1926-01-12

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend and make operative certain provisions of the Copyright Act, 1921.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Explain.


Mr. LADNER:: The present bill is a reprint of Bill No. 2 of last year and is the result of the findings of a special committee after hearing a great deal of evidence. It is virtually a compromise with respect to the various interests that presented their views on the matter. The report of the special committee was presented towards the end of last session but too late to be acted upon by the House. There are no variations from the bill as reported from the special committee.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, January 11, consideration of the motion of Hon. Ernest Lapointe for consideration of the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session, and its precedence over other business, and the proposed amendment thereto of the Right Hon-Arthur Meighen,
Mr. BOURASSA (Labelle) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the subject matter of this stormy debate, .permit me to express all the happiness which I felt in meeting you again as my colleague in this House, one of the few survivors of that concourse of public men elected in 1896 and to express to you on behalf of the part-difficult to gauge-of the population that I represent, my best wishes in this second term of office, the duties of which you so well discharged in the last parliament.
While on the subject, and since after all, I must at the outset begin to somewhat criticize, I shall be bold enough to state that the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) would have, perhaps, been more in keeping with the spirit of the hour if he had opened the door to an innovation which, I think, should as a matter be grafted on our parliamentary institutions: to wit, that the office of Speaker, as in England, should become permanent. I expressed this sentiment long ago, when the idea of being returned to this House, was most remote from my thoughts, I still cling to this opinion. I am not a follower of all British precedents; however there are good ones, the latter is one of them and I trust it will become a Canadian practice.
Mr. Speaker, before plunging into the question now engaging the attention of the House,

Government's Right to Office
may I be permitted to offer to my colleagues on both sides my best wishes, not as a newcomer to this House, but as a ghost coming back to his old haunts? Ghosts are allowed some freaks. All that I will permit myself in that respect is to say that I have come here with an open mind towards all parties and their programmes, and, may I say, with an open hand and heart to all their members.
Yesterday we were favoured with a strong breeze, may I say, blizzard, from the west, a breeze none the less refreshing because it was somewhat interrupted at times by hot waves of chinook. Later on, we had the thundering voice of the cannon from the old citadel of Quebec, a cannon fully loaded at times with balls that reached their aim, and on occasion with the quantity of powder necessary either to clear the atmosphere or to blind the eyes of those nearby.
To-day, I propose to assume the somewhat unaccustomed1 role of a dove of peace, and in order to show that that is really my intention, may I be permitted to say that it is for the general advantage of Canada that we should have here worthy representatives of the various provinces, and the different political parties and groups that now divide public opinion and favour?
In addition to yourself, Sir, to whom I have expressed my personal regard in our common language, I was delighted to find here one old friend, the last of our fellow members of the House of Commons in 18%. I refer to the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). Delighted I was also, as I am sure every member of the House is delighted, to see among us that veteran of public life and journalism in Canada, that Worthy representative of a worthy family, of an interesting paper, and of a marked political tradition. May I say to the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) that I for one appreciate very much his presence in the House, although I must say that I appreciate rather more the presence of the hon. gentleman than the policy of the paper which he edits with such ability, notwithstanding the fact that I agree with much of what it says. Next may I turn to my good friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and say how old it makes me feel, and how happy at the same time, to find him in the position of honour which he now occupies. Many men of different sizes have occupied the various positions of honour which are placed before the public men of this country. But when I left this parliament, or rather the old one, the Minister of Justice was but a babe in public life, a promising babe,
I admit, not only in size but in spirit as well. May I say as a French Canadian, irrespective

of all political views, that I am happy to discover that, as in the case of so many sons of our race, the House of Commons has been to my honourable friend a great educator, and that he is a living evidence, to the Englishspeaking members of the Canadian parliament, of the way in which the French Canadian can adapt himself to the use of the English language. .
As to my hon. friend just opposite, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), I will refrain from saying in his presence all that I feel, because if I were to allow my heart and my brain to speak freely perhaps what I should say might compromise the influence which I hope he will exercise in that part of the House. As to the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers), well, the moment I saw him here I was struck with the thought that it was a ghostly reappearance of a gentleman who was once my political chieftain and, as he has always been, my excellent friend. I will not dwell upon that lest it embarrass the hon. gentleman and perhaps disturb the repose of my late friend, Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
May I say that personally and politically as well I regret the absence from this House of a gentleman whom, although I differed from him at most times, I had learned to respect and appreciate-I refer to Sir Robert Borden. And another gentleman whom I had not the pleasure of knowing as a public man but whom I met privately in Winnipeg many years ago, Mr. Crerar, I also regret not to see here. It is a matter of great regret to me, too, that the Prime Minister of Canada should be absent from the House at this time. Not from any political consideration but purely for the advantage of parliament, I trust that Mr. Mackenzie King will soon be back in the House to face his worthy opponent, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) whom, as we say in French, I have reserved for the dessert. May I say to the right hon. gentleman that although I have differed from him in most respects while I have been out of public life and since he has entered the parliamentary arena, I have learned, not only from the reading of his public utterances but from a better source, from the lips of persons who know him and whom I know, that although I may not see in him the man to whom should be entrusted the destinies of this country, I have always respected him as a thorough gentleman and an honest man, a man of hft word, however right or wrong his views ' may be. I may perhaps illustrate and sum up this preface to the remarks I am about to make on the amendment of the right hon. gentleman by saying that when Mr. Mackenzie King is back in

