o'clock, and when the motion to concur in it was made, the hon. member for Pontiac raised objection. I understand he has now withdrawn his objection.


Arthur Meighen: That is true, but would not the proper time for this motion be at the end of the debate?


Hewitt Bostock: This is the hour for private bills. I understand the House gives unanimous consent to the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 155, respecting the Dominion Electric Protection Company.
Mr. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if by leave of the House I could move-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member is too late; he can move his motion later. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?	.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee on the bill, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Red Lake Railway Company


Mr. MARGIL:: This bill was allowed to stand in committee 'for the purpose of allowing an explanation of its purpose. I may say that it seeks to amend chapter 102 of the statutes of 1924, and merely authorizes the company to increase its capital stock to $1,000,000, divided into shares of $25. The measure has already been passed in the Senate. The company was formed in 1924 for the purpose of carrying on a system of electric protection. It is doing business in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and other cities. Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


PRESIDENT OF THE LETHBRIDGE STAKE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. H. JELLIFF (Lethbridge) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 11, to incorporate the President of the Lethbridge stake.
Motion agreed toamendment read the second time and concurred in.
THE JOHN E. RUSSELL COMPANY CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT Mr. DA\ ID SPENCE (Parkdale) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 13, respecting a patent owned by The John E. Russell Company, Limited.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 190 respecting certain patents of James Me-Outcheon Coleman.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 191, to incorporate Gatineau Transmission Company.-Mr. Fontaine.

Peter Heenan: I beg to move that, owing to the
late period in the session, Bill No. 95, to incorporate the Red Lake and Northwestern Railway Company, be placed on the order paper among private bills for consideration in committee of the Whole this day.


Arthur Meighen: Has the bill been considered before any special or standing committee of the House?


Peter Heenan: The bill passed the committee to-day.	.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Duff in the chair.

On section 1-Incorporation.


John Evans: This bill has been before
the committee for some days, and to-day it was passed by just one-quarter of the members of the committee. It is a bill to incorporate a company to construct a railway from a point on the Canadian National railway into the Red Lake district. That territory is naturally Canadian National territory. If a railway were needed into that part of the country, the Canadian National naturally would be the company to construct it. In the past we have made many mistakes in railway construction in Canada. On account of the haphazard granting of charters for railways such as this, we find ourselves in the railway debacle which we are facing at the present time. This is a foreign company. The railway is not called for by anybody living in the district. A mining camp has just been started there, and no requisition has come to us for a railway. We have landed ourselves in a railway debt which we shall not be able to pay for generations. Before the committee grant this charter we should seriously consider whether we desire to incorporate a foreign company to go into the centre of this country to construct a railway where it is not wanted or called for at the present time. I am an advocate of government ownership, and I believe that this proposition cannot fail to have a detrimental effect on our Canadian National Railways. The idea of the promoter is that this railway will extend up through northern Manitoba and into the Hudson bay district, and I am wondering whether hon. members who so strenuously opposed the Hudson bay grant this year will now be willing to incorporate a company with powers to go into that district, exploit our natural resources, and intensify our railway problem. I oppose the bill for these reasons, and hope the committee will reject it.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I was in the committee room when this bill came up to-day, and to my mind this is an exploitation company to get a charter which may hereafter become valuable. Not only does the bill ask for power to construct 100 miles of railway into Red Lake, but it asks for further power to go as far as The Pas, many miles northwest, and eventually become a new transcontinental line paralleling our two transcontinental lines across this continent. The Deputy Minister of Railways was present at the committee to-day and in reply to me he said that the department had no objection to it; but on behalf of the National Railways, although only a humble member of this House, I object to this free chartering of companies that are mainly for the purpose

Red Lake Railway Company
of exploitation, especially when, as was stated to-day, those who are asking for the charter are residents of the United States.
I think the time has arrived when the Minister of Railways should say whether he is willing to assume the responsibility of creating companies that are practically schemes for exploitation. It develops to-day that this is really in opposition to a parallel railway into which we are putting $3,000,000 now and into which we shall have to put $16,000,000 or $20,000,000 later on. Not only does it parallel that road to The Pas, but eventually if it means anything its object is to be another transcontinental railway in this country. The trouble in Canada is this over-duplication in regard to railways, and we are continuing in the same course. What we want to do is to get rid of these duplications. If a mining territory must be served with railways we ought to keep that for the National Railway system in preference to encouraging the construction of new railways. I have put in and I will continue to put in my protest hereafter against any schemes for railway construction for which good reasons cannot be given.
There may be a gold field there-I hope there is-but if there is, it is contiguous to the Canadian National Railways and the best way to get to it- is by the Canadian National. If the people there want to get a road they ought to go to the Canadian National and ask them to serve them by a line from their main line to this new gold field. Again I protest against this continuation of indiscriminately chartering new railroads that are to be subjects hereafter of trouble and expense to the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific, and that are mainly promoted by those who are called dealers in charters or schemes that will eventually be a tax upon the people of this country.


Mr. HEAPS:: I would like to hear a little more in respect to this bill from those who are supporting it. If I understand the matter correctly, the province of Manitoba has agreed to guarantee certain bonds for a railway to be built from somewhere near Winnipeg into this very same area. If that is correct, the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba are vitally interested in a measure of this character, and consequently before I could support this bill I should like the promoters to give the committee a little more information than is at present before us. I do not know whether there is any time limit within which the proposed company must begin construction or complete the railway.


Peter Heenan: In the territory that I
have the honour to represent we have a new mining area known as the Red lake mining area. This application for a new railroad company - came before the committee, where is was turned down without very much consideration. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) very kindly brought it up again in this House and had it resurrected and sent back to the committee. At the next sitting of the committee sufficient information in -connection with the railway was not forthcoming from the promoters, and it was sent back again until they could give us some further information and until the Canadian National and the government of Ontario could be heard' from. The Premier of Ontario has written a letter to one of the northern Ontario members of this House who is interested in that territory and he states that with certain modifications he has no objections to the bill. The Deputy Minister of Railways came before the committee and1 the department has no objection to the bill.
In reply to the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), I may say that we have to-day included in the bill a special clause providing that construction must be under way and $100,000 spent within the first year. If that is not done at -the end of next session then all rights become null and void. We have taken out of the bill as it appears before the committee to-day certain clauses which the province of Ontario objected to in regard to water powers. Therefore I think the bill meets every objection, with the exception of the objections of those who are against all private enterprise in this country.
As -regards the statement of an hon. member opposite that this is a foreign corporation, I do not know where he gets his information. While I do not know any of these gentlemen I see that clause one reads:
John H. Cassidy, Charles B. Hibbard and Frederick R. Brown all of the city of Montreal, and D'Arcy Scott, of the city of Ottawa, together with such other persons as may become shareholders of the company are incorporated under the name of the Red Lake and Northwestern Railway Company.
It is true that the gentlemen when asking for incorporation told the committee that they had Boston 'bankers behind them, but I do not think it is a crime for anyone starting a new enterprise in this country to have it backed by foreign capital. At least, if that is the case, I have not yet heard it so stated.
The hon. gentleman said there was no request from the people of that district to have this railway built. As the member represent-

Red Lake Railway Company
ing that part of the country I am in a position to refute that statement. The district iies principally in unorganized territory and there are not very many councils or boards of trade, but such town councils as there are, like Dryden, for instance, are certainly demanding this railway. That particular council passed a resolution favouring the granting of the charter and as the representative of the people in the district I stand here to-night and say that they do want to have the railway built into that country.


William Findlay Maclean: How many miles will it run?


Peter Heenan: It is 125 .miles from the
Canadian National railway, directly north into Red lake.


William Findlay Maclean: What is the total distance north and west?


Peter Heenan: It does not run parallel
with the Canadian National railway, but at right angles to that line. That is all the information I can give at the moment, unless lion, gentlemen want to ask any questions.
* Mr. HANNBSSON: Does the hon. gentleman say that the Canadian National Railways have no objection?


Peter Heenan: That is what the deputy
minister told the committee.


Mr. HANNESSON:: Was Manitoba consulted?


Peter Heenan: I do not know.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In view of the fact that this railway will run through Manitoba territory, perhaps representatives from that province may be able to say something about the bill.


Peter Heenan: The hon. member is mistaken; the railway does not run through Manitoba. It merely touches that province, lying entirely within Ontario.


John Evans: Notwithstanding all that the hon. member has said, I still require further information before I can give my sanction to this matter. This railway will run across a corner of Ontario and into northern Manitoba, and according to the promoters of the bill it is intended to go into the mining area in proximity to Hudson bay. I am surprised to see how little interest parliament takes in this proposition, which in my opinion is a most unreasonable one. Our decision on this bill to-night will be a decision between public and private ownership, and whether we consider the National railways worth saving or not, the fact remains that we are dividing the

country up into small sections under private corporations to an extent which has been unknown in the past. We know to what pass the country has been brought through enterprises of this sort, and I fear it will not be long before the government will have to take over an unprofitable concern if we pass this bill. In spite of everything the hon. member has said as to the personnel of this corporation, I would remind the committee that the evidence came out before the Railway committee that a company of Boston bankers was behind the scheme, and I do not think that we in Canada have any occasion yet to invite any foreign company to come and tell us what we need in the way of new railways.


Mr. JACOBS:: If the foreign company is
prepared to put up its owm money I do not see why ive should object to taking it.


John Evans: No deposit has been made,
nor has any guarantee been given that the work will be proceeded with. I do not think that we should lightly grant a charter to a company which apparently is merely charter-mongering. I should like to know from the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) what is the policy the government intends to pursue in relation to the government ownership of railways. It has been said that the Canadian National Railways are not interested in the matter. I would point out that those railways now belong to the people of Canada and it is for parliament to say whether or not the Canadian National system is interested. We cannot help being interested when we know that this new railway is going to run into territory which will be served by the Hudson Bay line. We are immensely interested in this matter and before the bill passes the House will no doubt demand further information.


Mr. OHUROH:: I oppose very strongly
this grab bill. I attended three sessions of the Railway committee when this bill was being considered. The committee saw fit to turn down the preamble, rejecting the bill for many reasons, among which was the contention that it was not in the public interest to pass this bill, that it was not a work for the general advantage of Canada, and that a territory containing such immense wealth should not be handed over to a few selfseekers and private corporations to be exploited for their own purposes and benefit. The entire railway policy of this country is all wrong and always has been. Parliament appointed a railway commission in 1917 for the express purpose of recommending what

Red Lake Railway Company
course should be followed in regard to just such matters as we are considering this evening. That commission made, among others, this recommendation, that before any bill was adopted by parliament it should first of all be passed upon by the railway commission itself. In the service of the commission there are experts who, from the information to which they have access and from the knowledge they possess, are able to decide whether such a bill as this is in the public interest or not, or is a work for the general advantage of Canada.
The proposed railway passes through a district in New Ontario which contains untold wealth, of which neither the provincial nor the Dominion government know the full extent. I do not think that anyone could possibly consider this project one for the general advantage of Canada. The road lies almost entirely in the province of Ontario, but it has been made by this bit of paper an interprovincial undertaking in order to bring it within the jurisdiction of this parliament. On three occasions the Minister of Railways has *been asked by the Railway committee to outline the policy of the government in connection with this bill, and the House has a right to know. The other night the minister himself introduced a vote for the Hudson Bay railway. If this bill passes and the proposed line is constructed it will run parallel to the Hudson Bay railway, and will take business away from that road.
I submit that this matter should be allowed to stand over for another year. There is no particular reason why we should rush it as not one yard of railway will be built this year. The company will not build, I say, a mile of railway this year, for an examination of the facts shows that the concern behind this application is nothing but a paper company. If we examined the records we should be surprised to find how many paper companies have been given charters for thirty years by this legislature. We should go over the books and wipe such companies out. I know of one company which was given a charter in 1905 and whidh came to parliament year after year with request for an extension of time and got fourteen extensions. This sort of thing should be put an end to. The time has come when the people will rebel against the taxation which they are called upon to bear in connection with railways in this country. We have spent millions of dollars on the National railways, and whenever there is any rich territory which might be developed for the benefit of the country at large, Sir Henry Thornton is prepared to hand it over to private concerns. On the other hand, there is
apparently too great a readiness to build branch lines which lead nowhere and will never yield a cent of revenue to the country. If these branch lines were built on the free trade law of supply and demand there would be fewer lines and fewer deficits and millions less cost to the country. The whole railway policy, I repeat, is unsound, and the time has come for a show-down. Are we going to repeat the fatal mistake made in this country from 1890 to 1911 when everyone could get a charter for the mere asking here in this legislature? One of the reasons why New Ontario has been economically annexed to the United States is the fact that American capitalists have secured control of the water-powers in that part of the country. These water-powers are the key to industrial development, and if Sir Adam Beck had been given his way and the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway had been electrified there would be in that district to-day, not
60,000	but half a million of people, and there would be such a development as has never been witnessed anywhere in the world, as the result of publicly bwned development of water-powers and transportation.
This is a purely provincial railway. If the promoter of this bill are anxious to put it through they ought to go to Queen's Park, Toronto. It is not and never was a work for the general advantage of Canada. I would ask the hon. gentleman who has spbken in support of the measure, who are the Americans back of it? What has Mr. Backus to do with this bill? He wrote to the Railway committee a letter in which he made the statement that he was prepared to build the road himself. Well, we all know that he is an American millionaire who waited upon the Ontario legislature in the days of the Drury-Raney farmer regime and was given a principality, a kingdom, an empire in itself of timber within New Ontario, all at the expense of the province. It is men of that type who are behind this undertaking. Mr. Backus is the silent partner who is ready to take the road over when we pass it, for he knows this parliament will never stand, or the public, for what he got away with in Ontario.
I am very much surprised at the action of the Ontario government under the premiership of Mr. Howard Ferguson. When Sir Adam Beck wanted the Whitney government to electrify the Temiskaming railway, private interests at that time opposed that policy, and the water-powers were handed over to private capital. I want to see the policy of protection adopted for this new part of Ontario. Are we going to repeat the mistakes we made in old Ontario; are we going to see the great corp'orations of
lied Lake Railway Company

New York, Boston, Toledo and Buffalo in control of the vast natural resources of that region? No I say the time has come to call a halt here and now and lay this bill over until we have the results of the survey parties which are now going over this new district. No one knows the wealth of the country to be served by this railway. There is no demand for this legislation. The territory should belong to the sc-called public ownership Canadian National Railways who support private grabs all the time. I am not surprised at the stand taken by the Premier of Ontario. He has always been on that side, and therefore it is quite natural that he should support this bill, but in doing so I believe he is making the same mistake in New Ontario that has been made in the older parts of the province. He fails to realize the possibilities of this newer New Ontario, as he failed to protect the 1914 New Ontario.
I am prepared, Mr. Chairman, to move by way of amendment that it is not in the public interest that this bill should be passed. Nobody knows who or what is behind this proposed charter. If you give to the promoters the powers they ask for under section 7 you will be giving them the individual key to that great district for ever, which is a kingdom in itself. It is purely a provincial railway, and instead of seeking a charter here the promoters should have taken a leaf out of the book of their great American millionaire leader Backus. He went to Queen's Park for his millionaire fake charters, and when he could get nothing more there, of course, he decided to invade the federal arena here. Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination can this bill be said to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. We are in effect being asked to grant a charter over the head of the Ontario legislature, over the head of the Canadian National and the railway commission. Who are the promoters of this bill? I know only one gentleman, Mr. D'Arcy Scott, whose address is the city of Ottawa. Before any more charters of this character are granted they should be reported on by the railway commission to the House. What is the railway commission for but to check up bills of this kind? I was glad to see the member for South York (Mr. Maclean) in the Railway committee this morning take a strong stand against the passing of this bill. I was there three days and missed him and his support. I am sorry a better hearing could not be had before the committee this morning, but no doubt the other members having already considered the bill two or three times had made up their minds with respect to it.

I am utterly opposed to the principle of this bill, Mr. Chairman. We should preserve this rich territory for the people of Ontario and the people of Canada, not deliver it over to these American millionaires whose names appear in clause 2 of the bill, Mr. Backus and his friends, who already have a kingdom up there in New Ontario. New Ontario to-day is owned very largely by American capitalists. The mining development of that country has been retarded owing to the lack of protection, which apparently some Conservatives rvould put on the scrap heap to-day for a few friends. The Conservative party in this honourable House is supposed to be a protectionist party. The most shining example we have to-day of the benefits of that policy is the hydro-electric movement in Ontario. The Hydro fought the battle of the masses against the classes, and saved and redeemed the water powers of Ontario without any help from Hon. Howard Ferguson, for the people of the province forever. Sir Adam Beck and myself, head and president of the hydro municipalities and as his first lieutenant respectively, often had to fight against the whole Ontario government and cabinet. We stood by our principles through thick and thin, in fair weather and bad.'
This .bill was considered a month ago in the Railway committee, and the application was refused. The committee then reported to the House, and the chairman of the committee moved concurrence in the report, which which was adopted by the House. But about two weeks later, a motion was made in the House to recommit the bill to the committee for further consideration. What happened between the first consideration and the second consideration of this bill by the committee I do not know', but the American interests got busy and in the first place I would say that I think it was a breach of the rules of the House to recommit the bill, and an abuse of the privileges of the House to send the bill back again. Secondly, I would point out that I have had three bills in the public interest on the order paper since January 12 on railway matters, one placed there on the 8th of January and one on the 12th, and they have never been called in this House except on one occasion at eleven-thirty at night, when I was not present and no one had any notice that the bill would be called. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that those bills have just as much right to. be heard before the standing committee on Railways as this favourite grab bill of private interests. This bill was recommitted to the committee, and the committee held two sittings, one last

Want o] Confidence Motion
Wednesday and another on Thursday, but the members did not get the notices in time and I moved that the bill be laid over for consideration until this morning. There was no letter written by the Premier of Ontario addressed to the committee, but there was a letter addressed to the gentleman who introduced the bill.
But what we have to consider, Mr. Chairman, is the public interest. That must be paramount in this House. Section 12 of this bill shows what this company is seeking. It provides:
The company may acquire (but not by expropriation) or lease and operate water-powers along the line of its railway or in the vicinity thereof and construct, maintain and improve dykes, piers, and flumes and all other works required for the development of such water-powers as well as for producing electricity or other power.
This bill is 95 per cent a power proposition. If you will read section 7 in conjunction with section 12, you will see what is behind this bill. Section 7 provides:
The company may lay out, construct and operate by means of steam, electricity, or other motive power a railway or tramway, from a point at, or near the village of Quibell in the township of Wabigoon, in the province of Ontario, thence in a northerly direction by the most feasible and advantageous route to a point at or near Red Lake a distance of about one hundred miles, then in a generally northerly and westerly direction to a point on the Hudson Bay division of the Canadian National railway at or east of Le Pas, in the province of Manitoba.
I contend, Mr. Chairman, that these sections are ultra vires of this parliament. Why? Because the government of the province of Ontario has seen fit to appoint a hydroelectric power commission having jurisdiction over all the water-powers of the province, including this territory, and I contend that it is outside of the power of this parliament to pass these provisions. Under the decision of the Privy Council the province has jurisdiction over all the water-ipowers that are entirely within the province for regulation and control purposes.
Not by any stretch of the imagination can this tramway of a few miles be said to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario was never consulted, and I say should never stand for any more of this kind of thing, and the people are going to protest, not only in the law courts, but through the ballot boxes. The older sections of New Ontario were so badly treated by the National railways that the province of Ontario had to build its own Temiskaming and Ontario railway without any federal subsidies, while
similar provincial railways built in Manitoba got millions in subsidies. I wish to protest, on behalf of the people of 9 p.m. Ontario, against the shabby treatment they have received. If necessary, this bill will be taken into the law courts to prevent the abuses it proposes. I protest against the bill passing, as I believe it is not in the public interest.