Government's Right to Office
this House I hope there will be not only a fair interchange of opinions between himself and my right hon. friend, but that, now they are out of political conflict, they will both give to their utterances a somewhat broader and loftier tone than that which characterized the speeches of both of them during the electoral contest. In saying this I do not seek to blame either of these gentlemen; I know what the exigencies are of politics, of party and of partisans. But I think we have come to the point where statesmen should strike in their utterances not the note that appeals most to the lower feelings of their partisans but the note that appeals most, above and beyond the party spirit, to the best conscience and the highest sentiments of the Canadian people. It is in that spirit, and bearing in mind my oft-repeated sins as an active politician in the past, that I shall endeavour personally to maintain relations with the various parties that compose this House.
May I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that I am happy to see the old Conservative party regaining some of its vital forces. It seems to me that, in order to give to the country the full benefit of its great traditions and of those principles which were laid down, and which are engraved in the hearts and memories of the Canadian people, by the Macdonalds, the Cartiers and the Tuppers, the Conservative party should apply itself to be less of an Ontario party or a Nova Scotia party or an Imperial party, and should cherish rather the ambition to become again, what it was at the time of confederation,-and I say this unhesitatingly as a descendant of four generations of Liberals-a great national constructive party. [DOT] To that end, therefore, I comment; the language used recently, I will not say at Hamilton but generally, by the leader of the opposition when he spoke to and of the people of Quebec. In such language as he has used on these occasions he has shown his patriotism and his statesmanship, because, given the circumstances of the recent election, the right hon. gentleman must have had a good deal of courage and self possession to resist the temptation of playing Quebec against Ontario or Ontario against Quebec. He must have learned also from the lessons of that election that if the great Conservative party is to become once more a national party it must appeal, not to the low feelings of Quebec but equally to the better feelings not only of Quebec but, as well, of Ontario and of all other parts of Canada.
There are in the province of Quebec certain principles and certain traditions that have been closely associated with the history and the life of the Canadian nation ever since its
birth; and no party, no man, no government can afford to rob Canada of the wealth of moral traditions of Quebec, even allowing for the faults and the weaknesses of the people of that province. The people of Quebec are just as necesary to the prosperity and the moral superiority, to the growth and the progress of Canada, as are the people of the great province of Ontario, or the progressive people of the western provinces, or the people of the dear old Maritime provinces, especially, so far as I am personally concerned, that province by the sea which is dearest to myself, the province of Nova Scotia, the first one I had the pleasure of knowing upon going beyond the borders of my native province.
The Conservative party has rendered great service to Canada, because it was a party of principles. But since, unfortunately, it has sacrificed so many of its principles for the sake of appealing to this section or that section, since it has renounced the solid nationalism of Macdonald and Cartier to stamp itself in the minds of the people of Canada as the standard bearer of imperialism, although it may have acquired some political advantages here and there, it has lost a great deal of its raison d'etre as a national constructive party. You may say, Sir-no, you would not say so, because you must be impartial, but it may be suggested-that the Liberal party has sacrificed at least as many principles as the Conservative party. But as one who renounced pretty early in his political life the shibboleth of Liberalism, may I say, Sir, that the position is not similar? The essence of Liberalism is to have no principles. I do not mean this in a personal sense or in its application to this special group at this particular time; but the essence of Liberalism either by way of doctrine or in its political application is to try to do the best thing, to find its path between various conflicting principles and policies, governed by the rough common sense of the British people as in the British Isles. Liberalism has produced much good. It has tempered and humbled the Tory party in its pride and in its idea that everything which was British was Tory or ought to be Tory. But I admit that Liberalism has in itself a tendency to deliquescence which must be looked after not only by the Conservative party thinking of the faults of Liberalism-especially when there is a chance of taking the place of Liberals-but also by some people who, having renounced one shibboleth without acquiring faith in the other, think there is something to be made use of in the inspiration, in the instinct, in the disposition of these great parties, provided,

Government's Right to Office
of course, that they are kept from falling into the natural path of their worst instincts.
With regard to my friends from the west, may I say, just as the right hon. gentleman on the other side (Mr. Meighen) said, without any idea of pandering to their favour or sympathy-and for an excellent reason: I have nothing to expect from them-that I have followed with a great deal of sympathy their movement, from its inception. I began learning something of it in 1913, when I travelled through the western provinces for the second time and delivered some lectures in various centres of those three great provinces. It was then (that I heard for the first time of Mr. Crerar; I think he was secretary of the Grain Growers' Association.


Mr. FORKE:: He is president.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It was then I realized
that this Progressive movement, whatever form it took or might take in the future, whatever leadership it might receive, whatever formula of politics it might enunciate before the people east or west or before parliament, responded to a growing need of those western provinces and was just as necessary to the welfare and maintenance of confederation, to the growth of the spirit of confederation, as those clear-seeing men in England who denounced the policy of George III and Lord North were the real friends of England; for if their advice had been followed instead of narrow Toryism and narrow Whigism, blinding king, lords, commons and people, their follies would not have resulted in detaching from the Crown of England thirteen of its brightest jewels. I was struck then and there, Sir, with the similarity of some of the words used, some of the sentiments expressed in private conversations by men not of Yankee origin, by men not of German or Polish or Hungarian origin, but by Canadian citizens born and brought up in the British Isles who had come and settled in those western provinces, but without having had a previous contact with the people of Ontario and Quebec-I was struck with the similarity of their sentiments and those expressed four years before the American rebellion by men of English and Scottish stock in the English provinces of America against the domination of England, the selfishness of Englishmen, the narrow-mindedness of king, ministers, lords and commoners; and from that time I took the resolution, as a Canadian to whose heart every inch of Canadian land is dear, to try to understand what those people wanted, whether right or wrong; to put myself in their shoes if possible in order to do the little I could do in my good old province of Quebec' 
to make our people understand that the party dictum, the programme of the Conservative party or the Liberal party, no more responded to the needs of the Canadian nation, and that a new voice was arising in the west that had to be listened to if men of good will, east and west, were at least to try to solve the problems which faced the country. Everything which is a problem in Alberta is a problem for Canada; everything which is a problem in Quebec is a problem for Canada, and likewise everything which is a problem in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick is a problem for Canadians, east and west.
To my two excellent Labour fellow-members may I say that although in many respects we probably stand at the antipodes in our conception of social life, I am happy to find them here and happy to find that a portion of the Labour of Canada is represented in this House by men of good English stock with an abundance of English culture and at the same time a sincere desire, I am sure, to adapt their ideas to the conditions in Canada. But may I be allowed to state that the organized Labour of Canada, as represented by these gentlemen, affiliated for the larger part at least with the United States labour unions, does not represent fully the labour forces, and that one of the mistakes committed by the preceding administration- I will not say that led by the right hon. gentleman, Mr. Mackenzie King, but by the Conservative	administration,-through	its
Labour minister, was its failure to acknowledge the fact that the growth of the Labour movement in the province of Quebec-gov-[DOT] erned, as everything in that province is, by old standing traditions of religion, of family ties, of attachment to customs three centuries oldj-^has to be acknowledged also, whether you approve or disapprove of it. There is that Catholic labour movement in the province of Quebec which has just as much right to be heard in the parliament of the nation as have the organized' farmers, the workmen affiliated with the labour unions of the United States, or any other class of people in Canada.
Now, Sir, begging pardon again for this long preface to my remarks, I wish to take up in that spirit the motion which stands in the name of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen). May I say, just to introduce a pleasant feeling, that I think the government owes a great debt of gratitude to the right hon. gentleman? I leave it to their conscience and' their good heart to find a means of expressing their gratitude one way or the other, but I really think that by introducing this

Government's Right to Office
amendment and having it substituted by force for the motion of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), the government has been perhaps saved. But that is a small point. Let us take the amendment. On the first paragraph I would have nothing to say, only that with a little coquetry I would like to show that a layman, an ignorant man, can touch the fine work of legality nearly as deftly as a lawyer can. It is said that in the late general election the candidates of His Excellency's advisers were defeated, and so forth.
I d[o not know that any candidate was put in the field by the advisers of His Excellency acting in such capacity. I do not presume that the sinister intention of that wording was to insinuate that His Excellency took a hand in the choice of the candidates of the Liberal party. I think in the choice of candidates a great many influences! come to bear. I know it was so in the old days; I do not know how it is now, but I have heard of leaders imposing their choice in preference to that of the people, and that in both parties. I have heard of certain portions of a constituency imposing their candidate against the will of other portions. I remember even having heard a minister of the crown belonging to the Liberal party tell me quite seriously that it was sometimes the duty of leaders! of a party to supply funds to the opponent of one of their own candidates in order to get rid of him. So I have come to the conclusion that the responsibility of leaders in the choice of candidates does not matter very much.
The right hon. leader of the opposition says that the government candidates were defeated in a "large" majority of the constituencies. Perhaps the adjective was inspired by the circumstances of the moment, but there is no doubt that both t'he Liberal party and the Conservative party stand in a minority. This has been pointed out time and again, and we must now look for the solution which such circumstances suggest or impose.
With regard to the second clause of the amendment, "that nine ministers of the crown, including the Prime Minister, were rejected at the polls and have no seats in parliament." leaving apart the very able presentations of the right hon. gentleman, the 'hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), from my humble point of view, and I believe I am expressing the view of a great many of the people in the country, much more numerous than the few thousands who sent me here by their votes, there is a growing feeling that the lesser the
number of ministers, the better the government. Carried to its logical conclusion I would say, Sir, that a government clipped of its head, its arms, its legs, and left only with its toes would march on the path of progress at a much quicker rate than most of the governments we have had for the past twenty-five years. But that is only as a matter of relief in the very serious situation I am going to deal with.
The next clause of the amendment reads:
That the party represented in the last parliament by His Majesty's apposition secured in the said election by far the largest support in the popular vote, and has substantially the largest number of members of any party in the present House of Commons.
The largest number of members, no doubt.
I will not follow the Solicitor General in the analysis he has made of the various nuances- there is really no English word to render the fine significance of that word. You see, French is the language of diplomacy, and1 when French diplomats want to tell each other politely, although they are in the same government, or although they are working towards the same end, that they are not of the same opinion, *or that there must be something behind the fence, they say there is a nuance. No doubt there are shades of differences between the various members on that side of the House, but I believe there are also some slight differences of opinion between various individuals or groups of individuals on this side. I do not think that iime of argument will carry us very far.
But there is one point which had just as well be looked into immediately and that is the situation of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, and the votes given in that province. The right hon. leader of the opposition was put under the impression, when I asked him if he counted the votes given to Mr. Patenaude and his candidates in Quebec as being given to the right hon. gentleman's party, that I merely wanted to poke fun at him. He was greatly mistaken. Naturally enough, the question brought applause on this side. Conservatives must have sympathy for these gentlemen. They need some little solace of that nature, so let them enjoy it. It will not change anything. But what is serious and important is, why was the Conservative party officially absent in the province of Quebec? Why was the right hon. leader of that party excluded from appealing to the people of Quebec? He knows where I stand. I repeat, I have opposed his policy right along, ever since the war began. I opposed his policy and the policy of his party under the Union gov-

Government's Right to Office
eminent. I opposed his policy when he was Prime Minister. In my own humble organ of opinion I have discussed and analysed every speech of his, but I may claim I have always done it in the open, that such strokes as I gave him I gave him in front, and not below the belt. I do not want to be counted among those who, sheltering themselves under the traditions of the great Conservative party, or appealing to prejudices or to the racial feelings of Quebec, as against the Liberal party, or as against the right hon. gentleman, have been pursuing the most sordid domination and stabbing the right hon. gentleman in the back. *I do not appeal to gentlemen opposite any more than I do to the representatives of the western provinces, but simply because I knew the men and the circumstances, I have no regret, either as a Canadian, as a Freneh-Canadian, or as a friend, in the 'broad sense of the word, of both political parties, in having helped the Liberal-Conservative party to rid itself, if it has learned the lesson of that last election, of that sordid domination which has been exercised over this group in Quebec by Lord Atholstan and the 'Montreal Star for the last twenty-five years. They should now realize that the influence of the Montreal Star is great indeed, but that it operates against the usual law of nature. If you want to be sure that a minister will be defeated in Quebec, that a group of men will be defeated in Quebec, that a policy will be repugnant to the people of Quebec, get the Montreal Star to uphold it and you may be sure of its fate.
I am not in the secrets of either party; but I know this: long before the Patenaude movement was organized, a gentleman connected with the Conservative cause came around a friend of mine, associated with the paper of which I am the humble founder and director, as-I am not so well up in biblical language as the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White)-what is it?-as the roaring lion, or the insinuating serpent?-to get the influence of that paper in favour of a certain railway policy. There was a big national programme to cover up that policy. I do not know how many sheets of paper were filled with declarations of principles, as to the salvation of Canada, the adoption of a national policy, down with imperialism, down with Mr. Meighen's policy! But in that big display of fine words, there was a little black spot; and it was that the gentlemen who would accept a candidature under that national programme,-and plenty of money to support it-would have to accept an engagement -with regard to the railway policy

in question. They would be allowed to denounce the empire, to throw the flag down and get rid of Mr. Meighen, provided they made it safe for the holders of Canadian Pacific Railway shares to get, some said, ten per cent, others, seven per cent. That is the main reason why I came out from my long retreat, to help-I will not say the right hon. gentleman, I will not say the Libera! party, but all the good and right-thinking men belonging to both parties-to help rid the Canadian people, the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal of that gang of financial buccaneers and their attempts at blackmailing public men, governments and parliaments in order to secure certain sordid ends. I may say here, Sir, that I feel sure that if anything of that nature was presented for the approval of the right hon. leader of the opposition he repulsed it. For that he has my esteem and respect and that of all other Canadians who think of the honour of their public men before they think of party differences.
Now we come to paragraph four which is I understand the substance of the motion: Because the Prime Minister is not in the House of Commons or in the Senate there is no government, there ought to be no government. I listened with a great deal of attention and pleasure to the debate yesterday between the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon). I have enough of the lawyer's temperament in me-thank heaven I was prevented from becoming one-but I have some of the instincts of the lawyer especially on all matters of constitutional law. Really it was a treat for an old parliamentarian, for one who knows something of the development of the constitution more as a casual reader or as a Canadian citizen or British subject than as a legal man. It was a delight for me to listen to the able presentation of both sides of the case by the hon. member for Calgary and the hon. the Solicitor General. I was reminded of my namesake-that is the only resemblance there is-Henry IV, le Beamais. He was one day listening to a trial in the parliament of Paris, which as hon. gentlemen know, was more of a court of justice than anything else. There was a very able presentation by one of the lawj'ers on one side and with his bearnaise petulance Henry IV got up and said "Mr. Judge, it seems to me the case is heard." They were very familiar in those days; it was as a mere spectator that the king was present. Then the other side was presented and Henry IV got up and said "Mr. Justice, I am very glad to be only