The CHAIRMAN:: Nine o'clock.


Thomas Langton Church: I am glad I talked this
grab bill out anyway, on behalf of the people of Ontario, and we will have a reckoning with the Ferguson government a little later and with the National railways, who together are playing the game of the private interests.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. Mr. Robb for committee of Supply, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Davis.
['I am not in a position to say as to the order. I think we had better take the same busines as announced for to-day, or for yesterday as it is now. I purpose taking up the resolution that appears in the order paper standing in my name with respect to the signature and ratification of treaties. I would like to be able to say that\nIndustrial Relations', 'that will be the first order of business. I hope it may, but I do not wish to say so definitely.\nOn motion of Mr Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 2.15 a.m. (Wednesday).\nWednesday, June 16, 1926.']
William Richard Motherwell: When you left the
chair, Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock, I was on the point of drawing attention to a certain snap verdict that our Conservative friends scored on the government in committee of the Whole about two or three months ago when the estimates of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) were before the committee. It was thought at that time by our Conservative friends that it would go abroad that the government was defeated by a majority of thirty odd, and that there would be a great sensation throughout the land, that a crisis would be precipitated, and that probably the government would be shaken out of the treasury benches. Well, Mr. Speaker, it did not work, you may have noticed. It fell on the public mind as flat as the proverbial pancake. They knew it was just a stunt, or. as described by my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), it was just a matter of playing hide and seek. That is all it was-hide and seek politics. I must compliment them to-night on the more businesslike and manly way in which they are challenging the right of this government to govern. The hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Davis) has brought down an amendment. True, he forgot to notify us in the usual way, but that is a trifle in these days, I presume. It is the custom of two boxers when they first meet in the ring to shake hands, no matter how much they may want to kill each other. My hon. friends across the way forgot to shake hands by not giving

Want of Confidence Motion
us the usual notice that they were going to strike, but we will forgive them that trifle. I cannot help contrasting their attitude today, however, with the manly deportment and behaviour of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who gave me notice several days before that he was bringing down his famous egg amendment and challenging the government. Possibly one was only meant for the yolk, while this was meant for real blood.
I would like to inquire for a few moments what this amendment really does mean. If the contention of the right hon. leader of the opposition holds good, that is, that if we are defeated on this vote and ask for a dissolution and it is refused, we resign, then it will mean that the government of the country will go over into the hands of the Conservative party led by the lead'er of the opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: I am glad my hon.
friends see it that way, because that is the way I see it. Furthermore, it might dispel some of the illusions that some people have that some other leader might come to the front on the opposition side, for it is said that others have aspirations in that direction. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, there is no danger of the supremacy of the right hon. leader of the opposition being challenged in this respect by anyone. He will have a lot of good material over there out of which to make a cabinet, so let us be as cheerful as possible under the circumstances. There is no one he will choose quicker than his colleague who site to his right, the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers), a gentleman of well known cabinet material. Like myself and others, he has been in provincial political life' for many years before coming to Ottawa, and is recognized as having left his mark on the political life of Manitoba. I hope in my humble way that I too have left my mark on the provincial life of Saskatchewan. So I do not think the right hon. leader of the opposition will have any lack of material out of which to form a cabinet. It is therefore a fair fight and no favours, and may the best man and the best cause win.
There are far worse prospects than an election, Mr. Speaker. I could ask nothing better than to have a round out of our old traditional Tory friends, but I do not care much for the thought of spending a few thousand dollars in an election campaign in two successive years. I remember back in 1917, again in 1919, and again in 1921, I fought three successive elections, each two

years apart. There is not much money in that, Mr. Speaker, and from that angle I do not think much of the prospect of an election, but from the point of view of results I fear it not.
What would the carrying of this amendment mean in addition to turning the government of this country over into the hands of the Conservatives, led by the right hon. leader of the opposition? It is far better to' look this issue straight in the face and take plenty of time to consider it, than to vote upon it in haste and repent at leisure. Consequently I am not going to be in a hurry. Now I want what this step will mean to percolate into the minds of hon. gentlemen, especially those from the smaller provinces. There are two or three questions which have an important bearing upon it. There is no question but that the tariff is one of the questions. Nearly all our time during this session has been spent in discussing the tariff, and the election campaign to a large extent was fought on that issue. The government have followed up their election promises by making substantial reductions in the tariff not only on automobiles but pasteurizing plants in connection with our dairy industry, milking machines identified with the same industry, and many other articles that I could mention. There is no doubt that the right hon. leader of the opposition-and I say he did it manfully, openly and avowedly-challenged the issue of protection as against our policy of lower tariffs and wider markets. Consequently every hon. gentleman who deliberately throws the government of this country into Conservative hands and into the hands of the right hon. leader of the opposition is voting for a higher tariff and more taxation. There is no doubt about that. If it does not mean that then it does not mean anything at all. What is more, those who placed my right hon. friend in his present position and gave him a large number of seats in Ontario will have won their point. My hon. friends can rest assured of that. And so I say that every man who casts his ' vote for this amendment will be voting for a higher tariff. Had the Conservative party been in power do you think we should have got the present reduction in duties on motor cars? No, Sir, not at all. We may as well look the issue squarely in the face. We are going to have it settled and nobody will be allowed to wriggle out.
There is another very important question that has been before the House. It is one that has been before the country for twenty-five years, and that is the right of the farmers, particularly those in the west, to mar-

Want of Confidence Motion
ket their own grain, in their own way, and through their own channels. I was identified with the fight for that long before I became known in any other capacity. We were forced into the contest by the exigencies of the situation. We had to do it, it was a fight for our lives, and this fight has been going on ever since. Every time the matter came before parliament, and there happened to be a Liberal government in power, we always got some redress in the direction desired ; we always made progress. I impress that upon hon. gentlemen.
Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg:) Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: Are you the member of this House whose name appears in Hansard of last year as voting against the amendment to the Canada Grain Act which is known this session as Bill No. 8?


William Richard Motherwell: It was the motion for the third reading of the bill and I voted for it. Had the wishes of my hon. friend and those.associated with him prevailed the whole bill would have been defeated. I know the exact circumstances and I know what happened. The hon. member has not been long enough in this House to know what was under consideration at that time. I say I voted for the third reading.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will the
hon. gentleman permit me another question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Have I the hon. member's permission?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, well, there is no use putting your feet in it all the time.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The minister, apparently, did not understand the purport of my remarks. I drew his attention to the record1 in the Votes and1 Proceedings of last session when amendments to the Canada Grain Act -were under consideration. It was moved by Mr. Coote, that the bill be not then reported, but be referred back to the committee in order that an amendment exactly in the phraseology of Bill No. 8 might be inserted. The yeas and nays being taken, there appears on record in Hansard the name of Mr. Motherwell as voting against it. I ask if you are that member.


William Richard Motherwell: The question was should the. bill be read a third time or not.


Mr. STEVENS:: No.


William Richard Motherwell: That was the question, and if the bill had not been read a third time its entire purpose would have been defeated. Had the bill gone to committee that would have been the time to vote upon the amendment of Mr. Coote.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh yes, you cannot put me into a false position of that kind; I am not h-alf as green as I look. Let my hon. friend just sit quiet for a little while and . take up something else. I advise him to try something harder next time. Evidently my hon. friend suspected a sore spot was coming. This question was before the committee on Agriculture this year and finally a vote was taken of 54 to 12. Where did those 12 come from? How many Progressives or Independents voted against the Campbell amendment? How many Liberals voted against it? How many Conservatives voted against it? Twelve Conservatives did so. Had there been no Conservative votes the amendment would have passed unanimously. Do you mean to say the bill would not have had a better chance of getting through the upper house if there had not been that Conservative vote against it? There were 54 votes for it and 12 against it. That makes 66 votes. Had the 12 Conservatives voted for the bill that would have been 66 in its favour and none against. Do hon. members think any upper house would have vetoed that bill? Well I hope they will not, but everybody knows they are just tetering on it up there. Nobody can conjecture what the fate of the bill will be. It would have been sure to go through, but true to the traditions of Toryism there were enough of them there in the committee to do the trick.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy) took up another matter. I may say that he was in the cradle when I was working for the farmers' cause. That seemed to take all right. My hon. friends are smiling and we are all smiling and we will give them more along that line. My hon. friend, who was good enough to move this amendment this afternoon-


Mr. TOLMIE:: Will	the hon. minister
permit a question? [DOT]


William Richard Motherwell: Always too pleased to make way for the hon. member.
Want oj Confidence Motion


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Will the minister tell me
how many Tories, as he calls them, voted in favour of that bill in committee?


William Richard Motherwell: Quite a number,
but there would have been none at all if no Tories voted against it. My good friend voted for the bill and quite a number of others, and we quite appreciate it. But the fact remains that if it had not been for the Tories there would have been no vote against it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: WEI the
minister permit another question?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: I think if my hon.
' friend is good to himself he will1 sit down. My hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Davis) yesterday asked that certain papers, documents and reports be tabled here. I intimated that they would all be tabled, except a departmental recital of certain conditions that were found to prevail on the Calgary stock yard. This recital was sufficient to warrant my coming to the conclusion that a thorough investigation was justified, not only into the conditions in the Calgary stockyard, but in reference to every stockyard in 'the west. The hon. member insists that we table that departmental recital and report that were our guidance for action. In whose interests? Was it the cattle pool? Was it the co-operative marketing? Was -it the United Live Stock Growers that were interested, or was the hon.' member trying to embarrass all these activities? It was a partial report; not even one side was heard, and we had not an opportunity to investigate the other side. Imagine wanting a judge to give a decision before half of the evidence was in-hardly any evidence. That is the attitude, whether my hon. friend knows it or not, and that is the hon. member who is challenging us tonight.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: I submit that the hon. gentleman has no reason whatever for intimating what my idea was in asking for answers to my questions. In asking for the report of that investigation, my idea was to see that the officials of his department should do justice in the investigation that was taking place.
Mr, MOTHERWELL: We will do justice. My hon. friend need not perspire about it. When the House understand that the leader of the Conservative party in Alberta is counsel for one who was making the inquiry, he will understand more about it. Mr. MoGillivray

is counsel for the Live Stock Exchange in Calgary, and that is the interest my hon. friend is serving, rather than the United Livestock Growers, whether he knows it or not.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: The hon. minister looks at
me and refers to me as though I were a substitute for the solicitor for that organization. Not until the present moment did I know who was the solicitor. I have never heard from him in connection with this matter. My interest was more along other lines than those suggested by the minister.


William Richard Motherwell: We will take it for granted that it is merely a coincidence. Mr. McGElivray, the Conservative leader in Alberta, is counsel for the Livestock Exchange, and my hon. friend is making an inquiry regarding a complaint they made against the United Livestock Growers. The farmers of Alberta know which side he is on. We find that the policy of the Conservative party is in the direction of the bigger interests and not dn favour of the farmers' rights, you cannot get away from that. I do. not mean to say that I am going to give more 'than justice to the United Livestock Growers: but I am going to see they all get justice, and no report will be made until both sides are heard.
I am sorry the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) is not dn his seat, because I am going to pay a little attention to him. I think I take more fun out of this than anyone else on the other side. It always makes the right hon. gentleman look tired and feel tired when he is jollied a little bit. What will it be when the right hon. leader of the opposition becomes Prime Minister?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: What about the
"ready, aye, ready"? What about his HamE-ton speech? The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, (Mr. Cahan) knows w'hat he said in Toronto criticizing the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition. What did he say at Hamilton? He said he thought it would be best in future, before Canada sent troops abroad, to engage in other wars outside of Canada-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh. oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, oh.


Henry Alfred Mullins: May I ask a question?
Is that a Saskatchewan call?

Want of Confidence Motion


William Richard Motherwell: The report of that speech, which went through the whole of western Canada, reads:
Mr. Meighen stated that in the future it will be best for all that before the government takes a step in the direction of sending troops the will of the people should be known.
What does that mean? In the past we have taken the attitude that the will of parliament should be known, but this speech says distinctly that the people would be bound only by a submission of the question to them in a general election. Do not try to crawfish away from that. You might as well know what you will have to face if you are going to have an election. We may as well rehearse to-night-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Richard Motherwell: A short time before, I think in 1923, at the time of the trouble in the Dardanelles, my right hon. friend was ready to sally forth on the seven seas to fight anything in sight, without knowing what it was about or who was going to be fighting on our side. It was at that time that the right hon. gentleman made his "ready, aye, ready" speech without knowing whether there was going to be war with France or Italy or any other country. He was ready to go out and fight anything on the seven seas without knowing a thing about the matter. That was one extreme. The other extreme was just before the Bagot election-of course that was a coincidence

when he got down on his marrow-bones and was ready to do anything-to go to the people and have an election on the question. In other words he was going to turn this country into almost a civil war in order to determine whether it was to go into a foreign war or not. That is what will be meant, if words mean anything, by this parliament taking the desperate step of putting the affairs of this country into the hands of the leader of the opposition.
It means more than that. If we are to judge from our respective attitudes on the tariff, it means if the Conservatives are returned to power this time they will consolidate the financial and political influence in central Canada, a thing which has been such a bane of the outlying parts of Canada for the last many years. There is no question about that. I have no word to say against the older provinces in many respects. Ontario is my birthplace and I have a great respect for thartr province. But that is not the point. The Maritime provinces have been given some raw deals and the western provinces
right out to the Pacific have been neglected under Tory rule. That is what will happen again if this consolidation of wealth and political power becomes once more centralized in older Canada.
Look at the first step that was taken to consolidate the National railways. Everyone knows how dear to the hearts of the Maritime people was the old Intercolonial railway with its low freight rates. Who took it from them? The leader of the opposition and his party merged it with the Canadian National railway system, making no provision whatever for recognizing the tacit understanding of confederation that there would be such rates on the Intercolonial as would make it possible for them to deal with older Canada. If you take that out of their grievances there is not much left. But that is a very valid grievance. How do I feel so strongly upon that point?


Mr. PRICE:: Will the hon. member allow a question?


William Richard Motherwell: Let me finish. Because the same Tory party did their level best to take the Crowsnest pass agreement from the west and I know how we felt about that. Very little heed was paid to the Maritime provinces in connection with the consolidation of the Canadian National railways. What shall we do?-was that the murmur of my hon. friend across the floor? If my hon. friend has not been asleep all session he must know that we shall be starting in the course of a few weeks to look in a constitutional way into the whole problem of Maritime rights.


Finlay MacDonald: You are slow in starting.


William Richard Motherwell: Do not imitate the chirp of a canary when you are going to say anything. As I say, the result will be the consolidation of financial and political power in older Canada to the detriment of the outlying parts of Canada at this particular stage when we are endeavouring not to hand out anything to the outlying parts, but rather to do mere justice to them in place of the neglect which they have suffered during past years. There is no dream about that; we are doing that to such an extent that we are being charged with being too partial to them. That is not so; we are doing only what should have been done long ago.
I have a great deall of sympathy for the people of the Maritime provinces. I was never more interested than in my short sojourn down there, where I at once sensed thear chief trouble. Indeed one did not require to



Want oj Confidence Motion
be very acute to do so, because it was evident everywhere. It is one of the most interesting parts of Canada and the people of the Maritime provinces are going to defeat any government until they get some of those wrongs righted. No matter how Liberal they may be, they will strike at a Liberal government or a Tory government until somebody comes forward and recognizes that they have a grievance and -makes at least an attempt to rectify or remedy it. I do not think anyone will gainsay that. What 'has brought this about? It is due to neglect by Tory governments dominated by central Canada, and unless the government of the day pays particular attention to the outlying provinces, that centralization is bound to result. Wherever you have wealth and numbers there is bound to be power unless the government of the day recognizes that it must make a special effort to reach out to the younger and smaller provinces. That has not been done in the past, but that is what we are endeavouring to do now. Every man who votes for this amendment is going to stop the progress of our programme in this respect and revert to the old order of things that led to those grievances.
I think I have covered the four of five points that I wanted to deal with. The Conservatives, I observe, are now getting tamer. Two of imy Progressive friends, so far as I could hear, announced their intention to vote for 'the amendment. I have nothing to say about that-; in fact I want to thank all our allies, because it took all our allies and the Liberal party to carry on the affairs of state during the last five or six months. They have supported not so much the government -as the government's programme. Are tihey going to vote against that programme now because the party of the other part will not play? Are they going to expect us to do the impossible? As I pointed out this afternoon, in order to have a marriage you must have two contracting parties. Are you going to ask us to marry ourselves? If a woman is going to -get married and she breaks the contract or for some good reason defaults, is the man going to marry himself? If he is he is going to make a very poor match. Such a match is impossible. I would ask all who contemplate voting for this amendment because they think we should do so-and-so regarding these natural resources, to see how impossible it is for the government, one contracting party, to consummate this contract. If you want to defeat the government, do it on something that at least we Can discuss in this parliament. As regards a possible election I am going to shake hands with my Tory brethren.	.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Good-bye.


William Richard Motherwell: I will reach out my hand to all and sundry and say to you in the words of Macbeth:
Lay on, Macduff,
And damn'd be him that first cries "Hold, enough!"


Mr. A. W. NEILL:: Mr. Speaker, I trust in the few remarks I may make to-night I shall be more successful in keeping in order than I was yesterday. It seems to me there is favouritism shown in this matter. I heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) allude to his friends opposite this afternoon as "thick-headed Tories" and I submit to the judgment of the House whether that is not more offensive than calling people "henchmen". The Minister of Agriculture should in my opinion have been reprimanded. There ought to be the same law for the rich as for the poor.
The resolution before us declares, in the language of the mover, that we should resolve, that this House because of failure to implement promises contained in the Speech from the Throne and for other causes has no longer confidence in the present government.
The question which immediately suggests itself is, what are these promises that have not been fulfilled? The hon. member who moved the resolution was kind enough to indicate one at least, namely, the failure of the government to carry out an agreement to restore to the province of Alberta its natural resources. So far as I know this was certainly not an issue at the general election. It undoubtedly was not an issue in the province of British Columbia, for I cannot recall having heard it mentioned once, either on the platform or in the press at that time. At all events, I received no mandate from my constituents in reference to the matter, and I imagine that most hon. members from that province are in the same position.
This strikes me as a somewhat narrow issue upon which to seek to defeat the government of the day. It has not been featured in the debates of this session. We have hardly heard of it except possibly from one or two men from the province concerned. It reminds me of a woman playing bridge, who persistently bid up hearts at every round until she got up to four hearts and then suddenly switched to five clubs. Why the switch? We have been fed the tariff for five years and especially during the last four months. That was the piece <de resistance of hon. gentlemen opposite. They fed it to us at every political meal ad libitum, not to say ad nauseam, and now suddenly they switch to clubs without notice, and apparently without design.

Want of Confidence Motion
The government claim, with what force I am not entirely in a position to decide, that this is not a matter of refusing to grant the rights demanded; it is merely one of disagreement. It is only a question of delay. In that case it would seem to be an extraordinary step to defeat the government for not being able to carry out an arrangement to which necessarily there are two parties. It is as though we should bring forward a want of confidence motion to turn out the government for having failed to negotiate a reciprocity treaty with the United States at a time when we knew that such a treaty could not be negotiated. I presume the latent motive of the party opposite is the hope of being able to capitalize some dissatisfaction that may exist among the representatives of Alberta and to hang upon that dissatisfaction a resolution by means of which the government may be defeated. Now I would be the last to condemn the attitude taken by some hon. gentlemen from Alberta who spoke this afternoon. It would come with particularly bad taste from me, and in any case in similar circumstances I might be tempted to act in the same way. But without desiring in any way whatever to dictate to hon. gentlemen, I would suggest that they consider the seriousness of their action. Their decision will not be confined to a mere expression of dissatisfaction on their part as regards the natural resources of Alberta; it will mean, if they support the motion, the complete overthrow of the government. And for this they will be responsible and will have to answer to their constituents. However, it is entirely a matter for themselves and, as I say. I would be the last to criticise their point of view.
The motion as it reads, even with the explanation of the mover, is practically a straight vote of want of confidence in the government, and as such it must be met by every hon. member. This is ,the first time there has been brought up this session a want of confidence motion in respect of which my consideration at least can be confined entirely to the merits of the motion itself. Similar motions on previous occasions have had hitched on to them other questions of such of character as utterly to preclude the consideration of the want of confidence aspect. For instance, there was a want of confidence vote in connection with the Australian treaty, and the importance of that treaty to the province from which I come altogether outweighed, in my opinion, any consideration of want of confidence.
I was elected as an Independent four years ago and again last year, although with the bitter opposition of what I may call the 14011-2884
Conservative machine. They were wont to declaim at great length, and with an almost total disregard of accuracy or of veracity, that my independent attitude in the previous four years had been entirely a camouflage and that I \ras decidedly and absolutely a supporter of the Mackenzie King government. Among some of the other things by which they sought to prove this charge, thinking it would hurt me in the election, was the statement that I had always in this House been opposed to any anti-Japanese legislation. When I first heard that charge it amused me, because I knew very well that to anyone who had sat in the last House my attitude was so well known as to be notorious. Anti-Japanese propaganda was as much associated with my name as is Canadian railway consolidation with the name of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) or the hydro question wifh the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). As time went on, however, I found that attention was actually being paid to this charge and in some cases I had to meet it quite distinctly. It was pointed out, for example, that a resolution was brought up in the House on May 8, 1922, asking the government to introduce legislation to exclude further Asiatic immigration into Canada. Hon. gentlemen who were in the House at that time and who were sufficiently interested in the matter will recall that the government of the day put up one of their ministers to move an amendment to strike out the word "exclude" and substitute therefor the words "effectively restrict". There was a long discussion over the amendment and the members from British Columbia held out for the word "exclusion". The government, however, gave diplomatic reasons why in their opinion it was not wise to use a word said to be offensive and one which would hinder materially rather than assist negotiations with the Japanese government by which they hoped to achieve the same end, There was a full dress debate, and members from British British Columbia had a consultation among themselves as to whether they would accept the amendment of the government or not. The government said, "If you will accept this amendment we will put your resolution through unanimously", which was a considerable bait to us from that province who had never been able to put through a resolution so drastic. We had also to face this angle of the situation, that if we did not accept the government's amendment, they might reject the whole resolution. It was a matter for the critical consideration of those who had the interest of the subject at heart. Some
Want oj Confidence Motion

members from the province of British Columbia met in caucus irrespective of party, and the Conservatives declared that they would fight for the word "exclude" if for no other reason than that it would embarrass the government. That was no concern of,theirs. But it was up to us to decide what we should do. Some of us were entirely supporting the government of the day, others, partially so. Well, we met together by ourselves after that, and we had a very serious consideration of this matter which was so vital to us in British Columbia. After a great deal of debate we decided it was of such supreme importance to British Columbia that even at the risk of losing the whole resolution' it became us to oppose the government in the amendment and to vote for the principle of exclusion. I do not know whether we were using the very best judgment when we did that, because it might have imperilled the whole situation. Perhaps the government thought we were playing politics. I recall one of its members saying: Surely the representatives of British Columbia are not going to antagonize the Japanese at the very time when delicate negotiations are going on between the two governments with regard to restricting immigration from that country. * The Conservative members also decided to vote against the government, with the result that backed up by the Progressives and by their own party the government were able to muster a majority of about 110 in favour of the amendment. That was in 1922, and is all recorded in Hansard. Members who were here at that time were as fully aware of the situation as any of those who now hear me, yet in the last general election the allegation was yelled from a hundred platforms that in order to be subservient to the Prime Minister of the day I had voted for the government's amendment and against the resolution in its original form. Of course, anyone familiar with the conditions knew they were speaking absolutely contrary to the truth when they put forward a statement like that. It was absurd on the face of it, and, moreover, there was the record of Hansard to show that I had voted against the amendment. But, Mr. Speaker, a great many people in the country districts and even in the towns, are not familiar with Hansard. They do not know what Hansard is. In this connection I recall an occasion when a friend of mine was trying to persuade a voter against his expressed determination to vote against me because he was being told that I had voted with the government and against this resolution, and he believed it. My friend said, "Neill

voted against the government and for the word exclusion", but the man would not be convinced. He said, "They tell me he voted against the resolution." You know how people often use the indefinite term "they". "Well", my friend said, "I can prove it to you by Hansard." But the man would not 'be convinced and did not want to be convinced, and he retorted, "I don't care if you bring a dozen Hansards, they are probably all Grits anyhow."
Another instance of the kind of propaganda that was developed in that campaign along the line of my record for independence was a statement regarding not what I had done but what I was supposed to have done. A gentleman got up on, the platform and said, "Ladies and gentlemen, I want to reveal to you the real character of this man who poses before you as a would-be exclusionist of orientals. I have here Hansard," and he produced it and explained what it was. "Now," he said, "one of the worst features"-and in that at least he spoke the truth-"of Japanese immigration is the fact"-it is still the fach-"that provided Japanese women can prove by methods of their own that they are the wives of Japanese now in Canada, they can come in and raise families." Of course, that was a far graver danger of Japanese migration than the comparatively small number of males whose entry is restricted by the gentleman's agreement. He explained all that. Then he said, "You realize the importance of restricting the immigration of Japanese women and children, because children also can come in free. Now, let me quote what this man said in Hansard," and he read out words to this effect that I had used when speaking on the subject: "As regards the question of Japanese women and children coming in, I wil not waste the time of the House discussing it, but will go on to another phase of the subject." I did say this. Then this would-be orator declared, "There you are. I have explained to you the vital importance of keeping out these women and children, and yet Neill said in the House of Commons he would not waste the time of the House discussing a matter of that importance." But had my honourable friend-I shudder to call him "honourable"; it goes against my respect for veracity-but had he finished the sentence it would have been to this effect:	"I will not detain the House discussing that phase because I discussed it fully two days ago." Then he would have been doing justice to the situation, but he omitted those qualifying words. He used that subtle kind of suggestion to convery the impression that I was recreant to every promise I had

Want oj Confidence Motion
made to my constituents in that regard. Those hon. members who know the attitude I have taken on oriental immigration throughout the last five sessions will be able to appreciate that form of propaganda.
Now, a very large number of orators were scattered through my district during the campaign. I counted at one time twenty-six, all outsiders. They came from far and near, they were of every kind, colour and description-cabinet ministers, members of parliament, members of the legislature, party leaders, lawyers, shysters, bootleggers, parsons, senators-and curiously enough, Mr. Speaker- "Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon"-when you got those senators out on the platform they proved to be a very ordinary and very decent sort of fellows. Divested of the glamour and atmosphere of their golden chamber, which smells like a cross between a cathedral and a tomb, the average senator is just an ordinary man of very fair appearance and character. We had them there, some of them brought as far as from Winnipeg, whence they were taken back again. Others, I am told, had to be brought from jail-I do not mean senators, I mean some of the other speakers. One slogan was: "A vote for Neill is a vote for the Pope." I trust I may enlist the sympathy of my hon. fr'ends from Quebec should I need a vote on some future occasion, by the record given me in that regard, by explaining to them the somewhat subtle connection between the Pope and myself. I happen to oe a Presbyterian, but that does not matter. This is the way it was worked: "Neill is going to be a willing tool of Premier Mackenzie King; he in turn will be dominated by his Quebec supporters; and they in turn by their religious advisers, and so on, back to the Pope; therefore a vote for Neill is a vote for the Pope." That was solemnly advanced on a number of occasions.
Then again we had our bootlegg'ng friends; they also did their share in their attempt to defeat me. On one occasion I recall going up to a logging camp. I may say that the boys there always treat me very well, and I got wonderful support from them that I will never forget. On this occasion I met with what I thought was a very friendly reception. Later on I heard it stated on the platform: "Ne ll need not think that the men at such and such a camp are going to vote for him; we have been up there and turned the whole bunch around." There were about forty-five votes. It transpired afterwards how they had expected to do it. These parties had gone up there, and some of my friends of a jovial and genial disposition took a few
of them aside and said: "We are not compelled to vote for this old hayseed from Alberni, send us up a couple of cases and it will be all right." The bootlegging department attended to it and the couple of cases were duly despatched, but one of them fell by the wayside, and my health was drunk at some point down the line. The other case did reach the camp with the result that every single vote recorded there was recorded for myself. So I benefited by proxy, at any rate by their efforts. I do not want to be misunderstood at all; I may say that these ac-tivit:es were all exercised by outsiders, people brought in to tell the people of Comox-Albemi not only how they ought to vote, but how they had got to vote. But it did not work worth a cent. I have many warm friends among the Conservatives in the district I represent who voted for me, more who did not, but that has not prevented me being on friendly terms with them, and I still have correspondence with them. I have no complaint to make of the Conservatives, but only of the Conservative machine, operating for the greater part from outside.
I might also suggest, in connection with this question of independence, that perhaps the cabinet of the day and even the Liberal whip would be in a better position to certify to my independence than hon. gentlemen who are onty attacking it for political purposes. I have no doubt that on this occasion I have a chance, in the eyes of my hon. friends opposite, of redeeming my character of independence, proving myself in their eyes a. true patriot, I am sure, and getting a little applause for the moment by announcing my intention of voting against the government and for this amendment. But unfortunately, or fortunately perchance, I am not responsible to hon. members opposite; I am responsible to my own people at home, many of them Conservatives I admit, and that responsibility I propose to meet at the proper time and place, but I do not propose to stultify myself for a moment's cheap applause upon an occasion of this kind.
My deskmate, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), when he was speaking this afternoon, said that this was an occasion on which men like himself, and it applies to me also, could not hold aloof and say: "Well, I am not going to vote Conservative, and I am not going to vote Liberal," because the situation is such that we must make a decision for the moment in favour of one party or the other. My deskmate described himself at one stage of his remarks as being in some halfway situation. I have forgotten the exact metaphor he employed, and he
Want of Confidence Motion

described his situation with his usual wealth of beautiful imagery, which I cannot hope to imitate, but translated into the common vernacular of the man of the street, which is also that of myself, his idea was that he, and I myself, were situated between the devil and the deep sea. Not being a good sailor he thought he would prefer the dangers of water rather than those of fire, and I heartily agree with him in that regard. Further he said, and I wish again to record my endorsation of it, that this was not so much a question of deciding whether he had confidence in this government to my left as it was of showing that he had even less confidence in the party opposite. That is exactly my situation and my point of view in that regard. It is not from any deep-founded confidence in the government-far from it-but rather that I cannot see what object is to be attained by the interests I represent by placing the opposite party in power.
Then, if I should strive to be non-partisan in my attitude-and of course incur the ill will of both parties, the common fate of a man trying to keep the middle of the road or to be a peacemaker-I would ask myself what advantage is to be gained by the country, by the province, or by the district I represent by making a change of government? I think I suggested that idea in a debate earlier in the session, and I was directly informed by hon. members opposite that the advantage would be that they would be in power. That, no doubt, would be a result, but whether it would be a good result remains to be seen. It certainly is not the goal of my ambitions to achieve that, unless there is some specific object to be gained or some benefit that would inure to the country at large.
As regards the country at large, everything points to-day to a revival of business of an enormous and unprecedented character. The trade returns and bank reports are very favourable and very hopeful indeed, and those who are not interested in politics do not hesitate to say frankly that we appear to be on the eve of a revival of business that bids fair to last for a considerable period and be of the very greatest advantage to the country. In that regard,- then, it would be somewhat doubtful, at least, it would be open to considerable criticism, whether it would be wise for us to swap horses, to use a common expression, in midstream. If the country is prospering-we will not say because of this government; that would be too mucn for hon. gentlemen opposite to swallow-but if the country is prospering, let us say, in

spite of this government, or partly both ways, perhaps it would be a good thing to continue the government in power so long as that prosperity appears to be at our door.
As regards the province, and I am speaking now of British Columbia, we have there certain interests which have been vitally affected for the better by some of the legislation of this government. I refer more particularly to the Australian treaty, concerning which we had a vote of want of confidence some few months ago. The Australian treaty, I think it can hardly be denied, has been a very material benefit-and its affects are only beginning to be felt-to the province of British Columbia. It has opened up the Australian market to our fish. I believe that we shall probably control in a very short time the whole Australian market, which is a big and an increasing market, and one of great value to the province of British Columbia. I was reading only yesterday that the fishing industry has gone up very much in the last year. The records are distinctly better than the previous year, and better than ever before in the history of the industry, and getting into the Australian market practically without competition is a matter of great and vital importance to us.
The same is true of the paper industry. That is opening up a tremendous scope in Australia for our business interests in British Columbia, and it will influence and improve business in other lines of activity in the province, such as the pulp industry and the lumber industry, which afford an ever-increasing source of employment " to our workers. There are quite a number of paper mills in British Columbia, roughly about a dozen, and one or two of them have been in deep water, some of them practically in the hands of a receiver, but their affairs are being straightened out again, and they are beginning to operate. Two of them in my own district are going to be manufacturing on an increased scale in the immediate future. Then, again, we have the importation of motor cars into Australia, which will be of benefit to the manufacturers in eastern Canada, rather than to us in British Columbia.
There is another source of business to which we look forward hopefully in the near future under the influence of the Australian treaty. When that treaty was being negotiated an attempt was made, I believe, by the representatives of Canada to secure us a preference on lumber, which would have been of great importance indeed. But the Australians have got one or two ideas very sharply defined, and one of them is that they

Want of Confidence Motion
stand absolutely and entirely for a white population-a white policy-and some organization in Vancouver I believe wired them at the critical moment to say that a great deal of the lumber cut in our saw-
10 p.m. mills in British Columbia was manufactured with the aid of orientals, and that when they were giving a preference to our lumber they were giving a preference to orientally manufactured goods. In consequence of that advice, the negotiators on the Australian side broke off the agreement as regards lumber. An attempt was made to deny that, and the negotiators in Australia then said that when we could show that that was no longer the case, they would be perpared to give us a substantial advantage in the lumber trade, which would be a concession of great importance to us in British Columbia.
Now the local legislature has recently passed an act, called the Minimum Male Wage Act, under which it is proposed to standardize the minimum wage for 90 per cent of the industries of the province. They based that act upon their experience gained under the Minimum Wage Act for women. It has been found the latter act worked out fairly well, with a very small amount of friction and it is now proposed-it is the law and has been for eight months-to make the same provision applicable to men. One of the first industries to be attended to was that of lumbering, and commissioners on behalf of the board that will deal with the situation have been travelling the province accumulating evidence and reports to ascertain what should be the minimum wage for workers in saw mills and logging camps. It is anticipated, of course, that it will be fixed at what 'would be considered a minimum existence wage, with the minimum amount of comfort, for a white workman. If and when that is done, and they expect it will be in less than a month, I think the result will be to discourage the employment of orientals, because an oriental, while he is willing to work for low wages, is incapable in most occupations of doing the amount of manual work in eight hours that a white man can do, and our mills, are running on an eight-hour day now as a result of having passed an eight-hour day law some years ago. So it is hoped and believed by the people of the province that the lumber industry will be regained for our white workers in that way, and when that is done then we will be able to re-open our negotiations with Australia with a view to securing that market also. Of course it is obvious it would be hopeless of our doing so
if there were any interference with the Australian treaty. That is a strong argument why we should not defeat the present government. We have entered into the Australian treaty and we do not want an election at the moment; we want to dig in and make some money now while the making is good. Times have been bad in British Columbia in years gone by and now that prospects are good we want to take advantage of them. That applies as much to the logger as it does to the manufacturer, the canner or the fisherman. We want a chance to be let alone under this treaty to trade with Australia and make some money while the opportunity good. Of course we cannot anticipate the treaty would be left in existence if there were a change of government; it would be either destroyed entirely or materially al-terated. I can gathej- no other expectation from reading the speeches in Hansard of hon. gentlemen opposite, and the fact that there was a vote of want of confidence moved by them framed practically and entirely on the existence of the Australian treaty made by this government. So much for the aspect of Canada as a whole and that of our province.
Let me come now to the district that I represent, the district of Comox-Alberni. By the way, in order to explain the requirements of that constituency I might briefly refer to the platform on which I was elected, and I may say that this is not something personal to myself. It was formulated at a large and very well attended convention called to nominate a candidate on the independent ticket. Most of it was formulated before I was actually nominated, especially the first clause which reads as follows:
1.	In the event of the return to power of either a Liberal or a Conservative government the nominated candidate will be pledged to support any constructive legislation brought in by either party if it is in the best interests of Comox-Alberni and British Columbia generally.
Then follows the platform which I will read. The idea, of course, was that I would support a Conservative or a Liberal government if it was formed1, provided they would1 accept the salient points of the platform that we were interested in, and which that representative meeting agreed were our most important requirements. I have in consequence not only pressed the items of this platform on the government of the day, but have also kept close watch on the utterances of hon. gentlemen opposite to see how much of that programme I could reasonably expect to see carried out had they, or did they,