Government's Right to Office
the king of France instead of being in your place." ,May I say without any wish to violate the canons of good taste, that in this case in some respects I prefer being judge than king. But on the other hand I admit that if I had to exercise the little knowledge I have on constitutional law and decide just on that issue with either the member for Calgary or the Solicitor General I would feel as much embarrassed as I am sure most of the members of this House feel although some, perhaps the lawyers especially, will not have the humility to admit it.
But there is something else involved than merely the application of a certain number of British precedents to the present case. Those gentlemen have gone back in English history for three hundred years. I was tempted- that is the result of the bad instincts of my nature-to go back to the time of the Wit-enagemots which, as all hon. gentlemen, the English members at least, should1 know, were the origin of both houses of parliament. But I have thought it would not be proper to inflict that revenge of a layman against the lawyers upon the whole House. Without having time to go to the library in order to see if those books which were piled un here yesterday were back again, I simply had recourse to my school boy memory, and also to the days when I was a member of parliament and lost no opportunity of learning something about British history and the British constitution. I was reminded of some reflections of Mr. Lecky, a good old Conservative and what is a great deal better than that, a great writer, a philosopher and historian but of very strong Conservative tendencies. In his work Mr. Lecky was marking the evolution through which power, as everybody knows, had passed from the lords to the king, and back from the king to the Commons. And then the outgrowth of the British cabinet to which the hon. member for Calgary referred yesterday. My little historical knowledge coincides absolutely with his legal authority that the cabinet and the office of the Prime Minister really took birth in the life of British institutions at the time of George I and Walpole. By the way may I say it was quite an accidental circumstance that imposed upon George I the choice of a government composed primarily of members of the House of Commons and led by a distinguished member of that House. As everybody knows, Queen Anne, before her death, felt somewhat anxious about what would be asked of her on the other side of this life for what she had helped in doing to her old father, and she wanted to undo that to a certain extent by favouring the re-establishment in England of the Stuarts in the person of the Pretender. Naturally all those great families and those masses of the people who had supported the great Revolution of I68S were determined that no Catholic king, no Catholic family should ever reign in England, therefore most of the great families turned against the Stuarts. But most of them also dreaded the association of the Hanover crown with that of England. They foresaw the complications that would arise from the concentration upon one head of the responsibilities and the exercise of power by a German monarch, and (that of the traditionally insular kingdom to the north of Europe which had relinquished all ideas of conquest and (possession on the continent with, of course, a back thought of recouping itself on other continents. Walpole became prime minister, and the cabinet existed because George I, a German by blood, by education and language, found necessary to chose a thorough Englishman, a member of the House of Commons, as his main adviser, in order to find in the middle classes what support he could not secure from the old aristocracy, Whig or Tory. And thus a new turn -was given to the process of evolution through which political power, first wrested from kings by the aristocracy, was finally transferred to the people. Eventually, that power was absorbed, or nearly so, by the cabinet. Some twenty years ago, I was struck with the observation of Mr. Lecky, that the cabinet and its chief, the Prime Minister, threatened to absorb and monopolize all powers of legislation and government, showing that by this process, the classical land of political liberty was being drawn in the direction of what is now designated as Fascism.
Now, sir, I think this aspect is just as important as the enumeration of the precedents established on such a day, in such a year, which enabled Mr. So-and-so to keep his seat-not a seat like this, because they are more humble in England than we are-but to keep a place on the benches of the House of Commons, for three or four weeks more or less. It seems to me it is much more 4 p.m. important for us to get at the root of the question, and to ask ourselves if really the problem is whether Mr. So-and-so will be three weeks absent from the House or not, or whether we are going to seize this occasion to throw light on the problem and bring it home to the intelligence of all the classes of the Canadian people.
From the time I came to parliament, some thirty years ago, to the present time, and especially after each visit to England, after each conversation I have had with British
Government's Right to Office

statesmen or jurists, I have been struck with the fact that when British jurists study eases of this kind, when British historians look over them, they always look to the broader aspect of things. They do not think only of the past but of the future, relying steadily upon the sound sense of the people of England. They look to the present for a practical solution of pressing problems and to the future for the maintenance of the glory of England. But here, with the development of that strange mixture of Americanism and colonialism which characterizes what we call British loyalism, we are always looking at the small aspect of British affairs, always trying to borrow British precedents and to interpret them in the manner in which a Chinese tailor interpreted the needs of a traveller. A British officer was once in China. The ship had stopped in a certain Chinese port, and the officer wanted to get a new coat. He knew the ability of the Chinese tailors as well as all Chinese mechanics. He went to one of them, gave him one of his old coats, and said "I want a coat similar to this." The tailor began cutting up the stuff and putting on the embroidery and so forth; but after it was finished, the coat was so glittering and fresh looking compared with the old one that the Chinese tailor thought it would not answer; so he took a slice of pork and rubbed it over the collar of the coat to make it resemble the old one.
Some of our colonials, who seem to assume that they carry the burdens of the British commonwealth, past and present, on their shoulders, who are prepared to launch the people of Canada, north, south, east and west, upon all war ventures of the empire, when it comes to applying the traditions of Great Britain to Canada, seem to lose sight of what is much more important than precedent, much more important than an enumeration of facts and dates, and so on, namely, the maintenance of the basic principle of all British institutions. They know about all British precedents established in the past. They know from the tip of their fingers, just as our friend the Chinese tailor knew, what was required of him-of the written laws of England as at present printed and contained in certain bound volumes that will be found in the library here and in every legal library in Canada. They know equally well of the customs of the past. But those laws, written or unwritten they interpret as Persian magi or Turkish muftis

"What is written, is written." I would suggest to my venerable and sympathetic friend from Mount Royal

(Mr. White) that here is the time to apply the biblical advice that he gave us regarding British precedents. Those legal pontiffs interpret the British laws, written or unwritten, according to the letter that killeth and not according to the spirit that giveth life and will maintain life. They forget the old maxim that a constitution is made for the people and is supposed to adapt itself to all circumstances in the life of a nation and the people, and is not to be circumscribed within the four corners of a more or less obsolete or inapplicable precedent.
They seem to imagine that in a circumstance like this, or in all other circumstances, the duty of the representative of the crown or that of its advisers, whether the advice is right or wrong, or of any government or parliament, is not to adapt themselves to cases as they come but to treat the Canadian people, their liberty, their guarantee, their safeguard, as Procustes treated his victims. He had a certain number of beds. They were all excellent beds, of the same length and width. He did not accommodate the beds to his guests, but those who were too long to occupy them were beheaded, and those who were not 'ong enough to fill them were stretched so that they could adapt themselves to the bed's dimensions.
I coincide entirely with my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in saying that there is a principle much more important than British precedent, and that is the British spirit in interpreting laws and in adapting political conditions, temporary or permanent, to the temporary or permanent situation arising out of new cases. On many occasions I have opposed British policy. On many occasions I have run risks to stand by what I consider to be the rights of my country against the exigencies of the rulers of England. But in the midst of the war I wrote a sentence which I will never disavow. The British Empire is indifferent to me, but British traditions are as dear as, and, from a certain point of view, dearer to me, perhaps, than they are to most English-speaking Canadians. With me this is not simply an inherited instinct; it is an acquired conviction, strengthened by thirty years of study, by travels in various countries, by a close contact with rulers of different nations-the conviction that the maintenance of the British spirit of progress and of stability, of advancement and of balance, is one of the greatest moral, political and social assets of Canada. The value of that great asset which you of English stock can claim with pride, has not

Government's Right to Office
been lessened because in this country, as in the Old Country, it has been leavened by the shrewdness and the more vivacious spirit of the Celtic races and, as regards Canada, by the penetration of the French spirit of logic, the rectitude and fine moral turn of mind which two million French Canadians have preserved not for their benefit alone but for yours as well as for ours, for the benefit of the whole of Canada. It is in that association of British traditions with the Ceitic turn of mind and the French shrewdness that lie the elements of the greatness of this country. I am quite sure that the right hen. gentleman is just as desirous of preserving British traditions as members representing the old province of Quebec on this side; as those old friends of our race and province, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White). I am sure all hon. members here have the same desire and would manifest it the more clearly if these things were always presented to them in their tine colours not with any idea of pandering to this race or to the other, but with a view to preserving the best moral and political asset of this country and best elements of the great races that compose it. There lies our duty as legislators and as patriotic Canadians; there lies the duty of those who hold high positions of office as statesmen.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Why, then, is the hon. gentleman indifferent to the British Empire?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I have explained my position on many platforms and I presume I shall have other opportunities to explain it. I believe, with Lord Rosebery-a great statesman; a Liberal, it is true, but with Conservative tendencies-that the abnormal growth of the British Empire is the greatest danger to British ideals, and I am attached more to those ideals than to British imperialism wherever exhibited. Mind you, Sir, I want no mistake made. In political matters, I, as a French-Canadian, wish, desire and will work all my life to preserve, over those various racial characteristics, not the imperial spirit, but the British political spirit, because I consider the British political spirit to be the greatest instrument for the ruling of men that has been found in the last four or five centuries. But if we are to develop our nationality, if we are to make better and fuller use of those great traditions, if we are to be true and noble scions of those great nations, are we to be simply the Chinese tailor who will cut for the Canadian people a coat entirely copied from the British model? Or, are we to interpret boldly and intelligently those great principles
and traditions of government in order to suit the Canadian people? Are we to tie up the young Canadian giant forever to the apron strings of the good old grandmother, respectable though, as she may be? Mind you, Sir, I am not raising here the question of political independence. The question of keeping our political ties or cutting them off to me is a secondary matter. I would far rather secede from Great Britain and remain British in spirit than remain and go on as we are doing, British in name, but Yankeefied in spirit, morals and habits and becoming more so from day to day. Are we going to tie this or any other parliament-and to me,
I say it sincerely, it is quite indifferent whether that government be composed of Liberals or Conservatives or Progressives or a mixture of all-are we going to tie this government or the next one to a certain nuntber of British precedents which do not correspond to the present or the general situation of the country?
The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), in his able presentation, has given a sort of lecture to my excellent neighbour on the respect we ought to have for British precedents. I presume the hon. member for West Calgary as well as the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) and, indeed, all hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, are not prepared to say that we should imitate all British precedents in every respect. Without having had opportunity to strengthen my (cogitations at the library, let me give some instances just from memory. Supposing the Liberal party had succeeded in afflicting Canada and the empire with a useless navy, would a Liberal government or a' Conservative government be prepared to copy the British precedent of bombarding the fleet of a nation at peace with us in case a nation with which we might be at war should make use of that fleet against us, as the English did at Copenhagen? Would the right hon. gentleman or any other member of this House claim that the Prime Minister of Canada, whether this or the next one or any other, should follow the precedent created by Disraeli when, without consulting parliament, without getting the money from parliament, he purchased a large block of shares of the Suez canal, not counting the commission he gave to old Ismail Pasha to purchase them, in order to increase the strength of England in the Mediterranean? Would any member of this House, as true British statesmen and subjects, recommend that we follow the example of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in the course he followed at the time of the South African war? The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. COMMONS
Government's Right to Office
Bennett) gave us a good man}*- quotations from Gladstone. May I be allowed to give a very short one? I refer to Gladstone's description of Joseph Chamberlain as the first English politician of the Yankee type. Now, I have a great deal of admiration for the genius of Chamberlain, who I think was the first English statesman to have a thorough grasp of the possibilities of the outstanding portions of the British Empire. At the same time, however, he had too much of the Prussian spirit of force and of the Yankee spirit of unscrupulousness in matters of policy. And when in his relations with foreign governments a statesman adopts the process which Mr. Chamberlain resorted to, in order to inflame opinion in England, while concealing some of the despatches sent to him by Sir Alfred Milner, as well as some portions of the report of the Bloemfontein conference, just as in 1870 Bismarck had tampered with despatches exchanged 'between the French and German ambassadors in order to precipitate war between France and Prussia,-when this sort of thing is done, whether it be in London or in Berlin, it is bad policy and bad precedent. Is any other hon. gentleman in this House prepared to say that, having these great principles of government as enunciated by the right hon. gentleman, and having a government so respectful of the rights of parliament, as I am sure my right hon. friend would wish to have the government, we should adopt as a precedent that piece-I do not qualify it-of disingenuousness through which five members of the English cabinet prepared and termed the secret treaty of alliance between France and England to the point where, eight days before the war,-and this is now a matter of history-two-thirds or three-quar-iters of the cabinet were ignorant of that compact? The whole of the English parliament, the who'e of the British nation was ignorant of it; nobody knew the first word about it. But we, the poor gullible colonials of Canada, of South Africa and of Australia, were being prepared scientifically for years to give the best of our blood to implement that policy, of which only five men in the British government knew anything at all. Is this a British precedent which we are to respect tad to copy into our relations with foreign nations, with imperial governments? I do not think so. There may be British precedent in it but there is an absence of British honour.
Is any member of this House, is any leader of a party group here, prepared to recommend as a precedent the manner in which Lloyd George, whose genius, whose ability, [Mr. Bourassa.l
whose courage in many respects I admire, got rid of Mr. Asquith? Is anyone here prepared to cite, as a precedent of British honour as between men of the same party, Mr. Lloyd George's action in this regard? My right hon. friend in studying that incident might understand something of the inner history of his own party in the province of Quebec. Is anyone prepared to say that in respect of these grave matters of inter-imperial relations which, on the spur of the moment, can throw the whole empire or large portions of it into the throes of war, we should adopt as a sound precedent the despatch, let us say for example, sent by Mjr. Churchill at the time of the Chanak incident? Shall we, I will not say imitate, 'but encourage- that sort of thing? Are we to make it known by expressions of opinion that everything that comes from London we are prepared to copy, to admire and to follow? At the time the despatch came the right hon .gentleman, on December 22, 1922, if I remember rightly, launched the cry in Toronto, "Ready, aye, ready"; but he himself perhaps has learned more since that time about the incidents of that incident. Perhaps1 if he had known then that Mi% Churchill had sent that despatch without the knowledge of the Foreign Minister of Great Britain, without the knowledge indeed of most of his colleagues, he would not have been prepared to say on behalf of the Canadian people " Ready, aye, ready," upon the first beck and- call of any individual politician in London. I am sure that the right hon. gentleman is not ready to say now that we should obey the dictates even of the whole British cabinet, to say nothing of the dictates or the fancies of one single politician of one cabinet in Great Britain.
Now I come to the last precedent. Oh, I had forgotten. The right hon. gentleman has given proof that he has at last changed his mind; at least this is the way his Hamilton speech has been interpreted in Quebec. Some people declare that that speech was inspired by the Bagot election, but I do not want to stoop to any such inference. I do not think that the right hon. gentleman himself wants to stoop to that.
An hon. 'MEMBER: Why do you say it then?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I say it simply because there is evidence of a change of mind on the part of the right hon. gentleman in the right sense; and I hope that any other hon. gentleman on the other side who considers the matter at all will cogitate over my right hon. friend's Hamilton speech in order if possible to

Government's Right to Office
correct the impression created by the Toronto speech, and so evolve a national policy for the Conservative party.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: My hon. friend has misstated, by the very conciseness of his extract, what I said at Toronto, and I hope he will do me better justice now in regard to what I said at Hamilton.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: With pleasure. What I have here is an extract-I have not the complete text-from a quotation given by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) in Toronto on December 7 and reproduced verbatim in the Montreal Star of the next day.