Want of Confidence Motion
or should they get into power. Here follows the remainder of the programme:
2.	Fisheries (a) That there be no close season for salmon trolling and cod line fishing on the west coast of Vancouver island.
That has been adopted.
(b)	No increase of trap licenses.
That also, I think, is clearly settled.
(c)	Continuance of the policy of gradually restricting fishing licenses to White British subjects and Indians, native of British Columbia.
That has also been going on gradually for four years now, and I am glad to say that we recently adopted a resolution in the committee on Marine and Fisheries recommending to the government that it should be finally carried out under an agreement extending over the next ten or practically eleven years. Theoretically it would take eleven years, but the representatives of the cannery men who are most concerned have agreed in a very fine spirit indeed to accept the situation and to make no further protests. They were opposed to the way in Which it was done at the initial stage fearing they might be handicapped by the lack of white operators. . They have now accepted) it. They say the time allowance is ample, and they propose to co-operate by making efforts to get a supply of white fishermen. They expressed the view, or at least their representative did, that restricting the fishing to whites and native Indians will be carried out in the short period of four or five years, because once the provision was in working order there would be little trouble in getting the few additional white men. That, of course, is a very gratifying thing to us in the west, knowing as we do the importance of restricting the oriental invasion and also because we want-some of us at least do so -to see the growth of a white native population of fishermen from which in case of war the navy, such as we have, could be recruited. The third item is:
3.	Immigration. Absolute exclusion of Asiatics.
That, of course, is the object we seek to achieve, and it has already been met, practically in its entirety, as against the Chinese element. Negotiations are still going on to arrive at an amicable settlement, because we would like it to be amicable, with Japan. She has great trade interests in us and we have in her, and if we can avoid it, we do not want to adopt any drastic or harsh measures against Japan. The negotiations are proceeding, I think in a satisfactory way. In fact I would have been this afternoon at a meeting where I expected to hear some

further information on the subject had this debate not come up. Now the next item is:
4.	Labour.-An Act or resolution establishing the right of his industrial freedom to every citizen of Canada to bargain for his services.
Hon. members may, perhaps, recall that I introduced a resolution, which passed the House some months ago, carrying out the spirit and the purpart of that clause in the platform. The next item is:
Dominion assistance to the provinces to pass an old age pension act.
As we know, that has been carried out to the very fullest extent, I think, that could have been expected by this government. I think those who were interested in the success of an act of that character-who were generally interested in it and worked for it during the last parliament-will admit that the bill brought down this session was a very genuine attempt to meet the situation. Some of us thought it did not go far enough, but it wa6 founded on a belief that the best way to start was to start slowly, in a moderate way, and if necessary increase the pace later. We know the lamentable fate that worthy act has met in another place. A consideration of what should be done in the premises will not be out of place, perhaps, for a moment or two. If I had any influence with the government of the day, or with those who are disposed to assist in the passing of an act of that kind, I would suggest and urge the government not to remain satisfied with the present position.
I am aware-we are all aware-that a bill which has once passed this House and been rejected in another place cannot be introduced again at the same session, but my first thought, and the thought of some of our friends, was: Well, let us stay here and re-enact it as., a protest against the fate it has received. But we found, as I have said, that it could not be passed in the same session. Well there is a solution of that problem which might be easy of achievement. This session will end up possibly in a couple of weeks. There is nothing to prevent the government of the day winding up this session and calling another session the day alter. An arrangement could be made under which we could not draw our sessional indemnity for the second session, and if somebody insisted on drawing it he would only draw the proportion of the indemnity for the few days we would be sitting. I might even extend that point of view further and point out to hon. members that if there were a further curtailment of our rights and privileges in this House-not merely the old age pension bill,

Want oj Confidence Motion
but any other legislation that falls by the wayside in the Senate-the legislation might be re-enacted, in order to show that we were [DOT] sincere in this matter, and that we were protesting against the action taken in regard to this measure and others which were in a similar position.
The next item reads:
Revaluation where required of lands held under the Dominion Soldier Settlement Act.
When that was put in it seemed to me almost a forlorn hope. The government had turned it down in the last parliament, and appeared to have the support of a large number of members behind them in their action. I recall that when the matter was going through, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) announced that he would grant an abatement of a certain proportion of the value of the stock purchased in certain years, but he expressed his determination, and that of the government, that he would not contemplate any proposal to revalue the land, Which a number of us held was an absolute essential to the settlement of the question. Representations were made in reference to the value of land by three members on that side-I was one; the then member for Selkirk, Mr. Bancroft, was another and the member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) was the third- that, injustice would result, and we made out such a strong case in reference to our particular districts that the Minister of Finance promised at least to have a valuation made by his own employees in the department before another session, to ascertain how bad the situation was in that regard. I may say that so far as my district is concerned the government implemented their promise. A very able and skilful man came out, with no local affiliations at all; he handled the situation very carefully, and I believe his report was and will be of great value to the government in dealing with this matter. We heard a great deal here and in another house with reference to the expense of these boards created to handle the revaluation of the land. I do not think there will be any great trouble so far as the district of Comox-Alberni is concerned, because the report of this gentleman, Mr. White, is of a character that will commend itself to the government, to the board, and to the men themselves. It is a source of great satisfaction to us in the district that the government have passed an act almost exactly as we required it to meet the situation in our districts. There was some divergence of opinion as to the minor details, but I think the great bulk of the soldiers in that district and in British Columbia generally will be satisfied with the act as it is framed, if it goes through and is not badly handled in another place. A resolution was sought to be passed by some organization, not a soldier settler board but a veteran organization in Vancouver, by which they suggested that the method of revaluation adopted by the government was unsatisfactory and that the proper way was to grant a remission of interest. There was an outstanding and fatal objection to that. Of course it would save the expense of boards, but probably it would not do so in the end because the reduction of the interest to everybody would mean a greater expense than that proposed in the bill. But the rank injustice would be this: that everybody would get a comparatively small sum of money, so small that it would not be of much use. or it could not be done at ail. It would mean a little pocket money for a day or perhaps a week, but there would be the other side of it, that everybody would get a small remission-and everybody would take it of course; but it would be a present for many people who do not really want it and would not think of asking for revaluation, because they happen to be in fortunate circumstances, having got a good farm perhaps, or having 'bought right, as they say; or local conditions may have increased the value of their lands. These people know they would get nothing under the revaluation. A convention was held in Vancouver. You know that when you hold a convention in a town there are always more delegates and representatives in the convention from the neighbourhood than from districts where people have to travel a very considerable distance to attend. And it has been suggested that the reason of that attempt to upset the proposition of the government was that that convention held in Vancouver would be more largely attended by farmers from the Fraser valley, which is the garden of British Columbia and perhaps the garden of Canada. They have rich land there and good farms; if a man could not make a success out there he could not do it anywhere. The men in that district would know that they had nothing to hope for from a revaluation. Perhaps I am wrong in suggesting this, but it seems to me the motive that actuated them was. "We will try and switch in a new system under which we can get some benefit". That was very human and natural, but not fair, because the result would be they would get a remission of interest amounting to a considerable sum in the course of time, while the men who are up against it, the men
Want oj Confidence Motion

who, on account of wrong buying or of accident, or of the high prices at the time, got struck on land not worth half the amount they paid for it would get practically nothing at all. Those are the very men that the government and that this House wanted to keep on the land, because if you tell a man who has paid $2,000 or 50 per cent too much for his land, that he will not have to pay any interest on that extra 50 per cent, it is not going to aid him or encourage him to stay on the land. I hope if there are any changes in this bill in another place that the main principle will not be altered.
I observe with great satisfaction the fact that the government of the day undertook the revaluation of the land, not only in my district, but throughout Canada, and I believe it will form a satisfactory solution of the question that only got worse the longer it was delayed.
Another plank in the platform, which is number seven is:
A business administration of public expenditures resulting in reduced taxation.
I am pleased to be able to say that we foresaw the budget of this session when we put that plank in the platform-a business administration resulting in reduced taxation. It might have been better administered and result in greater reduction of taxation, I admit, but it has gone along lines we wished and desired when we drew up the platform.
Then the next plank is number eight:
Consolidation of Dominion and provincial income tax ahd abolition of all unnecessary government returns.
I believe that matter was debated at the conference of the premiers the other day. As regards unnecessary returns, some of them have been cut off, but it is very hard to divorce an official from his return. If he is supposed to get out or send out that return, he will fight to the last ditch before he will allow us to strike from it even one foolish or unnecessary question.
The ninth plank is:
A federal inheritance tax on large estates.
That is popular perhaps in some places, but it does not seem to be popular in this blouse and still less would it be popular in the other house. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has championed it before now. Some people take exception to it on the ground that it would tend to keep people from coming to live in this country, and to make them go to someplace where their estates would not pay duty. But I do not think there is a very great danger in that. People will generally go

where conditions please them or very commonly where they have relations and friends. As a rule a man in his declining years wants to secure some comfort or enjoyment for himself. He is not going to an inhospitable place and to live in uncomfortable conditions even if by so doing he is going to save some estate taxes for those who come after him. I do not think the average man of large estate is so self-sacrificing on behalf of his successors as that.
The same argument was brought forward. I recall, when the British death duties, which is the name they give to the succession duties there, was first introduced many years ago in Great Britain. It was said that it would lead to all kinds of evasions; that men would give away their estates in their lifetime to their children and friends and thereby evade the act. That was carried out to some extent but to a much less extent than was anticipated, and finally it practically almost disappeared. For one thing the government inserted in the bill a clause making it retroactive to the extent of, I think, three years. That is, if a man gave away his money to his children and died within three years his estate still had to pay the tax. The element of human nature also entered into the situation. It was found that even old men sometimes changed their minds; they gave away their estates to their children and afterwards conditions sometimes arose under which they wanted to get their estates back again. They did not always get them back and a few dreadful examples of that kind discouraged the practice.
I recall one wealthy man, a widower, who gave away his estate amongst his children A few years afterwards he chose to get married again; but his childen did not think it was necessary for him to get married, and they declined to give him back any money except a bare subsistence for himself. A few examples of that kind discourage others from doing the same thing. There is nothing wrong in the principle involved in this plank and 1 believe this country could very well adopt a federal inheritance tax. There may be inheritance taxes in some provinces, but they are on a small scale. I think I figured it out on one occasion that if we adopted in Canada a similar federal tax to that prevailing in New Zealand, we would have from that source alone an income of about $3,000,000 a year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I rise to a point of order. Coming into the House I thought we were discussing the amendment to the motion for committee of Supply. My hon.

Want oj Confidence Motion
friend is discussing the laws of inheritance tax, and it seems to me the discussion should have something to do with the question before the House.


Alan Webster Neill: I am speaking to the point of order. My hon. friend deprived himself of the opportunity or pleasure of hearing my opening remarks. Perhaps I had better begin again so that he may get the correct thread, because, if he had been present all the time, he would not have raised that point of order. I was proceeding along a logical and well thought-out line of thought until he butted in. I will explain what it was. I was dealing with my anticipated attitude as an Independent on this vote of want of confidence. I was going into my record as an Independent. I was dealing, and I think rightfully, with the ambitions and aspirations which the people who sent me here entertained when they elected me. They drew up a simple platform in which there were only twelve items. I have reached the tenth now, and the hon. gentleman is a little late in the day in interrupting me. I consider I am logically carrying out my line of thought by explaining to the House the purposes for which I came here. There is plenty of time, and if the hon. member will give me time I will explain at some length what success I have met with in connection with those particular and individual items. In fact that is what I am doing now. I conceive that I am thoroughly in order and that the hon. gentleman ought to apologize.
'Sir HENRY DRAYTON: I do not rise in the first instance for the purpose of apologizing, but again addressing myself to the point of order. I thought we were discussing a resolution to call in question the breach of promises by this government. I did not know that we were discussing a resolution which had to do with a platform on which the hon gentleman got himself elected in the last election. I am perfectly aware that the whole-idea of the discussion is to kill time.


Alan Webster Neill: I profest.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am merely
raising a point of order to be disposed of by the Chair.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I submit that the amendment is so indefinite and broad that any hon. member can discuss the policies of the government generally. It reads:
That Mr. Speaker do not now leave the chair, but that it be (resolved that this House, because of failure to implement promises contained in the Speech from the Throne-
That is one thing that is definite.
-and for other causes.
I should like to know what is the idea in the mind of the hon. member who used those last four words. They might take us back to the deluge.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That would be a matter of government policy.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The hon. gentleman says: For other causes I have reason to say this or that. The amendment was drafted not from this side of the House, but from the other, and it leaves the door wide open for any hon. member to discuss policies generally.


Hewitt Bostock: I think the hon. gentleman is 'in order. This- amendment is very wide in its range. It reads:
That Mr. Speaker do not now leave the chair but that it be resolved that this House, because of failure to implement promises contained in the Speech from the Throne and for other causes has no longer confidence in the present government.
Any hon. member speaking on this amendment can very well say that the government has or has not implemented the promises made in the Speech from the Throne. As regards the other causes, any member who has been elected to the House on certain pledges he took before his electors might very well say: The government has not seen fit to implement the promises that I as its supporter made or that I as its opponent made. Therefore that opens 'a very wide vista. Of course as much as possible hon. members must keep within the bounds. This is a motion of want of confidence, and if it is carried the hon. gentleman who is speaking will be sent back to his electors. Before he is sent back he wants to show cause why he should not be sent back. On the whole I think the hon. gentleman is in order.


Alan Webster Neill: I thank the hon. gentleman
for the opportunity of rest he gave me, and I will accept the apology I see in his eye, even if he does not express it. He knows I was perfectly in order anyway, but out of his goodness of heart he wanted to give me a moment's respite. I did feel somewhat aggrieved when he made the suggestion-I am sure he could not have been referring to me- about killing time. I am quite sure the hon. gentleman would not suggest that I was killing [DOT]time, for there are many methods by which that may be done which would be far more exhaustive than any discussion of the subject I am now considering. I could for example, give him, if I wanted to kill time, a short resume of the character of Moses, or I might
Want oj Confidence Motion

touch upon the record of Jeremiah. I assure the hon. gentleman I have no desire to kill time, and with that assurance I shall proceed with my remarks, if he will keep quiet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the very fact that the hon. gentleman suggests a character sketch of Moses and an excursion into the record of Jeremiah is evidence of a desire to kill time. Now, in connection with the point of order-*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am speaking to the point of order.


Mr. POWER:: I rise to a point of order.
The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has no right to impute to the hon. gentleman who has the floor any improper motives whatever, and to suggest that that hon. gentleman is merely killing time is to impute such a motive.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker-


Charles Gavan Power: I insist upon my point of
order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would be
improper to accuse the hon. gentleman of killing time if it were not for the fact that the train comes in at one forty-five. However, I take it, in view of the ruling of the Chair that the hon. gentleman would be perfectly in order if he undertook to discuss Moses and Jeremiah.


Hewitt Bostock: It is not permissible to
charge any hon. member with obstructing the business of the House. It will, I think, be assumed that the suggestion that a member is "killing time" is tantamount to a charge of obstruction. The expression is, of course, a mild one, but inasmuch as it is open to a more serious construction I must rule it out of order.


Alan Webster Neill: I certainly had no desire
whatever to kill time, Mr. Speaker. I have a simple message which I wish to convey to the House, but owing to the interruptions of my hon. friend I am afraid it will be some time before I get on to the thread of my argument again. I come now to section 10- there are only three more-justice to British Columbia-If any man may not on this occasion express the urgent importance of justice to his own district, I do not know when he can. This is the section in question:
Justice to British Columbia in the matter of railway rates, particularly on wheat from the prairies for domestic use.