Arthur Meighen: That also is a misstatement by reason of its brevity.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Oh, well, I am afraid the right hon. gentleman was pretty much involved that day, contrary to his custom. He was perhaps rather in the position of a lawyer who is lengthening the plea in order to clear up the case if he can. I can give only two paragraphs, but they are pretty cohesive.


Arthur Meighen: They are not comprehensive, and that is the reason for the difficulty of a great many people, including my hon. friend.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I fear my right hon. friend will have to explain himself quite thoroughly on those two speeches.


Arthur Meighen: I shall have no difficulty in doing so.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Now I want to be absolutely fair, and am I unfair in stating that on that occasion the right hon. gentleman was of the opinion that it would be the duty of Canada to respond to the appeal Of Great Britain and that if the Canadian government did so he was behind the government?


Arthur Meighen: That is not a fair statement at all.


Mr. JACOBS:: Was not that the impression created in the country?


Arthur Meighen: That is the impression which the hon. gentleman and a great many around him sought to create.


Samuel William Jacobs: Excuse me, I did not seek to create any impresion at all.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If the right hon. gentleman thinks that I have misrepresented his position, then I hope he will seize the first opportunity to make himself perfectly clear in respect of both speeches. And let me tell him that in this matter I am not looking for 14011-8
any small individual triumph or any party advantage for anyone. I think it behooves the right hon. gentleman to put himself on solid ground in relation to this question, not only for the benefit of the province of Quebec but for the gbod of the whole Dominion of Panada, because I consider that the current of thought that has been followed during the last twenty-five years in imperial matters has contributed more to the estrangement between races and between provinces, to the disturbance of the public mind and to the upsetting of our economic affairs, than any other of the political problems that have come before us.
I come to ithe last precedent that has arisen in my memory; it is the one to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has referred, and the one I think most applicable to this case. I refer to the calling to power of the Labour party of England, headed by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald- although it was then the second largest group in the House-in preference to the Conservatives, who commanded a larger number of votes, and to the Liberals, who were in about the same relative position as the members of the Progressive group are to-day. The single fact that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was in the House and that Mr. Mackenzie King is not in the House, is to my mind a very small issue which has been sufficiently dealt with the member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon). But what is the lesson to us, not only for this circumstance 'but for future circumstances? It is that the old shibboleth of absolute majority rule was thrust aside. Why? Because it could be of no use. There was a concert of British common sense in which the king played the foremost part, although the most silent. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald played his part; Mr. Stanley Baldwin played his part, and Mr. Asquith played his part. Of course there was then, as there is now and always will be-because these things will always be dealt with by men- the human side. No doubt the Tories and the Liberals imagined that by, so to speak, throwing Mr. Ramsay MacDonald into the grips of power with the party he had, and with no ministerial responsibility, they would discredit the Labour party. Let me say in passing, however, that those who entertained that hope were badly discomfited. The Labour party of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald did not rule England for long, but they opened before the world and before the people of our British countries a new horizon. They proved that men who belong to the labouring classes are just as capable of developing statesman-

Government's Right to Office
ship, foresight and perhaps more human feeling than the old parties. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was not 'long in power, but if to-day there is a slim hope of peace for Europe; if to-day the great conflicting nations who fought against each other from 1914 to 1918 in a struggle of blind and stupid hatred are nearer an understanding, the man in Europe who will have been the greatest and most practical contributor to that marvelous work, the re-establishment of peace, will be known in history as Ramsay MacDonald, leader of the Labour party.
The circumstances were unprecedented and a new precedent was created. But, Sir, it was not created, I think, in a transient manner- and here we are coming to the root of the situation, much deeper than all these side issues, ably represented as they may have been by able lawyers; much deeper than the fiscal policy of either pfarty-I will go further; more important than the different conceptions of this imperial problem or that national problem, which gentlemen to your right and your left may have. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) put his finger on the root of the question when he said that groups have come to stay. The incidents of an election are nothing. Let our friends from: the west not be downhearted; they have come to stay. They may be fewer one election, more numerous another. Take the history of parties. I will never forget the first lecture I heard on British parliamentary history, given by my old friend, John Redmond, some forty years ago. It was in the worst days of the Irish Nationalist party. Mr. Parnell had just been uncrowned by the strong hand of Mr. Gladstone, once his best ally. John Redmond wa3 one of the very few men Who had remained faithful .to Parnell, and not wishing to deepen the abyss between the two branches of the Nationalist party or the Irish nation, he came to lecture in America on various topics. One of those lectures was on his reminiscences of the House of Commons. There in a vivid picture which lasted only about ten or twenty minutes-it seemed to me to be very short-he painted to us Gladstone as he had seen him; Gladstone defeated on the first Home Rule bill. The House being emptied in a flurry of excitement, Redmond had forgotten some papers at his place on the bendh. He returned to the House. One man still remained there, an old man pale-faced, downcast, with white locks coming down his perspiring face. That was William Ewart Gladstone, and the young Redmond went out saying, "That man has not six months to live". Then he painted us 
the scene six years later when, after the long struggle against the prejudices of England, the long struggle to blot out, in his own language, "the darkest page in English history", the grand old man, coming back fresh from the people, was expected in the House of Commons at three o'clock in the afternoon. All benches were filled. The members' galleries had not a seat left; every place had been taken since eight o'clock in the morning. The ladies' gallery, the Lords' gallery, and the diplomatic gallery were all packed. Three o'clock came, three strokes from Big Ben-which, by the way, is going on while our own is at a standstill. Five minutes past three came; ten minutes past three, and there was a feeling of anguish in every heart because, after all, they on the Tory side had fought him, they had denounced him as humbug, but every true Englishman in his heart knew he was a great old man. They waited1-waited1-nothing.	A man of
eighty, he may have fainted, he may have been taken ill. Suddenly they heard what seemed to them like the distant sound of a strong wind blowing on Westminster Place. The sound was growing-growing, and finally the doors were flung open and a young man of eighty came in wearing a frock coat, with a rose in his buttonhole, with his white head crowned with glory, crowned with victory. The whole House rose-Tories and Radicals alike, Irish Nationalists from the south and Orangemen from the north, and even those in the galleries got up, not only because they saw there manifested the power of resistance and of persistence on the part of a great British statesman, but because they also felt the need of paying homage to one who had been for a time down-trodden because of his very courage.
Now, pardon me, Mr. Speaker, if I have gone somewhat astray, but I have an advice to give to my young colleagues, and I desire to remind my older colleagues of an outstanding lesson of political history. Let us not count too sharply the dead and the living. Let us not estimate too closely the chances of victory or defeat of this party or the other. But what I think has to be considered is the necessity that the various groups of population who compose this country should be represented in this parliament by men who are not primarily tied up to party, but who primarily are the outspoken mandatories of the people who sent them here. This is not only true of independent individuality; this is not only true of the freedom of conscience of each of us. In the spirit which I think I have evinced, and which I