May I dwell for a brief, fleeting moment on that aspect of the subject in view of hon. gentlemen's ignorance of the situation? You have heard a good deal about railway rates, but I do not propose to go into that subject which is really a side issue. In any case it is of such vast extent that it would be beyond the scope either of my ability or of the time at my disposal to-night. We in British Columbia are large consumers of wheat particularly for chickens. We have large poultry farms on some of which there are from 5,000 to 10,000 birds, and we use considerable quantities of chicken feed. The principal source of supply, apart from a limited quantity obtained in the fall from the Okanagan valley, is the prairie country and transportation is high. By the time therefore that the wheat reaches us, the price is so prohibitive as to make profitable egg production hard. Representations have been made from time to time by the province of British Columbia, and on one occasion we spent $50,000 in an effort to bring the matter to a successful conclusion before the Board of Railway Commissioners and the government of that day. It has been under consideration on various occasions and we have been given some measure of relief, but not enough. As a result of our representations a reduction in freight rates was ordered but unfortunately they were only of a partial character That is to say, they were reduced on export wheat only, so that wheat shipped to China, Japan or Liverpool from the prairies went at the lower rate, while the same wheat destined for use in British Columbia was refused the concession. On two occasions there was a reduction in the rates, but in neither case was it made applicable to wheat for domestic use. If I mistake not the difference is $4.10 a ton on domestic wheat.
There is another feature which accentuates our grievance in this regard. The reduced rate on export wheat applies to numbers one, two, and three wheat exported for manufacture into flour in these foreign countries. The wheal we use for chicken feed would grade at the highest four, sometimes five and six. You can export number one, worth perhaps $2 a bushel to Vancouver from Medicine Hat at a certain rate, whereas if you want to ship a grade four degrees below that, worth only 50 or 30 per cent of the higher article, you are bound to pay $4 a ton more for carrying it to British Columbia. It may be suggested that the cost of handling the car for British Columbia is greater. Nothing of the kind. A train that takes twenty or thirty carloads of wheat of

Want of Confidence Motion
one grade for export can take the same quantity of the other, and there are ample facilities for switching to the various private elevators in the case of wheat destined for use in the province. There is therefore no reason why we should suffer this gross discrimination. It puts us in most invidious and unfair competition with the people of China, Japan and other foreign countries. Why, you can actually deliver wheat in China from Moose Jaw at a cheaper rate than you can deliver it in Vancouver. If that is a defensible situation I should like to hear it defended. It might be argued that it is a matter of terminal or competitive rates; it might be said that water competition enters into the question. This is true where both rail and water transportation are involved, it may sometimes be necessary to fix a competing price on the railways to meet the price at which the article can be transported by water. Under those conditions you sometimes find the apparent anomaly of a freight rate higher from the point of origin to an intermediate point than it would be for the full journey to the terminal where it would meet water competition. But no condition like that arises here. There is no water competition from Medicine Hat or from Moose Jaw to Vancouver; in both cases it is purely a rail haul. The discrimination cannot be defended; we should not have to pay a freight rate that makes our wheat dearer to us than to the egg producer in China, who is thus encouraged to send his eggs over here to compete with our eggs in British Columbia and eastern Canada. That is why that plank was put in the platform. My protest may be falling on deaf ears at the moment, because it is perhaps more a matter for the Board of Railway Commissioners to deal with, but it will be brought up by the province of British Columbia, and if it is decided adversely to our interests, I have no doubt it will be laid before the executive body of this government by way of appeal. Then I hope the hon. premier and the other members of his government will remember this explanation of the subject.
The next item reads as follows:
The continuance of the legislation against the importation and sale in Canada of oleomargarine.
That is an old and a sore subject with us in the west. Most members of the old parliament will recollect the fight that was made in the sessions of 1922 and 1923 to forbid the further introduction of oleomargarine and its sale and manufacture in Canada. That fight was led by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), and well he justified his
place in the government in that respect. His strong sympathy, his active support and the attitude he took on more than one occasion saved the day ultimately for the Canadian dairy farmer, and we in British Columbia generally and in our district particularly are very much opposed to anything that would favour the introduction of oleomargarine once again. Perhaps in that will be found some explanation of the fact that the dairymen of British Columbia as a whole, and of the Comox-Alberni district in particular, have not made the violent protest that has been made in some other sections of the country against the provisions of the Australian Treaty. They realize they were treated fairly when the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine was suspended, and they thought the consumer perhaps should be given an opportunity in certain months of the year to get his butter at a price that would keep it within the limits of his purse. I do not say that our dairy farmers approve of the provisions of the Australian Treaty in that particular, but that point was considered in connection with it; and further, we have the advantage of the growing markets in our immediate vicinity, promoted by the conditions of the Australian Treaty in the way of lumber camps, pulp mills, and so on.
The last item in the programme is simple and easily understood:
In tariff matters to be guided by the necessities of the industries located in the district.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a simple plank, and yet one capable of a wonderful expansion of thought. Perhaps it explains why I have been criticized at certain times in this House as being willing to vote one day for protection and another day for free trade. I have been told I was inconsistent in that regard. Possibly I was from a tariff point of view, but I was consistent to the ideals and interests of the people that I represent, who are not nearly so much concerned as to which party shall be in power, or whether this party advocates high tariff and some other party low tariff, as they are concerned with the immediate results of the tariff today on the industries in which they are engaged. Therefore the provisions of that plank enable me, as I say, to advocate protection where I see it is necessary for any of our struggling industries, and also under other conditions to advocate free trade.
The other day in connection with the committee dealing with the coal supply of Canada, on behalf of the coal miners and owners of our district I put forward a plea for an increase of the duty on fuel oil, explaining
Want of Confidence Motion

that t'he competition of this commodity had nearly driven our mines on Vancouver island out of business, and that unless some relief was provided I was afraid of What the ultimate results might be. They are deep mines, somewhat costly to work, and in some cases being under the sea hon. members from the Maritime provinces will know what that means in added expense. We have suf-ferred very severely from the competition of fuel oil. It galls us to see millions of money going into the States to bring back this product, which is of no use when it is brought here, except for the actual purpose of fuel for locomotives and steamboats. It is not as if we were sending those large sums of money out in order to bring in some raw material that we could manufacture. Yet when I was making that plea before the committee, this platform enabled me also to say that if the opposition of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and allied interests, both railways probably, steamboat companies, and so on, made it impossible for the committee and this government to entertain the idea of an increased duty on fuel oil, then we were quite willing and able to take the reverse position and say:	If you
cannot give us protection, give us free trade. We were quite willing to accept that horn of the dilemma. It would work out in this way. The duties on coal are the only ones in the American tariff which are entirely on what is known as a reciprocal basis-not a basis by which they can be changed by representations to the President of the United States; it is embodied in the tariff act itself. The wording of it is like this:
That the duty on Canadian coal entering the States will be at all times the same as the duty which Canada imposes on the same class of American coal entering Canada.
A distinction is made not only between coal but between classes of coal. So we find Canada has no duty on anthracite coal because we want it to come in, and therefore there is no duty on our anthracite coal, if we had any, going into the States. As we know, the duty on bituminous coal is now 50 cents a ton, and therefore of course the United States have a corresponding duty of 50 cents a ton against our coal. At one time we had quite a large market for our domestic coal in the cities on the Pacific seaboard of the United States, but we lost that partly on account of the competition of fuel oil, no doubt, but also on account of this duty. If it was taken off and we had free trade in coal, that would mean our coal would be priced in San Francisco 50 cents a ton less than it is to-day, and we would be able to

regain part of the large market that we lost in years gone by. That of course would be a very desirable thing for us. I think an increased duty on fuel oil probably would be a greater advantage. But if we could not get the one we were willing to accept the other. I am afraid that might meet with opposition from my Nova Scotia friends, but I am only advocating the views and the distressed condition of the coal miners in my own district.
That completes the brief resume of the platform which was formulated at the convention and to which I was expected to devote my best energies and my constant attention to get carried into legislation. I was not particularly hampered by being instructed to' observe that there was any particular tag on the party that put such legislation into effect. The first plank in the platform says that it is up to me to support that legislation by whatever party or interest it is introduced.
Now, briefly expressed, these are some of the advantages that have accrued to the district I represent by the present government being in power: Soldiers' revaluation-a great boon; old age pensions; the negotiations Which are going on steadily and the promise .made as regards further restrictions of Japanese immigration. The rural credits bill is also one to which we look forward with a great deal of hope. These were all good bills and conceived in a spirit that we think will make them applicable and serviceable to the district I represent.
Mr. Speaker, it has been alleged that political gratitude is an almost unknown quantity and is best characterized as a lively sense of favours yet to come. From that point of view, dismissing the past, I might say:	We
have got these things out of this government, and we can now affoid to be indifferent to their politcal fate; what they have given they cannot take away; let us look then rather to the future and see what we can hope to attain by perpetuating the lease of power of this government, or on the other hand, by putting some other party into power. Some of the things that we wish for and want badly I will just briefly mention.
I did not refer to it before, because I was dealing along the lines of our platform, and it was not a part of our platform, but we appreciate the reduction that has been made in the duty on motor cars. That is a thing that I find by letters and 'correspondence has been very and .peculiarly acceptable to the people I represent. Because of our conditons there, and for various reasons that I need not

Want of Confidence Motion
go into, we are large users of motor cars- more particularly of the cheaper variety. The motor car has gone almost 'beyond the stage of being a luxury; it has become almost an essential to many our residents. Everybody in business, every farmer, and'many other people, are almost compelled to have a motor car, even though it is of the cheaper variety, and the reductions in duty that have been enacted by the present government appeal to us very strongly. For that reason we are interested in the fate of the government inasmuch as we do not want to see these reductions destroyed or taken away. But what could we expect, if there is a 'change of government and our friends opposite are put -into power, but that the old duties will be reenacted. I think we can be fully justified in anticipating that, because we have listened to over a month now to philippics and fulmin-ations dealing with the improper action of the government in taking those duties off, and it is almost impossible to conceive that our friends opposite would foe so lost to their past pledges and statements, and so stultify their actions and their words in this House, as not immediately to re-enact those duties of the removal of which they have complained so bitterly in the past several months.
Then again, we in the Comox-Alberni district, in fact, all over but particularly in that section where we are engaged in dairying, but it applies to the consumer in the small town as well, particularly do not want to see the re-introduction of the manufacture and sale of oleo; and what can we believe but that if our friends opposite get into power a measure of that kind would be immediately introduced, because we know that the chief protagonist of that industry being allowed into Canada was the ex-Minster of Agriculture; in fact, I think at onle time when he was sitting on this side of the House he introduced a bill making its continued sale lawful for all time to come, and his vote and the strong, forcible, logical speeches that he made in sunpor't of allowing oleo to be manufactured and sold in Canada have convinced us in our district that if his friends get into power, in which event, of course, he will be Minster of Agriculture, one of his earliest actions would be to permit the manufacture and safe of oleo ontce more. For that reason a large section of us at least would be sorry to see this government go out of -power.
Again, we are unwilling to see this government go out of power because we believe, if we can take the statements of lion, gentlemen opposite at their face value-and I would
not pretend to do anything less-that if they got into power the Australian treaty would be mutilated, if not entirely destroyed, and that treaty, as I have already said, is one of the most vital things British Columbia can have. It may be said: They will not monkey with the Australian treaty; British Columbia need not be afraid. In that case they will be false to the statements they have made in this House and to the spirit which animated them when they moved a motion of want of confidence in the government on the Australian treaty It is true that that particular vote of confidence, as I pointed out at the time, was rather subtly worded. It only condemned the government for their actions in connection with certain treaties, but did not specifically mention the Australian treaty. I pointed that out at the time. But I also remember noticing and pointing out that the hon. member who introduced the resolution-just as did my hon. friend in introducing his resolution here to-day, when he immediately proceeded to explain that the spirit of it was the natural resources of Alberta-the hon. member who introduced this other motion of want of confidence in connection with the treaties, while he only spoke of trade treaties in his motion, in his opening sentence and in every sentence thereafter expressed his abhorrence and objection to the Australian treaty as such, and the determination of himself and his friends to do away with it at the earliest possible moment. We cannot conceal these facts from ourselves; we must look forward and anticipate them, and realize that the day that this government- goes out of power will be the death knell of the Australian treaty so far as British Columbia is concerned.
There are many other things that we want to obtain in the future. There is, for instance, and this is something that is very strongly favoured by my Progressive friends opposite, and also by the Labour representatives to my right-I think we are all a unit in asking for the introduction of the transferable vote; and there is nothing more certain, if the party opposite gets into power, than that we shall never get it, because we have that position set forth over the signature of the right hon. leader of the opposition. He and his party have a perfect right to entertain such views in that regard, if they see fit, but we cannot escape, and they cannot escape, the knowledge and the responsibility that they hold such views, and therefore if they get into power we at the lower end of this House might as well give up all hope of seeing the transferable vote introduced, which is a matter that is very dear to a large number especially of the labour element in Canada, because they feel
Want of Confidence Motion

they have not got justice in the past in their representation, and that if we had the transferable vote in the single member seats some step would be taken towards remedying that evil. At least, Mr. Speaker, with the transferable vote we would not have the spectacle of hon. members sitting in this House representing sometimes only 25 per cent of their electors. It is for that, and other reasons that I need not go into, that we think it is highly desirable that we should have the transferable vote, and we know that our only hope of getting that-and I am not sure that it is a very strong hope at that-
11 p.m. is to keep the present government in power.
Our aspirations are also strongly along the line of old age pensions, and we hope and believe that the government will take further steps in that regard. I commend to the government the remarks I have already made about holding a short session at the close of this one, and passing that act again, if it is only as a protest against the action of the other House, to show that we are determined that that legislation sooner or later shall be carried into effect. When we recall the language used by hon. gentlemen opposite in speaking of this old age pension measure-on the very last occasion it was up in the House it was described in the classical language of hon. gentlemen as a washout, abortive, disappointing, and so on-we can hardly expect to find those hon. members eating their words and stultifying themselves in passing an old age pension measure. That is another reason why we believe it would be better to maintain the present government in power.
Now, not so much for failure in the line of government policy, or government legislation, but having regard to certain departmental failures and neglects, there has been more than one occasion during this session when I could and would have lent a very willing ear to a proposition to replace the government by my hon. friends opposite. I kept a very close watch on the discussions that went on to see how much we could expect of the policies to which I was pledged if hon. gentlemen opposite succeeded in reaching the treasury benches. But I must say that the experience has been one of disappointment. Keeping in mind the platform to which I have given expression to-night I could not find that I was going to get a great deal of sympathy from hon. gentlemen opposite if they were placed in power. I have kept in close touch with my constituents, it being a country seat; I believe it to be not only my interest but my duty to do so. I have kept in close touch

with every section of my constituency. Letters reach me sometimes containing the declaration, "I did not vote for you and I will never vote for you" but the writers always get a courteous reply. In that way I am at least in touch with the spirit of the people I represent, and having kept my ear well to the ground this session as in previous sessions I cannot find any warrant from any body or any element in those people, more particularly from those who supported me in the campaign, entitling me to throw out the government of to-day for the sake of the party opposite, more especially on an issue of this kind which professes to be wholly in regard to the resources of the province of Alberta, and particularly when we consider that the attitude of the government is not one of refusal, such as was the attitude of the other House in the case of the old age pensions bill, but merely one of delay. Whatever weight there may be in the government's argument it is a matter of disagreement, and you can hardly vote want of confidence in a government because the other party to the contract has not agreed with it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have finished my few brief remarks. I am sorry I could not have condensed them, but this is a matter of moment, a matter of great moment. Possibly some of us members sitting here will never again have an opportunity of addressing this House, and I feel at least that I have endeavoured to express in such poor language as I could and to the best of my ability, the wishes, aspirations and desires of the people I represent.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I find that this amendment reads as follows:
Moved by Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Quinn:
That Mr. Speaker do not how leave the chair but that it be resolved that this House, because of failure to implement promises contained in the Speech from the Throne, and for other causes, has no longer confidence in the present government.
In this amendment are to be found two very different propositions. One is that the government has failed to implement promises contained in the Speech from the Throne; the other is that for other reasons the government should be turned out of power. These two propositions need a definite and distinct answer, and I will try, in the few moments I propose to address the House, to show, first, that there has been no failure to implement the promises contained in the Speech from the Throne, and secondly, that the confidence of the House should not be withdrawn from the government for any other causes.

Want of Confidence Motion
As to the first proposition, I suppose the mover of the amendment holds that when a government presents a speech from the throne it is bound to adhere to that speech and not deviate from it. I wish to submit to you that if that principle is a correct one, and I doubt it, it has never been followed in the application. Furthermore I affirm that the present administration has adhered to its promises more closely than any previous administration has done. I was present in the House this afternoon when the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) charged the government with not having fulfilled its 'promises as set forth in the Speech from the Throne. May I remind the right hon. gentleman that he was a member of a government which not only did not fulfil its promises contained in the Speech from the Throne but introduced into the House matters that were absolutely foreign to that speech. It will be recalled that there were two sessions of parliament in 1919. The second session, which met two months after the close of the first session, was called, according to the Speech from the Throne, in order to ratify the Peace treaty. It was thought that ratification was a necessary proceeding in connection with bringing the war to a conclusion. Was that not a definite condition under which parliament was summoned? There was no reason, outside of that, for convening parliament, because the previous session had been brought to a close only two months before. What happened when the second session opened? The Peace treaty was ratified because it was not a contentious matter, and everybody was in accord with the idea. But after the ratification of the Peace treaty the right hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition brought in a bill for the acquisition of the Grand Trunk railway, which had not been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, a piece of legislation of a most momentous character in which the people were concerned not to the extent of one or two millions but to the extent of hundred of millions. Now was there anyone at that time who would say that the treaty of peace should not be ratified by parliament? Surely not. After many months of discussion in Europe, and after England had accepted the treaty, it was brought to Canada, and the parliament of Canada was asked to agree to it. I say, therefore, that the reason that session was convened was a very slight one indeed, but the real reason for calling parliament was to consider a bill to acquire the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada at a price of approximately $400,000,000 of the money of the people of Canada. And H0U-289



[Stage Direction]
yet that measure was never mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
Hon. gentlemen opposite say, "You have not implemented your promises made in the Speech from the Throne". My answer is that the Speech from the Throne is only a tentative programme of proposed legislation. The government is not bound by the terms of the Speech from the Throne. If it is, then I would like the right hon. leader of the opposition to tell me why in 1919, when he himself was the sponsor of the bill for the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, he did not mention it in the Speech from the Throne.
We are faced with this situation: that the government have prepared a programme for the consideration of parliament. This programme might be good or it might be bad. When the session opened we had a very long debate; a vote was taken and parliament sustained the government. Parliament is master of the situation and might change its judgment from day to day. It is the duty of parliament to follow events and to judge as it thinks fit, but is there any change in the situation now? I cannot see it. Some of my hon. friends in the Progressive group express the view that if they wish to vote against the government on this motion 'they are perfectly free to do so, but it seems to me that it would not be good policy. This afternoon I listened to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Boutillier). First of all he voted against the government. Why? Because he would not have this government in power. After that what does he do? Well, he supports the government and votes for it day in and day out, and expresses his confidence in the government. But he says: "When the government withdraw their assent to this bill with reference to the natural resources of Alberta, I withdraw my allegiance to the government." If that is the reason it would be -a logical one. The government advertised in the Speech from the Throne, almost as loudly as the Germans advertised their victory in the first period of the war, that 'the natural resources of Alberta were going to be returned to the province. What is the situation? When the government put in the Speech from the Throne this paragraph with reference to the natural resources of Alberta, I assume they knew what they were doing. But hon. gentlemen will understand that they meant that an agreement had been arrived at between representatives of the federal and the provincial governments in relation to the matter. They came to a direct understanding, and not only
edition	.
Want oj Confidence Motion
[Stage Direction]
did they draft the bill themselves, but every word, every clause of it was accepted by both governments. Does any blame attach to this government for doing that? If the bill was bad, so much the worse for -this -government. If the bill was good, so much the better for this government.
After that bill had been drafted it was the duty of the federal government in Ottawa and of the government of Alberta to have the bill passed as drafted. What happened? The federal government are ready to have the bill passed and to -implement their promises on it, but unfortunately the government of Alberta did not have the bill passed as originally drafted, iln the Alberta legislature the bill passed its first and second readings and was put through committee, but when it came to the third reading there was an afterthought and the third reading of the bill as originally drafted did not carry. Where does the blame rest? Does the fault lie with this government- or with the government of Alberta? We are not, however, so much interested in this matter; we are interested in knowing whether this government has implemented its promises or not. It has implemented its promises. What this government promised the government of Alberta it gave to the very last inch or cent; it gave everything it had promised. When the session is coming to a close, when communications between the two governments are difficult, when an election is pending in Alberta, is it possible for this government to come to a settlement that would satisfy the country? They did everything in their power; they said1: We stand by our guns; what we have promised we will give now, but if you change your opinion we are not responsible for that. That is the position exactly. -If there is any strength in the amendment it rests on that, and the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the amendment rested their arguments on that. They said that the government did not implement the promises which they made in the Speech from the Throne. Can the government of Canada do anything more than carry out their promises?
As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) said so rightly to-day, to make a contract you must have two parties. When two parties have agreed to a contract and when the terms of the agreement are clear beyond peradventure, if the contract is broken by default of one of the parties to carry out the agreement, who is responsible? I do not want to cast any slur on the Alberta government, but whose is the responsibility? The Alberta government agreed to the bill. The 
federal government agreed to the bill. Who changed their minds? The Alberta government. This is public knowledge. Therefore I do not see why this government in the last lap of the session should be condemned because they did not agree to changes which the Alberta government had seen fit in their discretion to make. That is the main point in the amendment, which reads:
Because of failure to implement promises contained in the Speech from the Throne.
Those who have spoken on the subject have raised the question: Wherein did the government fail? They failed because they did not give Alberta its natural resources. Is that a reasonable or a fair argument? When the Alberta government failed to implement its promises, should this government be blamed because they did not -meet the conditions imposed on them by the Alberta government? The matter is so simple and clear that we should not discuss it any longer.
Of course there is something behind this amendment. The second part of the amendment means everything and anything. The hon. member who moved it must be a very poor judge of politics if he could not do better than -to say, "and for other causes." What are the "other causes?" I do not know. The government does not know. The opposition does not know. No one knows. The -hon. gentleman who moved this amendment should tell the House what these other causes are.
The seconder of the amendment spoke for about three minutes, just the length of time that the mover spoke. I am not reproaching him for that, because I am not in favour of long speeches, but this goes to show that the matter was all framed up in advance. The seconder mentioned as one of the other causes that Maritime rights had been ignored.
I am one who wants to give the Maritime provinces their rights. Quebec and Ontario, the two main provinces in this Dominion, are big, prosperous and generous enough to give the Maritime provinces all their needs and rights. But those rights must be defined. What is their definition? The Maritime provinces say, as I understand the matter, that they are in a tight comer; that industries in the Maritimes have vanished. The Martime provinces were not obliged to enter confederation, but they did so on the understanding that the rest of Canada would come to their assistance, and it is the duty of parliament to look into their claim and give whatever relief they are entitled to. We must remember that the tariff that was inforce in the United States at the time of the-