Government's Right to Office
certainly feel, Sir-and for the whole time I have to pass here, I wanlt to take it for granted that every member representing here a portion of the Canadian people wishes to do the best he can by the country, and by his party, and by his province. But what I want to make clear is this: that with growing economic problems, with our small population scattered as it is over an immense territory, with our divisions as between provinces, as between races, and as between old Canadians and newcomers, it is good for the whole of Canada that every class, every province, and every element of our population should be represented here by men who know their necessities, who are prepared to expose in parliament the real needs of the people who have sent them here, and to give voice to their aspirations-I will go further and say, who are desirous of courageously ventilating in this Chamber even the prejudices of the people who have sent them here. Far better expose the naked truth, small or big; far better expose even every error in politics or in sociology in this parliament of ours, than stifle the voice of any class of people or their representatives under the voke of party, or claim that the fate of one party or of the other is preferable to the fate of other groups of individuals who represent a moral or a social asset of the community in every race that has contributed to the settlement of every province which represents a unit in the Canadian confederacy.
Therefore I say that group representation has come to stay, and we must desire it to stay, but we must also look to the adaptation of our parliamentary system and of our system of government to that new and, I think, enduring condition of affairs. To those who cling to the old party faith, let me present this aspect:	If the situation is but transient,
then the expedient or the system which may be tried will be transient, but if on the contrary that feature is permanent and is bound to grow, then new precedents will develop and we shall add something else to that magnificent cohesion of absurdities which is the British constitution-full of oddities, full of holes, but of holes left there by the common sense of the British people in order to be filled, as the time comes, by new precedents, by new articles of constitution or by new methods of government, to correspond with the new needs of the people and to offer new solutions of new problems. I have more faith in the endurance of British institutions-it seems that all we so-called group men, we so-called Separatists, we so-called rebels against the crown, have more hope in the fecundity, I was nearly saying the eternal fecundity, of 14011-
British institutions, than those standard bearers of British traditions who want to put a stop somewhere to the growth of the British constitution and British institutions.
Sir, may I sum up my crude and humble theories in these matters by saying that the motto we should present to all the people of Canada in every province should be, "Diversity in Unity." That is good British doctrine and good Canadian tradition, as opposed to the spirit of Prussianism or Yankeeism or French Jacobinism which has invaded us for the last twenty-five years and has made us panderers to small politics in small corners of land, or has made us lose our heads with the idea that we are called upon to save the empire and establish peace in the world when we have not even yet learned to put our own house in order.
In order to find a solution may I, like my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), just make the beginning of a suggestion to start the ball rolling-and it will roll and grow; it will solidify itself, and it will become something; it will become the thing in our political life. I am not speaking of the suggestion I am going to make;
I am speaking of the idea out of which that suggestion arises in my mind, just as some other suggestions, some better, some just as good, and some perhaps worse, may arise in the minds of other people. That spirit and that fact have to be translated into concrete form in our mode of government, not in a swift and radical manner. Again, I am too British to believe in radical change, in ^harp comers being turned of a sudden. No, I believe in the slow but sure development of things. I suggest, as a first thing, what the hon. gentlemen of the other side have tried, and that is to expose in public-not in secret, not merely in conversations in corners of rooms or in corridors with this set of politicians or the other, but by frank and open exposition-exactly what they desire. Let my friends on this side of the House do the same. These gentlemen from Nova Scotia, though ardent Conservatives, cannot deny that they have been elected mainly on a platform-and a right one, a solid one, and a justifiable one -of protest against the selfishness of Montreal and Toronto, Which want to dominate the whole of this Dominion. But I want to be fair to my native city, where my family have paid pretty heavy taxes for five generations, and I want to be fair also to good, holy Toronto, where I have been so frequently and where I count some good friends. No, it is not the selfish domination of Toronto,
Government's Right to Office

and Montreal which is to be combated; it is the selfish domination of a few individuals who, because they command the power of money, and with money and the associations which money, savoury or unsavoury, brings, command the influence of lofty organs of public opinion, headed by gentlemen whose great merits have been rewarded, I will not say iby the crown of England, 'but by some intermediaries between the crown of England and vain seekers of title. Those intermediaries have found that it is a pretty good trade to sell decorations. As everybody knows, the selling of decorations and seats in the House of Lords has become the main means of raising political funds in England. Is that a precedent to be respected? I am sure my hon. friends from the 'west have at least a suspicion that I have no antipathy to them. For the last thirteen years I have lost no opportunity to present their case as well as I could to the people of Quebec, and I say this to them: Let them not believe what so many papers on both sides sajq that the whole of Quebec is so protectionist that it is not prepared to make concessions to the west. The people of Quebec are just as practical, 'because they are British, as the people from the west or any other province, and if we are prepared to give concessions to the west that may or may not pflease Lord Atholstan, the Bank of Montreal, or any other big corporation or interest, there are plenty of pea-soupers in the villages and country districts of the province of Quebec and a large portion of the good labourers in the city of Montreal who are prepared to stand with the people in the west in a fair statement of their grievances and in their demands for what is right. There are plenty of them who are prepared to respond to the appeal from Nova Scotia that that country, where the first parliament in British North America became operative-that little province which has given Canada so much brain, so much heart, such beautiful traditions -at least be not allowed to go down, and down, and down from the economic point of view simply because a few manufacturers in Montreal or Quebec or Toronto or Hamilton wish in their big hearts to monopolize the whole production of industries that can be established or maintained just as well in Nova Scotia as in Quebec or Ontario.
But I want to lay at once on the table the cards of the game,-as I see it, a noble one. If gent'emen in the outstanding portions of Canada desire the active sympathy of Quebec in carrying out what they consider right, I do not say, let them help us blindly in pre-

serving what is dearer to us than automobiles, or fisheries, or factories; but let them at least listen when we explain to them what we consider to be our national duty and our imperial duty, and when we tell them that the maintenance of the language of our children amongst the various French-Canadian minorities scattered throughout the several English provinces is dearer to us than any economic aspect of the national situation. For when wTe are doing that we are not only exercising what is a natural right but making as free British subjects the most valuable contribution that we the French-Canadians can oiler to the cause of national preservation as against the penetration of Americanism. It is the best means by which we can preserve our people from the imbibing of American ideas and American aspirations through the reading of American literature, or so-called literature. You may ask why we do not read English literature. What amount of English literature do your children read? All the productions of old England that are read in Canada do not amount to the equivalent of one single issue of some of the popular yellow papers of the United States that are spread daily or weekly all over Canada and are contributing much more to the denationalization of the spirit and temperament of the people of this Dominion than the maintenance of the French language, which for one hundred and fifty years has been one of the bulwarks of British institutions in Canada. Likewise in matters of imperial concern let it be well understood that we are1 just as loyal to the British crown as anybody else in this country. But we are also loyal to Canada ; and as to our friends on the other side, let me tell them this: If there i3 a group in Canada which preserves in its heart the great traditions of nationalism as created, defined, developed, and imbibed by our constitution under the sway of such men as Macdonald, Cartier and Tupper, it is to be found in the province of Quebec. We are British but we are not imperial; we are Canadian before we are Eng'ish or French. We are not prepared to fight for France any more than for England unless the interests of Canada may command us to do so. Other occasions may present themselves for exposing these views. I am only presenting them briefly now and strengthening them with arguments taken from the historical life of Canada, and I content myself for the time being with saying that by such an exchange of views in this House we shall all of us come to a c'earer understanding of the problems of Canada-problems of the farm; the
So