Want of Confidence Motion
Canadian confederation has undergone many changes, just as our own tariff has done, and this is something that must be taken into consideration.
Now from what quarter can the Maritime provinces expect relief? I do not want to make a political speech just now, but I modestly suggest it is the Liberal party. That is the party that has helped the Maritime provinces in the past. In the last parliament the Maritime provinces returned sixteen Liberal members from a total of sixteen constituencies, and if they have decided to return a large number of Conservatives on this occasion they have a perfect right to do so. But this does not dispose of Maritime grievances. Last summer I travelled throughout the Maritime provinces, and I must confess that I was struck with the fact that they have not developed either as rapidly or to the same extent as the other provinces have done. Whenever anyone is suffering any hardship he is more than apt to attribute the responsibility to somebody else. The Maritime provinces in 1917 returned a practically unanimous representation against the Liberal party; in 1921 they sent to parliament a practically unanimous representation against the Conservative party; and in 1925 their representation again was almost wholly against the party now in power. I repeat the question I asked a moment ago; Who will give relief to the Maritime provinces? And I submit again that this relief must come from the Liberal party. It must come from the provinces of Quebec and Ontario and, if I may say so, primarily from Quebec, because the same feelings, sentiments and aspirations that animate the people of Quebec animate the people of the Maritime provinces. Yet those provinces in the last election saw fit to sever their cause from that of the Liberal party, which was so strongly supported by Quebec. As I say, they had a perfect right to do so and no one can question their right to do the same thing at any subsequent election. But surely it must be obvious to any student of Canadian history that throughout the last fifty years the sympathies of Quebec have been with the Maritime provinces. It is no secret that the Maritime problem to-day is quite grave, but it is due to a very considerable extent to the geographical situation of the Maritimes.
Now, with reference to the question as to where help for the Maritime provinces will come from, will anyone suggest that the Conservative government between 1911 and 1921 did anything to further the interests of the Maritime provinces? I do not think the suggestion will be made. Yet that govem-
14011-2*91
ment had ten years in which to provide some remedy. They made the Intercolonial railway a part of the national system and they left the Maritime provinces in more straitened circumstances than before. The result was that those provinces in 1921 overwhelmingly defeated that government. They knew that the Conservatives had done nothing for them in ten years. This was perhaps to some extent an injustice to the Conservatives, inasmuch as they could not have found a remedy. But when the Liberal government in four years, from 1921 to 1925, found it equally difficult to provide any specific remedy for the evils of 'the Maritimes, they turned that government out also. Erom 1896 to 1911 we had in power in this country what I might call, if I were inclined to boast, the greatest administration this country has ever seen, the government led by Sir Wilfrid Laurier; and if the Maritime provinces did not make any very appreciable progress the reason is, as I have said, to be found in their geographical situation. But let us go back still further. What did the government of Sir John A. Macdonald do for the Maritime provinces? Were they any better off then than they were under Sir Robert Borden or Sir Wilfrid Laurier?
Now, why shordd it be said that the government has broken faith with the Maritime provinces, that those provinces are dying because of the policies of this government? Mr. Speaker, this is an old tale that has been told for fifty years, in fact ever since confederation. Climate and geography count enormously in the development of states. We have an example in the relative development of Canada and the United States. Geographically they are on a parity for the most part, but the United States enjoys an enormous advantage in point of climate. Hence, although this country has been settled for over three centuries, we have a population of only nine (million people as compared with the one hundred and thirty million population of the United States. But we would never think of blaming our ancestors for this disparity. Unfortunately the development of the Maritime provinces has not kept pace with the development of the other provinces of this Dominion, but this is not the fault of the present government or of its predecessors. I have a strong affection for the Maritime provinces, and I say to them that the old province of Quebec will always be willing to extend a helping hand to her sister provinces by the sea.
Now, what is the abject of the amendment? First of all, to demonstrate to parliament and the country that the government has not
[Stage Direction]
Want oj Confidence Motion
implemented its promises. There is not the slightest basis for this allegation: the government has implemented its promises to the fullest extent. With the exception of one or two measures, the government has introduced all the legislation promised in the Speech from the Throne, and in addition it has introduced several other,measures which were never promised. But is it reasonable to say that the government should1 follow exactly what is stated in the Speech from the Throne? During the few sessions I have been a member of this House, whether in opposition or as a supporter of the administration, I have never seen any Speech from the Throne implemented to the last line,- 100 per cent. After all, the Speech from the Throne is merely a tentative programme of what the government intend to lay before parliament. When was it laid down that such a declaration must be followed to the letter? It has never been done in this country, it has never been done in England. The Speech from the Throne is simply a declaration on the part of the administration that they will bring down certain measures as circumstances may warrant; in other words, certain measures mentioned in the Speech from the Throne might not be introduced, and on the other hand other measures not mentioned at all might under certain circumstances be necessary and accordingly would be sponsored by the government.
At the beginning of my speech I quoted an instance in 1919 when the government of the day brought in a bill for the acquisition of the Grand Trunk railway, a measure which was far and away the most important introduced in the course of that session, and yet it was never mentioned in the Speech from the Throne at all. Summarizing the Speech from the Throne on that occasion-because :it is illuminating-it said that it was in the interests of this country that the treaty of peace with the enemy nations should be ratified, and a special session of parliament was convened for that purpose. There was no other reason for convening it and everyone thought that it had been called for the purpose of dealing with the treaty, and nothing else. But it was not that at all Suppose we had not signed that treaty of peace; what difference would it have made? None at all. The warring nations were already at peace, and no one believed that if we had not had that special session of parliament our soldiers would have been sent back to Europe to fight again. Ratifying the treaty of peace was simply a formality which could have easily been postponed until the next session.

Ostensibly that session was called to ratify the treaty of peace, but in reality it was called to acquire the Grand Trunk railway, and that important measure was never mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
This afternoon the hon. member for Vegre-ville said that he had given his allegiance to this government until the government had decided that the natural resources of Alberta should not be returned to that province, but since that time he had been profoundly disappointed, and he could no longer support the government. Let me say, in reply to the hon. member, and to those who sit around him, that from the outset he has been against this government, and he is still. When the first test vote was taken in the House and the government secured a majority of three, the hon. member for Vegreville voted against the government. What was his reason then? Did he know at that time that the Speech from the Throne would not be implemented in regard to Alberta's natural resources? The Speech from the Throne indicated to him that the natural resources of Alberta would be returned to the province. Yet the hon. member voted to turn this government out of power, in order that the natural resources of Alberta should not be returned to the province. He voted to prevent the government from doing what they had promised to do in the Speech from the Throne. That is very plain. Now, where is the sincerity of the hon. member? He voted against this government then, and he is voting against it now. It is plain that he is here to defeat this government whenever he can. There can be no doubt as to his sentiments, and where he stands.
I have no grudge against any member of this House who wants to defeat the government; that is his privilege. As I said on a previous occasion, it is the privilege of parliament to dethrone the government. As my leader has said many times, the government is only a committee of parliament, and therefore when parliament decides at any time to put out a government, that is their privilege. But one should be sincere, and not act under false pretences. To say that the government is not giving justice to the province of Alberta, and that it does not intend to give back its natural resources, is an act of insincerity on the part of the hon. member, but we should not be surprised, because he voted to oust this government at the very first opportunity, this government which had pledged itself to return the natural resources to Alberta.

Want of Confidence Motion
This question of the return of the natural resources to Alheirtla, in my opinion, should not be brought into politcs at all. Canada is a fine country, large and prosperous, but for good or for bad Canada has not a homogeneous people. We have in this country different races, peoples with different religons and different aspirations; in fact, Canada is not one country but four countries. Those four countries are, first, the Mari-12 m. time provinces, which are a country by themselves dating back into history; Quebec and Ontario, another country by themselves; the praire provinces, a third country, different from all the rest; and finally British Columbia, another country. Anyone who considers the situation carefully will understand the difficulties of governing a country like ours. Our natural resources are immense, our wealth is very great indeed. But we have French and English living together, Catholics and Protestants living together, the east and the west joined together, and different interests fighting each other. Under these circumstances it is very easy to arouse racial or religious prejudices. Unfortunately the motive in the present case is to arouse prejudices. I am afraid hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to make a political football of the Alberta question; they are trying to arouse racial and religious prejudices. I hope they will not succeed in that baneful purpose. If I had any advice to give the right hon. leader of the opposition it would be not to seek to make political capital out of such a controversy. Let us look at the problems that confront this country in a broad light. If we do that it will be better for all of us.
I have one last word to say and it is that the amendment is purely and simply a political amendment. Its purpose is to try to corner the government. Hon. gentlemen opposite thought that by quietly hatching their plans and bringing in the amendment suddenly they could surprise the government and bring about its defeat. Let me say to them that even if they succeeded there would be no glory for them in a snap vote because they have not acted as they should have done. In olden times when armies were to meet on the field of battle notice was given when the attack would commence. A similar procedure has generally been observed in parliament. Whenever an oppositon desired to challenge the authority of a government it has been the custom, and has been regarded as a duty, to give notice of the action intended. The opposition thought to surprise the government and to what extent they have succeeded I do
not know. However, I say this to them: If it is to be a contest for supremacy in this House let it be a real contest, and if my hon. friends can defeat this government without taking it by surprise it will redound to their glory. But they have no right t'o tty to take tihe government by surprise.
Mr. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I would crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I point out the very peculiar nature of the amendment that has been moved this afternoon. That amendment declares that the government has failed to implement the promises which it placed in the Speech from the Throne. It is rather a strange situation to find the opposition so eager for the government to fulfil promises which they themselves claim are not in the interests of the country. They say that the Speech from the Throne contains certain promises, which they at first criticized, and yet after the House has been in session for over five months, the only fault they find with the government is that it has not carried on those promises. Hon. gentlemen opposite thought the Speech was so bad that they kept on obstructing it for nearly two months. Indeed it was deemed by them to be so bad that it was not possible to get a vote on it until the closure was invoked. Yet now, at the end of a session in which so many things have transpired, the only criticism hon. gentlemen opposite have to bring against the government is that it has not fully implemented the Speech, which they considered to be so objectionable that they constantly obstructed it.
If the government wanted praise from its opponents it could not obtain higher praise than the present debate has yielded. The Speech was submitted to parliament early in January last and for weeks and weeks it was denounced by hon. gentlemen opposite. Every feature of it was regarded by them as nothing but a shameful bargain with certain members of parliament. We have been in session for five months and just when we are about to sum up what has been accomplished, and when the time was appropriate for the leader of the opposition and his party to place their programme before the country, the only taunt they can level at U3 is, that in their estimation, we have not carried out every promise which the Speech contained. Listening to what we have heard to-day one would think that the Conservative policy in this House is merely to see that the Liberal programme is well and properly
Want of Confidence Motion

carried out. It was all wrong when it was outlined five months ago, but to-day the government is blamed for not having carried out what the opposition criticised so strongly and at such great length. As a matter of fact the government has carried out its programme. That was amply demonstrated this afternoon and this evening, but hon. gentlemen opposite should be the last people to complain that the government has not fulfilled it promises. And when we go before our electors, whether it be this year or another year, shall we not receive their full endorsation when we can tell them that the programme laid before the House was such a good! one that, after five months of session, the only thing the Conservatives could charge against us was that we had forgotten perhaps or left over a very small particle of that programme?
I am not surprised at the tenor of that amendment, but is it not the same kind of amendment that was moved against the budget? We would have thought when the budget was brought down that either the leader of the opposition or one of his main lieutenants would avail himself of the occasion to place before the public that part of the Tory programme that they thought would appeal to the electors, but they did not do so. The only amendment they had to bring before the House, and the only complaint against the budget, was that it was not strictly in accordance, in their estimation, with one of the paragraphs in the Speech from the Throne. Now that we have progressed further in the session they bring down the same kind of amendment. The Liberal programme is so good that if we leave out the least item they rise in their places at once and insist that we put through that item right away. The leader of the opposition goes further and complains that the Senate, where he has a majority of his friends, is killing some of our measures. It is a strange want of confidence, Mr. Speaker,-in fact they have an overconfidence in our programme. They are going to see that we put through the programme, if they think we are not doing it.
That is the effect of the motion before the House to-night. It is the same kind of motion that was introduced against the budget. Oh that budget! Of course in their speeches they said that under the provisions of the budget, industry was going to suffer, automobile people were going to close their factories; and a huge delegation came here. It was never in the mind of the government for a moment to injure that industry. Their only intention was to cheapen the price of automobiles in this country in order that the con-
[Mr. Rinfret.l
sumer might be able to buy an automobile at a low price, and when it was discovered that the government was able to lower that price and at the same time take measures to put the manufacturers in a better position, I would have thought my hon. friends on the other side would have risen in their places and congratulated the government on being able to accomplish such an achievement. But they did not do so. They found fault because we were going to ruin the industry, and a few weeks later they found fault because we had discovered a method of helping the industry and at the same time giving a low price to the consumer. Not only are we not going to ruin the automobile industry, but the other day Mr. McLaughlin, who engineered that huge delegation to Ottawa, made a declaration that his factory was going full speed ahead, and not only were they not going to close, but he was going to make an addition to the factory. What is the result of the budget? It lowers the prices.to consumers and puts the manufacturers in better shape. Will my hon. friends say we have been wrong twice, in the first instance when we lowered the price, and in the next instance when we helped the manufacturer?
I do not intend to go through the whole Speech from the Throne and show that practically every paragraph of it has been fully covered, because that was done so well this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). But as the right hon. leader of the opposition said, some of those matters are not through parliament; some of them are before parliament yet. Well, we are not responsible for the action of the Senate. I would not go so far as to say my right hon. friend is responsible, but he is closer to the majority in the Senate than we are, and it seems a very strange thing that while some of the matters which have come before us have been discussed at great length, yet they have been passed without difficulty and with the support in many cases of Conservative members. They have been sent to the Senate, and in that body they are having a more perilous journey. Are we going to be held responsible for the actions of a Conservative majority in the Senate? Certainly we are not. ~I do not think that, after a moment's reflection, the leader of the Tory party will try to sustain such a view.
Then we have the question of the Hudson Bay railway, the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) had only one fault to find with the action of the government in that matter. He said we were not going fast enough, we were not spending enough money. Another instance of a Tory membei

Want of Confidence Motion
complaining that we were not proceeding fast enough with the programme of the Liberal party. That is very comforting, and I welcome the motion we have before us to-day, as I welcomed the unexpected support we received from the other side in favour of the Hudson Bay railway. I will admit that in the east quite a number of us entertained pome doubts as to the feasibility of the Hudson Bay railway or Hudson bay navigation, yet we support the item in the estimates in that connection. Why? Because we know that public opinion in the west is solidly behind it. In a confederation such as ours we must have regard for the aspirations of the people of every part of this country. 'We must do something for this province and something for the other province. We are quite willing to spend millions for the completion of the Welland canal. Hon. members on the other side are agreeable to support such items, even without discussion, when it is proposed to spend money either in the (west or on the Welland canal, yet become very inquisitive when it is proposed to lend money, which will pay interest, to the harbour of Montreal. Even if we encounter difficulties in securing money for the harbour of Montreal, I am willing to support the Hudson bay vote or the Welland canal vote, because I realize that in all these projects there is more than the spending of a sum of money, the laying of a few miles of railway track, or the deepening of a canal. There is the matter of meeting the wishes of an important portion of the population of Canada, and that is why we vote the money. On this as on other grounds, not only can we say that the government of this country has implemented the promises in the Speech from the Throne, but it has done so with the support from hon. members which in certain cases was given not so much on account of the merits of the measure, as it appeared to our own eyes, as on account of our great desire to meet the wishes of the people of other provinces. The. motive which is behind this amendment is of such a character that we should also approach it in the same spirit as we have approached other questions.
According to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, which I very much respect, we are not permitted to discuss to-day the Alberta question. But I think we can go so far as to say that the government, after promising to return to Alberta its natural resources, has fulfilled its promise by bringing down the measure which was fully approved by the Alberta government. If a difficulty has now arisen that can become very grave if we do not deal with it with great delicacy, that is not our fault. The
government is going on with that measure. The government has submitted the constitutional difficulties involved to the Supreme Court of Canada. Surely after the government has done that, as a new phase in its effort to restore to Alberta its natural resources, but to do it in such a way that by doing justice on one side it will not create an injustice on the other, the government cannot be blamed now, when the question is before the Supreme Court of Canada, for not dealing with it at this stage.
So there alone remains the question of the amendment to the electoral law. I understand the amendment proposed at the time was the alternative vote, and I am surprised at members on the other side trying to blame us for not going on with that now, because I am sure if we did bring down that measure there is nothing they would fight with more vigour. For one the hon. member for West York would be the first to rise in his place to protest against it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend would be with me.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: As every Liberal always does, I will listen to my hon. friend's arguments.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps he will convince the hon. member.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes. I am always very careful about Tory arguments, and I would also listen to replies from this side of the House. I know the hon. member for West York will find no fault with us if we want to _ wind up this session without bringing down that amendment to the electoral law.
There is a Liberal programme as contained in the Speech from the Throne, and there is also supposed to be a Conservative programme to be moved in the form of resolutions or amendments from the other side. Where is that programme? Every time my hon. friends apposite find opportunities to move amendments they never move their programme; they move that we do not carry out our programme. Thalt is a most extraordinary stand to take, especially for a party which claims that according to their numbers they should govern this country. What would they do if they should be in the place of this government? They claim thalt they are great protectionists, but no mention was made of protection during the whole course of the debate on the address. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) often claims that there are some protectionists on this side of the House. Why does he not try to fish for
Want oj Confidence Motion

them occasionally? Why does he not move an amendment to find out?
Perhaps he thought that on the Address, although they moved everything under the sun, it was not the proper time; that the time would be more proper when we came to discuss the budget. But on that occasion there was no amendment forthcoming on protection. The only time the leader of the opposition made a move in that respect was one Monday evening when the House was practically empty and when we were discussing a motion by private members. He Was suddenly taken with a wonderful fit of eagerness to vote for protection that night. There was no one in the House except those who he thought would vote for protection. Why did they not move to-day that they have no confidence in the government because of its tariff policy or something of that kind? I know why. It is because he is not any surer that some members elected in western Canada would be eager to vote for protection than he would have been sure that members from the west in his own party would have voted for a motion to do away with the item for the Hudson Bay railway. In fact the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) gave him no opportunity. As soon as that item was before us he rose and said that he wanted more money for that project. There was then no chance for the leader of the opposition to rise next and say that we should not carry that item.
We have heard a great deal from the Maritime provinces, and I congratulate them on the persistence of their claims on behalf of their provinces. They also very carefully avoid discussing the tariff. Perhaps they would vote for protection, but they would rather not. That is why it is not moved, and that is why the leader of the opposition and some of his friends, wishing to express their want of -confidence -in the government, always take the circuitous way and blame us because we do not do something which, if we do it, they claim is going to be awful for the country.
The House of Commons is not the only tribunal in which the Tory party can proclaim their policy. Perhaps they would rather do it elsewhere. They are a great democratic party, and perhaps they think -they would spoil their efforts in not speaking directly to the people if they were to proclaim their policy in this House; but when they -meet the masses of the people they are then -going to lay down all the-ir Tory policies. The -leader of the opposition was in the Forum, in Montreal the other day. Did he tell us what was the policy 
of the Tory party? No; he was too busy explaining by what extraordinary change in his sentiment he now -considered that Mr. Patenaude and himself were on the same -platform. Mr. Patenaude had been very clear in his declaration during the campaign that he was as independent of Mr. Meighen as he was of Mr. King. If we take that declaration literally it would have been just as proper for the Prime Minister to go to Montreal and -appear on the same platform with Mr. Patenaude as for the leader of the Tory party to do so.
Did the -leader of the opposition tell us the meaning of his Hamilton speech? That speech, by a mere coincidence, was launched a few days before the Bagot election. Not only do I find fault with my right hon. friend for not making ihis position in the matter clear at that time, but I am surprised that after five months of this session, when he is so eager to see the government implement its promises, he has not seen fit himself to say anything about what he promised in the Hamilton speech, what he repeated in the cou-nty of Bag-ot, and probably what he forgot the night he found out that the speech had been useless and that Bagot had voted as it did before.
The leader of the opposition was extraordinarily cautious in regard to the Alberta question this afternoon. He would not question the ruling -of the Chair for one -moment. When he was put a very pertinent question by the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) he said that he could not even whisper on the matter because Mr. Speaker had ruled that he would not be i-n order. That was a different stand from -t-he one he -took -a week or so ago when he went so far as -to dispute a decision given in the House by the Deputy Speaker and to uphold the hon. member f-or South Oxford (Mr. -Sutherland) who was ve-ry clearly challenging the dignity and authority of -the chair. On -that afternoon he would have been ready to go on; but to-d-ay when- he was asked what he thought himself on that question, he said he was so respectful of the chair that he would not w-hisper one word about the matter. There was no speaker in the chair at the Forum, nor was there any decision there that would preclude him from stating his opinion, and if he intended only a few days later to launch this assault upon the government in respect of one single promise which the government is not in a position to implement, how is it that he did not then give his reasons for the course he contemplated? He was too busy explaining why he was then willing to open his arms to Mr. Patenaude, the gentle-

Want of Confidence Motion
man who was so very much independent of him four or five months ago, but who now is prepared to go hand in hand with him in any further electoral campaigning.
I do not wish to drag out this debate any longer, but I would remind the House, as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) observed this afternoon, that group government in the present juncture is a necessity and it is equally necessary, so long as that form of government is unavoidable, that legislation should reflect the desires and the aspirations of the different groups constituting the government. Right here I appeal to the sense of honour of the Progressive party. If I were a Progressive I would strong^ resent the language which is periodically directed by members of the Conservative party towards hon. gentlemen of that group. Those hon. gentlemen are charged with having bargained with the government, with having sold their votes for legislation. I say, if I were a Progressive I would resent that imputation. The Progressive party has supported the government because the government programme as a whole appeals to that party. It certainly cannot be said that Progressive members have bargained for any particular consideration, and it ill becomes Conservatives to suggest anything of the sort, especially when this House has seen hon. gentlemen opposite week after week offering to the Progressives the same measures which this government put forward in the Speech from the Throne. The Conservatives were ready to do anything at all to secure the support of the Progressive party; in fact, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) went so far as to promise that if they would support the motion which at that time his party had submitted, there would be no election. There would be no change of any kind of which the Progressives could complain. He was clear on that point: there would be no election. Now, if I were to hold hon. gentlemen opposite to their own argument, I should say that they have committed themselves to the undertaking that there shall be no election for four years, and therefore they should not press the present motion.
But suppose the motion now under consideration does carry. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) properly remarked this afternoon-and we stand behind him-that in such an event there will be an election. We are ready for it. The country does not want an election, but it will have it if this amendment carries. I regret that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) is not in his place, because I should like to put a question to
him. If we have an election this summer or this fall in the event of this amendment carrying what sort of candidates will he have in the province of Quebec? It is all very well for hon. gentlemen opposite to charge the government with failure to fulfil its promises and, by such charges and hairsplitting, create confusion; but what has the Tory party done in the province of Quebec? If you go back to the year 1911 you will find that they did not have any Conservative candidates in the field to face us. Who therefore will come forward in that province in behalf of the Conservative party to give effect to the promises of hon. gentlemen opposite if this motion of want of confidence carries and an election is brought on? I should like to know that. I know very well what will happen unless there is a great change in the party. In 1911, as the hon. member for Labelle knows better than anyone else, all the Conservatives in Quebec were Nationalists, and in 1917 there was not one Meighen candidate in that province apart from some special seats. In 1921 we had candidates of every shade, the only shade that was missing being the straight Conservative, and in 1925 we had candidates standing for a man who declared that he was as independent of Mr. King as he was of Mr. Meighen. The excuse given in the Forum for this independence on the part of that gentleman was the suggestion that, due to a mistake on the part of the Tory organization, Mr. Patenaude and the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Meighen) did not make it plain that they were working together while apparently pretending to be going in opposite directions. I regret, as I say, that in making these remarks I do so in the absence of the leader of the opposition, but some of his lieutenants are present, and they can answer this question. If this House has no longer any confidence in the government, and if we appeal to the country, can we depend upon meeting straight Conservative candidates who will recognize their leader, who will not be ashamed either of him or of his programme, and who will fight unequivocally for the policy of the Tory party? Can we depend upon meeting Conservative candidates who will stand by the promises of the party-if they can disinter them from oblivion? If we do meet such candidates our task will be so much easier, and after the stand they have taken to-day I do not see how they can escape responsibility.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: The hon. member who has just taken his seat states that in the event of the amendment
Want of Confidence Motion

carrying there will be an election. This is the first time I have ever known a private member of the House declare the will of His Excellency under such circumstances as the present.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That was the declaration of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The declaration of the
Prime Minister was that he would advise His Excellency to grant a dissolution; the observation of the hon. gentleman who has just concluded is that there would be an election. It well may be that a government which entirely disregards constitutional practice and procedure may find some consolation in its Prime Minister threatening the House with dissolution, but I venture to say that constitutional practice and procedure would not warrant any governor general in granting a second dissolution to the present Prime Minister. I go further and submit that it is a matter for very careful consideration, to what extent any prime minister is justified in threatening the members of the House with an election.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was not using a threat; I was making a statement as to what would take place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister said he would advise His Excellency-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So he will.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -to dissolve parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So he will.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is a far cry from a dissolution being granted. It is not customary to grant a second dissolution to the same prime minister under these circumstances. I leave the matter there.


Finlay MacDonald: You
have no authority for that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are numberless
authorities.


Finlay MacDonald: What
about Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier?


Richard Bedford Bennett: When did Sir Wilfrid Laurier ever obtain a second dissolution after less than a year of office and leading the second group in the House?


Finlay MacDonald: You are quibbling now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. When did Sir Wilfrid Laurier get a second dissolution?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Never.
	|


Finlay MacDonald: In 1900, in 1904, in 1908-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Finlay MacDonald: -and,
my hon. friend will remember, in 1911, after having served three years of his term.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope the hon. gentleman from Wetaskiwin (Mr. Tobin) will now thump his desk when he realizes that there is no instance of Sir Wilfrid Laurier obtaining a dissolution six, nine or ten months after the first, or even within a year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend said that I had cited a precedent. Would he like me to cite him another?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Ramsay
MacDonald, after having held office for one session, was granted a dissolution by His Majesty the King.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was about to mention
that as the conclusive precedent against the Prime Minister, because Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was not a prime minister who had secured office on his own dissolution. He was granted a dissolution when he was beaten in the House of Commons on a motion to go into Supply, the Campbell motion, in which it was charged that the executive authority had been abused by a minister of the crown.


Finlay MacDonald: Not at all. I may tell my hon. friend that I was in the British House of Commons on the night that the Campbell motion was debated.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Finlay MacDonald: My
hon. friend has no right to try to draw a red herring across the trail with that as a precedent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now, my hon. friend from
GuySborough-formerly from Pictou-must realize that his presence in the galleries of the House of Commons does not necessarily create a precedent. I doubt not there was great appreciation of the honour thus done to the British House of Commons.


Finlay MacDonald: You
are back to your old form.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But let him recognize the fact that the Campbell resolution condemned the government for what was done by the attorney general in respect of 'the Campbell prosecution. There was a motion to refer it to a special committee, which was

Want of Confidence Motion
asked for by Sir John Simon in a very vigorous speech; and Mr. Asquith, who was then in the House, asked the same thing. Mr. Baldwin rose late in the debate, saw exactly what was happening, and said: We are going to end this administration once for all. Then joining with the Liberals, their combined vote defeated the government. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, as was his right, obtained a dissolution because he held office only at the mercy of the Liberal or the Conservative party. That was the position. But in this instance we have a prime minister who sought a dissolution and a general election in October, 1925, after which he decided to continue in office. Now, under our constitutional practice he would not be granted a second dissolution, but his opponent would be sent for to form a government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
may I ask my hon. friend a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says, "His opponent would be called upon to form a government." I ask him, how can his opponent form a government, when the minute he assumes office he loses his seat in this House, as does any member of his party whom he may ask to join his government? There is no government to carry on except the government that is in office at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hardly thought it was
necessary that we should have any discussion with respect to so simple a matter of constitutional practice and procedure as that. When the C'lynes amendment was carried in the British House of Commons, according to that argument there was no government; and yet Mr. Ramsay MacDonald made an arrangement by which Mr. Baldwin moved the adjournment of the House in order to enable him to form his government and carry on- just as will be done in this case-just as was done as far back as 1858 when Mr. Gladstone had to ask his friend to move that the House should be adjourned to enable him to form his government.


Finlay MacDonald: Will my hon. friend kindly give us any precedent for his peculiar theory that because a prime minister has once held office, and has had a dissolution in the ordinary course, he cannot obtain another dissolution on account of a situation that arises in the House of Commons? There is no such precedent in British constitutional history.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the contrary, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald received his dissolution because he had not sought a dissolution previously and obtained the will of the people; that is why. And what is more, the precedents have been reviewed at length with respect to that matter, and the rule laid down by constitutional authorities without end is that the sovereign will not within a reasonable time grant a second dissolution to one who has had a dissolution and sought the will of the electorate without obtaining a majority.


Finlay MacDonald: Does
my hon. friend undertake to say that he can find any precedent in British constitutional history that where a prime minister has held office for the full parliamentary term, and has obtained a dissolution in the ordinary way, thereafter he cannot obtain another dissolution on account of a situation that arises in the House of Commons?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly. It arose in
the province of New Brunswick, it arose in the province of Ontario before confederation, it arose in England-and it will arise in Canada. Why, Mr. Speaker, this endeavour to bluff the mind of the Canadian people into the thought that this threat of an election over a few members in this House will have any effect upon them is unworthy of the institutions of this parliament.
Now, let us for a moment proceed. The amendment invites this House to declare that it has lost confidence in the government because it has failed to implement its promises contained in the Speech from the Throne.


Arthur Meighen: And for other causes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And for other causes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: Lots of others, too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the other causes,
I think, was apparent to most of the members of this House to-day in the speech of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell).


William Richard Motherwell: Its	delivery?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps	not its delivery. but its subject matter. If there was a further cause, it was the speech of the member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). Now, Mr. Speaker, twenty years or more have passed away since Alberta became a province. By the rules of this House I am precluded from discussing the terms of a measure which was to be introduced to do tardy justice to that province. In 1905 the journals of this
Want of Confidence Motion

House will indicate that the Conservative opposition at that time proposed an amendment when the province of Alberta was obtaining its constitution, by which the crown in right of the province would hold our natural resources. At that time the crown in right of the Dominion held our natural resources The Conservative opposition of that day divided the then parliament upon that issue, and they were outvoted. From that day until now the Conservative party have never ceased to demand our natural resources, never for a single day have they ceased to insist on what they conceive to be a just request, that the province of Alberta should stand upon an equality with the older provinces of this confederation with respect to the public domain. That being the position-


Frank S. Cahill: What happened to the Conservative party here in the meantime when they were in power?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will come to that if
my hon. friend will only possess himself in patience. But for that circumstance I would not have risen to-night. In 1911 the Conservative party came into power. In 1912 they made their first effort to deal with this matter, and before the war broke out the then Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers)- he sits here to-night-had proposed to the western provinces that they should receive their natural resources, and, if my memory serves me right, three years of the grant that was then paid. Mr. Scott, the Premier of Saskatchewan, together with Mr. Roblin, the Premier of Manitoba, and Mr. Rutherford, the Premier of Alberta, signed a memorandum by which they indicated that such a proposal was not acceptable to them. But the then government in the province of Alberta began to press for the resources, and you will find upon the records of this parliament declarations made by the members of parliament from Alberta, including myself-I was then a member-both in the House and outside, that we must have justice done to Alberta in that regard. I was blamed because it was said that the provincial government was a Liberal government, and that a Liberal government should not be given these resources. My answer was that it was not a question whether you had a Liberal government or a Conservative government in the province, that we had a right to those resources-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I think Your

Honour ruled this afternoon that it was not in order for me to refer to the question of the transfer of the natural resources, and I paid respect to Your Honour's ruling.


Hewitt Bostock: I was about to rise to ask the hon. member if he wanted to discuss the merits of the question or if he was only giving an historical view of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Purely historical.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member is too old a parliamentarian to attempt to evade the ruling I gave this afternoon, and I know he will not do so. I have ruled that according to all the precedents, customs and usages this question must not be discussed on its merits, and I hope the hon. member will live up to those precedents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was merely reciting
the historical facts, Mr. Speaker, and that is all I propose to do, because I am precluded by the rules of the House from discussing the merits of the agreement signed on the 9th of January, 1926, and which this House has not considered. I venture to direct attention to the fact that before the war broke out, negotiations had proceeded looking towards the transfer of our resources, or, at least, we will put it this way,-the placing of the resources for administrative purposes in the crow'n in the right of the province, instead of in the crown in the right of the Dominion. Perhaps that is a fair way to put it. I have pointed out that there was a section of our party that believed that we should not thus proceed because there was an unfriendly government in power at Edmonton. That did not detract from what I believed to be the merits of our case; and speaking for myself and others who thought similarly we continued to press the matter on the attention of the administration.
When the Union government came in, the matter proceeded further and conferences were held between the governments of the western provinces and that administration. Nothing resulted. A new government came into power in Alberta. The government then led by the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), was defeated by the Farmers' government headed by Mr. Greenfield. They opened negotiations with the federal government, and notwithstanding the fact that the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba did not share the views of the then government of Alberta, an agreement was signed on the 9th day of January, 1926.

r


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rise again, Mr. Speaker, to know whether or not your ruling is to be respected. The very point I sought to touch upon this afternoon was the agreement with the Saskatchewan government and the reason why certain measures were not proceded with, I was told that I was not to touch that phase of the question, which is precisely the phase that my hon. friend is leading up to at the moment.


Hewitt Bostock: When the right hon. gentleman was speaking this afternoon I suspected that he was going to discuss the merits of the question, but when he explained that he was simply referring to the features of the situation arising out of that so-called agreement, I allowed him to continue. In other words, the ruling is that an hon. member may not, in anticipation, discuss the merits or the demerits of a question which is inscribed on the orders of the day. As regards the history of the case, I cannot object to that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the 9th of January of this year, an agreement was signed between the crown represented by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) in this House, and the government of the province of Alberta represented by its premier. That agreement was tabled; it was presented to this House. There is -a resolution standing upon the order paper, and I cannot under the rules of the House discuss it further than to refer to it in that sense. But this I can say, that I promised the Premier of the province of Alberta that if that agreement were submitted to this House, I would give it my earnest support. By that I stand. I gave that promise to the Premier of Alberta, because that was a considered agreement arrived at after long negociations between the Dominion government and the province, and they had settled all the intricacies and difficulties in connection with it, and they were seeking to have it embodied in legislation by this House.
It is true that Mr. O. M. Biggar went to the province of Alberta, to the city of Edmonton, for the purpose of endeavouring to secure changes in that agreement, and it is equally true that changes were agreed upon, but as the Premier of Alberta has stated, under circumstances that did not permit him to understand properly what those changes were. So at the present momenh-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rise to a
point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman is going too far now.
Want of Confidence Motion


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall limit myself to saying this: The Premier of Alberta, standing in his place-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not out of order. I am not discussing the agreement. I am discussing merely a political fact. In that statement the Premier of Alberta made it clear that the reason why the province of Alberta did not accept the amended agreement-*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This has been discussed by the Minister of the Interior. I heard him say that this agreement was signed, and that the trouble was that Alberta was not living up to this agreement. I say that Alberta has always been ready and willing to live up to the agreement made on the 9th of January.


Lucien Cannon: Has my hon. friend any authority for saying so?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have the authority of the premier of that province, declared in open session of the legislature, by which that legislature unanimously agreed that that agreement should be carried into effect.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon. gentleman to bow to the ruling I gave. Surely he is going beyond it.


Arthur Meighen: May I call attention to the fact that the chief part, if there was any part, of the address of the Minister of Agriculture was a complaint against the government of Alberta for having renegged on the agreement ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely as one who has lived in Alberta and for twenty-one years has been aesojciated with this demand for the return of our resources, as one who has never wavered in any sense, I have the right to meet the attack made in this House by the Minister of Agriculture, from Saskatchewan, against the good faith of the province of Alberta in endeavouring to deal with this problem. Surely I have the right 'to make declara-
1 a.m. tion on behalf of those who are not here to make it, and I am violating no rule with respect to that. I pointed out that the Premier of the province of Alberta made clear in terms that commanded the support of that legislature, unanimously, unquestionably, what had brought about the condition and the impasse that now confronts us-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Want of Confidence Motion


Richard Bedford Bennett: While it well may be that the question of 'the return of the resources may not be dealt with here because of the rules of order, I desire on behalf of the province in which I live, and in view of its struggle for twenty years to obtain control of its resources-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: If the hon. gentleman will not live up to the ruling I gave this afternoon, who can? He is one of the ablest parliamentarians, and I speak simply from a sense of my duty to the House and to the public when I ask him to abide by .that ruling.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say at once that I am most anxious to obey the ruling of the Chair, but as I apprehend it, the ruling in May which Your Honour read this afternoon was that regard must be had to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time. This would enable me at least to recount the historical incidents to which I have alluded. Then there is this further fact that the government-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member is not in order in discussing a ruling given by the Chair. I have read that passage from May to which he refers, and if the hon. member will refer to a few lines preceding, he will find that May says that a matter which is inscribed on the orders of the day must not be discussed in anticipation. Contemporary with the opinion of May, I have read in Brand and Denison at least twenty-five rulings on the same point. This ruling is no invention of mine. It is not invoked for the purpose of preventing discussion. I belong to the minority, and I am for free discussion in a free parliament. I would not like to be suspected of being a czar in the chair; I am endeavouring to live up to the best precedents of the British parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, you misapprehend my observation. The gist of the matter is all contained in one paragraph. What Your Honour has just read was part of the paragraph. What I read was the end of it, that the speaker must have regard to the possibility of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time; and my argument at the moment is not against the ruling of the Chair but against the government, against the Prime Minister, who said yesterday that the return to Alberta of its natural resources was not to be considered this session, and who now seeks to

prevent a discussion of the matter. That is what I was endeavouring to argue; I was not seeking to criticize the ruling of the Chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is
splitting hairs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are not many to split. But let us get to the point for a moment. Yesterday a question was asked about this matter by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Davis) and the Prime Minister stated that the legislation would not be proceeded with this session. I thought the government by dropping the resolution from the order paper at once would afford the necessary facilities so that we who come from the province of Alberta might know why it i3 that we are refused a measure that was contemplated under the agreement of the 9th of January. That is the only reason I directed attention to the paragraph in May which I have just read. What I have recounted are the historic facts. If next session on the opening day of parliament the government should place this same motion upon the order paper that means we cannot discuss the question of the failure of Alberta to get its natural resources during the next parliament. Surely parliament is not so absolutely precluded from dealing with matters of this kind as to have its rules interposed for that purpose against the' free will of the people and the desire expressed in the agreement of the 9th January last. That cannot be so. My purpose in rising to-night was merely to recite the historic facts and to say to my friends from Alberta-whether they be Liberal, or Conservative, ot Progressive-that upon those who vote to-night against this amendment will rest the responsibility for the delay in our getting our natural resources. The years may pass, the month may drag into years, and these years may become two, three, four, or five; but the twenty years of effort that resulted in the framing of the agreement of the 9th of January, 1926, will be lost and gone. We who have been struggling through all these years to obtain our natural resources and were willing to support the Farmers' government of Alberta in the fight it made to obtain them are now told that this matter may not be discussed and we have no remedy. That is the position. I may not discuss the reasons,, at this time, I may only indicate the facte. I make an appeal to my friends from the province of Alberta. I remind them of the long and painful struggle that took place-during the course of many years and which resulted in a change of public opinion; I

Want of Confidence Motion
remind them of the crusades that were carried on in the elections of 1905 and 1909; I remind them of the change in the opinions of the leaders of the Liberal party, how they went out and told the people that they were mistaken and wrong in 1905 and 1909; how they admitted that they thought differently now and that we should have our resources; I remind them how we rejoiced in that change of heart rather than blame the Liberals for their cupidity and hypocrisy. These things have happened, and now when we are in sight of the promised land we are told that we must be like Moses, die and not see it. I ask my friends from Alberta who belong to the Progressive party how they can go back to their constituents and tell .them they were precluded by the rules of the House of Commons from discussing this matter, and yet they must vote confidence in a government that has betrayed them most shamefully with respect to this transaction.
I did not intend to participate in this debate, but when I heard the observations of the Minister of Agriculture, when I heard the apologies of the Minister of the Interior, when I heard the blame that was heaped upon the government of the province of Alberta, and when I saw the attempt that was made to have it said that the government at Edmonton were responsible for the present situation I felt that although I did not belong to the party that had negotiated the terms of this agreement I must range myself on the side of the province. And having regard to the promise which I gave publicly and openly that I would support the agreement of January 9, 1926, I would be recreant to my own past history with respect to this matter, recreant to the trust reposed in me by the constituents that sent me here, if I did not rise in my place and voice a protest against the miserable subterfuge that prevents discussion of this matter and prevents the province of Alberta, perhaps for the next five or six years, from enjoying the right of administering its own natural resources as older provinces of this confederation do. That is the reason I have spoken, and I offer no apology for my action. If I have inadvertently disregarded in the slightest the ruling of the Chair this afternoon, I offer my most humble regrets, because I had no intention of doing so. My only object was to recite the facts I have mentioned, and say to my friends from Alberta that if to-night they vote confidence in this administration they must accept the responsibility of going back to their constituents and telling them
that the reason Alberta has not its resources is that they trusted the government of the day and were betrayed.
Hon. LUC1EN CANNON (Solicitor General) : My answer to the speech delivered by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) will be very short. The hon. member in the course of his remarks proclaimed that he respected the decision which the Chair gave this afternoon, that we should not discuss t'he question of the return of its natural resources to the province of Alberta. But every hon. member has no doubt remarked that most of the hon. gentleman's speech was directed to that question. I will bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker. I shall not follow the hon. member on the ground which he has chosen, but I will simply say, so far as the question of the natural resources of the province of Alberta are concerned, that this government will stand by the agreement entered into in 1905 and' will see that the rights of both the majority and the minority in that province are respected. If the hon. member who has just spoken is willing to have an election fought on the question whether the agreement of 1905 is to be nothing but a scrap of paper, and if he wishes to abandon the engagements which have been signed, engagements which have been consecrated by the governments which carried them out for the last twenty years, he is welcome to do so. But, on the other hand, we on the other side of the House are willing to meet him any time. We do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to have in Canada any religious struggles. We do not wish to revive in this country the dissensions which existed thirty and forty years ago; belonging as we do to the Liberal party, we are in favour of respecting the rights of minorities as well as the rights of majorities.
The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) spoke in the city of Montreal ten days ago. He addressed thousands of the citizens of my province who came to listen1 to 'him. Speaking in their own language, what did he say? He said he had become more of a Nationalist than the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa).


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I do not need1 to say for the benefit of the hon. member, but for the benefit of other members of the House, I say it as a matter of privilege, that what the hon. member says is untrue.


Lucien Cannon: We have had enough interruptions of that kind from the right hon. leader of the opposition during this session.
Want oj Confidence Motion

Every member of this House can judge for himself the meaning of the speeches delivered by the right hon. gentleman. I have read his speech carefully; I have weighed his remarks pronounced in French and I can pass judgment on them with more accuracy than most of the hon. gentlemen who sit on the other side- more of a Nationalist than the hon. member for Labelle.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member has heard the denial given by the right hon. gentleman, and is bound to accept it.


Lucien Cannon: I bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker, but if the denial of the right hon. gentleman is true, the member for Labelle must have changed considerably.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Lucien Cannon: Moreover, that speech delivered in Montreal was followed by a declaration from the lips of Mr. Patenaude, who kissed with great Ib'liss the forehead which he had denounced during the election of 1925. The spectacle we witnessed in the city of Montreal was nothing but a prelude to the comedy which we have been invited to witness in the House of Commons to-day. Reconciled with Mr. Patenaude, on a par with the hon. member for Labelle and every Nationalist in our province, the right hon. member has to make his peace with the Orangemen of his party, and how is he going to do it? His usual way, his usual method, the Meighenite in parliamentary affairs, indirectly, adroitly, throwing the religious question into the political battlefield of Canada. He has done it. Unaible courageously to fight before the House of Commons the question as it should be fought, unable to come like a man-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Lucien Cannon: If hon. gentlemen are waking up they will be wider awake in a minute. Unable directly like a man to present his programme, the right hon. member has adopted this means, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that the motion should be voted down. I will explain my reasons very briefly. They are threefold. First, this amendment is not a straightforward way of placing the question before the House. If we are to divide, if we are to show differences of opinion, if we are to show divergence of thought, let the right hon. gentleman have some of his members bring the question up as it should be brought.


Arthur Meighen: Can the hon. gentleman tell us how that can be done so long as the government keeps a blocking motion on the order paper?


Lucien Cannon: So far as the right hon. gentleman is concerned, he had no lessons to receive from me.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Lucien Cannon: Secondly, the motion
should be voted down because it is not straightforward, it is not fair.


An hon. MEMBER:: Answer the question.


Lucien Cannon: If the hon. member who interrupts wants to make a speech, let him make it; I am making one now. The amendment says that this government has not implemented its promises contained in the Speech from the Throne.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is right-none of them.


Lucien Cannon: When parliament met on the 7th of January what were the speeches delivered by members on the other side? They said that this government, in order to keep power, was delivering the whole of the country to the Progressives.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No; promising.


Lucien Cannon: That is what they said. 1 remember in those days the board of strategy was wavering. It had not been established on as solid a basis as it is established now. Some of our friends, the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) for instance, would get up and say: We have nothing to do with the western element, the Progressives in this House. But the ex-Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) was not so hard to please. Fe said: If the Speech from the Throne does noc please the Progressive members, we will bring in one that may please them better.
We have worked for six months. We have brought in legislation, and mark my words Mr. Speaker, every piece of legislation brought in by this government has been adopted by the House of Commons. Not one of the government bills has been defeated; very few have been challenged, and to-day shall we, those who formed the majority while that legislation was being studied, turn round and say we have been wrong? Shall we, the Liberals on this side and the Progressives at the other end of the chamber, say that our labours for the last six months have been useless and should not be considered?
The right hon. gentleman, through the member who moved this amendment, says that we did not implement the Speech from the Throne. We have passed more progressive,

Want of Confidence Motion
more liberal, more radical measures during this session than have been passed for many a year. The evidence of that is to be gathered from the Tory press of this country. If we wish to judge whether the legislation which was introduced was Liberal legislation, let us peruse for a minute the reports of the Canadian press directed, influenced and controlled in a large measure by hon. gentlemen who sit opposite to me. Let us think for one moment of what the press said when the budget was being discussed. We stood for radical changes in many ways. We carried them through.


Arthur Meighen: And then changed them back again.


Lucien Cannon: My right hon. friend interrupts. I have great respect for a leader of a party provided that he respects himself. I have always shown great respect for the right hon. gentleman; but if he wishes to interrupt me like a back-bencher does, I will answer him in the same way. I say that this amendment should not be carried because not only is it not straightforward, not only is it not fair, but, thirdly, it would not carry out its object.
What is the object of this amendment? It is censure of the government because the government did not implement the Speech from the Throne. Does anybody in this House outside of the dyed-in-the-wool Tories who surround the leader of the opposition believe for one moment that, were there a change in the government, the Speech from the Throne would be implemented? What measure wou'd the right hon. gentleman if he was Prime Minister to-morrow introduce into parliament to implement the Speech from the Throne? The amendment asks that this House should vote non-confidence in the government because it did not do enough to implement the Speech from the Throne. Can we expect the right hon. gentleman, or his neighbour the exMinister of Finance, or his other neighbour the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) to do anything further?
Suppose when the vote is taken the amende meat carries. What will happen? Two alternatives are possible. The first is that this government would resign and that the leader of the oppositon would be called upon to form a government. Let us consider this alternative as regards legislation implementing the Speech from the Throne. If to-morrow the right hon. gentleman became Prime Minster, this House would prorogue. Not another piece of legislation would pass. Any legislation which had been initiated and not completely adopted 14011-290
would be dropped. This parliament would cease to exist. Why so? The moment the right hon. gentleman accepted the position of Prime Minster he would cease to become a member of this House and would not be able to sit in this House. The moment he would choose his colleagues-land I hope he would choose our good friend the hon. member for West York-I am sorry to say he would disappear also. There would be in this House fifteen or sixteen empty seats. Does anybody think for one moment that we could carry on?
I hear that many appeals have been made to the Progressives by supposedly constitutional advocates carrying on one arm precedents dating back to Queen Anne and on the other memoirs telling us what Lord Beacons-field might have said on certain occasions. Our friends who are not learned in the law were told, I understand, that should the right hon. gentleman become Prime Minister we would have no election for two years. Has anybody with a sense of humour the gall to repeat that in this House. If the right hon. gentleman became Prime Minister to-morrow he would be forced, on account of himself and his colleagues not being able to sit in this House, to bring on an election. That is common sense. I do not know what Queen Anne said about the matter. Let us flake the other alternative, which is that the Prime Minister-


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Which one?


Lucien Cannon: Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and I am proud of him The Prime Minister would ask for a dissolution. Now I heard a whole lot of constitutional law this afternoon; I have heard a lot more this evening, and I am not going to go into any details. As I said many months ago, common law is ordinary common sense, and constitutional law is common sense applied to public business. This government in January was told by a majority of the House to carry on the business of Canada, and we have done so. We have brought down legislation which has met with the approval of the majority of the House of Commons, and frequently these gallant knights who have spoken to-day did not have the courage to challenge a vote. If we were defeated on this amendment we should have the right to ask for a dissolution-and we shall have it. I heard the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) put the question, " Who ever heard of a prime minister asking twice in succession for a dissolution?"


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not asking but getting it.

Want of Confidence Motion


Lucien Cannon: What about Sir Wilfrid
Laurier, who was in power fifteen years and carried a number of elections? Was he not granted dissolution? Let us go further. Ramsay MacDonald formed a minority government, and when he was defeated in the House after having introduced his programme he asked His Majesty for a dissolution and he got it. And the crown in England is no different from the crown in Canada, notwithstanding what the hon. member for West Calgary may say to the contrary. I am not going to quote Gladstone; I am not going to quote Disraeli; I am not going to read any books-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be better for you if you did.


Lucien Cannon: The hon, gentleman would like me to read books.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Cannon: Well, I will not follow the hon. gentleman's example and drown my thoughts in a flood of words. This government has submitted to parliament a budget which has produced in the soul of the poor, of the weak and of the downtrodden a ray of hope, and we will not allow hon. gentlemen opposite who represent nothing but the great interests, nothing but selfish ends, to form a government before the electorate of Canada is called upon bo decide who shall govern the country. Let us have a vote, and if this government is sustained so much the better.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Cannon: If the government is defeated, then we will go to the country. I fancy I hear someone opposite saying, so much the better if we are defeated.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Cannon: I have no doubt a good many hon. gentlemen would be pleased to take our places, but that is a minor consideration. We are here to represent Canadian interests as a whole, and this is no time for a change of government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Cannon: Why do I say so? In a few months there is going to be an imperial conference and the League of Nations will meet; in a few months Canada will be called upon to express her views on international problems and on imperial relations.


An hon. MEMBER:: War with Turkey?


Lucien Cannon: Hon. gentlemen opposite have shown to-day an extraordinary sympathy for their leader (Mr. Meighen), and if they desire to have that sympathy maintained I would advise them not to talk Turkey. It will hurt the right hon. gentleman. He has taken such a stand, he has spoken on the same question in so many ways, that the less we speak about that subject the better for him. We are the representatives of the Canadian people, and we want as our spokesman, as our mouthpiece, a man whose ideals are Canadian and whose aspirations are the aspirations of the majority of the House.


Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired
with the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Prevost).


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, I was paired
with the hon. member for Toronto East Centre (Mr. Bristol).


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. MacNutt. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Mr. DESLAURilERS (Translation):	M(r.
Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Port Arthur-Thunder Bay (Mr. Langworthy). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent).
Main motion (Mr. Robb) agreed to on same division reversed, and the House went into committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.


IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION
[Stage Direction]
Immigration and Colonization-Immigration outside service-salaries, $800,000.
Mr. ROGERS:: Are we going on now?


Charles A. Stewart: No, I simply desired to get into the committee stage with these estimates, because they have not been taken up.
Progress reported.


Arthur Meighen: What will be the business for to-morrow, please, and in what order will it be taken?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not in a position to say as to the order. I think we had better take the same busines as announced for to-day, or for yesterday as it is now. I purpose taking up the resolution that appears in the order paper standing in my name with respect to the signature and ratification of treaties. I would like to be able to say that
Industrial Relations

that will be the first order of business. I hope it may, but I do not wish to say so definitely.
On motion of Mr Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 2.15 a.m. (Wednesday).
Wednesday, June 16, 1926.