Government's Right to Office
labour problem; the problems of capital; all problems of policy, internal or external. It is not by shrouding ourselves in a veil of mystery that we can solve these problems. Let us take the conscious and intelligent opinion of Canada into our free confidence; let us throw our minds and our hearts open within the walls of this parliament and through the press to the whole people of Canada. And if by doing that we bring the different groups or the different elements to understand each other better, the question of representation will soon be solved.
Cf course I admit we have to find right now some means of governing the country, and it is for that reason, Sir,-because I think there is something much bigger than the little squabble of party and clash of legal opinions about this precedent or the other precedent-that I for one am not prepared to bring about another change of government and another election. The true national policy that should predominate in this country is not the national policy of the manufacturers of Montreal, Toronto or Hamilton, not a national policy for the east and another for the west, but a true national policy that will put things in this country as they should be; that will create in the mind of every Canadian man, every Canadian woman and every Canadian child an attachment of love, of reason and of interest to Canada-Canada first, Canada before England, before France, before the empire. That sentiment must grow and it is growing. It is growing fast in Toronto as well as in Montreal, in Winnipeg, and in Vancouver. I have written proof of that. But like all developments in the life of any community, especially in the life of British communities, it must grow slowly. We must not. push it too far or too fast. We must let it grow, but we must not put obstacles in its way. Therefore, Sir, if I am going to cast my vote against the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) it is not because I have any blind confidence in the present administration or because I think everything is wrong in the politics of hon. gentlemen opposite. I stated during my election and I repeat here that between the two, for the time being, I prefer this side to the other side. But it seems to me that the hazards of election and the perturbation of hard and fast politicians is doing much to improve the morality and the ideas of both parties. Therefore I am prepared to allow them to go on for a little time, and I think the right hon. gentleman will be just as glad to see his motion defeated. I think I know enough, by proxy,
of his intelligence and of his straightforwardness to know that he realizes his position would not be much rosier than that of the hon. gentleman opposite him. Papers have exchanged accusations in regard to people sticking to the sweets of office and other people anxious to get the swgets of office. Well, again, human nature asserts itself. Perhaps a few of them who have not been ministers for a long time, or who have been and ' remained honest ministers, know that the sweets of office are not a very tangible thing. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) was in the war cabinet. He knows there are circumstances when a statesman, a man, the father of a family, would be much happier at home than in power. No, it is not that I think those gentlemen as individuals are unworthy of occupying seats in the government, or that those on the other side are very much more worthy. I stated once in Winnipeg, and I think I would correct the statement now, that I thought Mr. Mackenzie King could be trusted for not doing much good or evil, and that Mr. Meighen could be trusted for doing a good deal of evil. But I have changed that: I do not think there is as much difference between the two as I thought at that time.
It seems to me that if they could stand for a few months and face each other, with these little groups to act as referees, they would come to adapt themselves and their policy to a broader outlook and' would pave the way to such a national policy as I have been dreaming about for a great many years. To put it in concrete form, Mr. Mackenzie King could grow a little thinner and the leader of the opposition a little stouter, and without any breach of the rules of ethics or the rules of human architecture both could add a couple of inches to their stature as statesmen. The 'health of the country would be better. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in order to give time to the people of Canada to ponder over the situation, in order to give time to members of both houses to think of it, to exchange freely with each other their thoughts on the subject, I propose to vote against the amendment. But I give notice to the members on the government benches that I will not be prepared to vote confidence in them all the time, nor shall I be prepared to sustain them or support all their measures.
The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) had a friendly little gibe at me when he said that an independent member could not he depended upon. May I suggest that it all depends on the kind of independence or dependence he refers to. I can assure the hon. member and the whole House that

Government's Right to Office
I can be depended upon to say what I think is right or wrong. I can be depended upon at all times to speak my mind publicly or privately to all parties and to every individual in this House. The first thing I did on tho opening day of the session was to go down one lobby and pass through the other to meet as many members as I could, and I propose to make as many acquaintances as I can and to talk to hon. members of this House. I propose to go to the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) and try to convince him of the beauties of the French language as spoken in Quebec.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington):: You have some job on your hands.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, but I like hard
jobs, I have come back with all my youth, and besides I notice that when you match your wits with one who will not agree with you, if you do not help him you help yourself. I hope it will not be considered as a breach of the etiquette of this aristocratic parliament of Canada (that an independent member should try to have a talk once in a while with a socialistic member like my hon. friend close to me, or a good Tory like the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White), or with a broad-minded Conservative such as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). I am happy to have a talk with the ministers of the crown, and I think this habit should be developed. It is another British precedent that ought to be copied and adopted in Canada, as it has been adopted in England. In that country they fight each other but respect each other as gentlemen and talk to each other. If hon. gentlemen will read the biographies of the Englishmen of the last century they will find that although they had battles and fierce struggles, even struggles between parties and nations-if you consider the Irish question- they still exchanged views and talked to each other quite freely. Gladstone had frequent conversations with Lord Salisbury. One day Lord Randolph Churchill, coming from dinner with Mr. Gladstone, turned to an old Liberal-Unionist and said' to him "What I cannot understand is why you should ever have abandoned the Old Man. Were I not a Tory, I could not be against him." Thus they have exchanges of amenities. I propose to play my humble part and to act as an independent member, to vote for the measures as they come up after I have heard the explanations of them, with entire disregard of the party interests of any group, but being careful not to cast a vote in a haphazard manner. Now if that idea were developed, could we not
[Mr. Bourassa.j
adapt the government situation to the parliamentary situation and have an understanding similar to that which Ramsay MacDonald had with the leaders of the two other parties, namely, that the government should take the House more into their confidence; that it should have less ministers and that the cabinet should be less autocratic and secret about its polices; that the ministers should not assume that they incorporate the whole wisdom of the country; that they should consult with and respect the feelings of the various members of the House, even members of the opposition; that the right of initiation of legislation, vested by the most venerable of British traditions in the individual members, should be more respected than it is in Canada and in England at present. On the other hand if the government is forced by circumstances to respect parliament more than past cabinets have, it seems to me that, as a matter of course, not of courtesy, parliament should also give a freer hand to the cabinet; that no government should be obliged to resign on a snap vote, because this evening or the other evening three members of parliament happen to be absent or other members of parliament could not agree to a certain action. I do not think a government should be defeated and compelled to resign and force an election simply because a minister may be defeated on a certain day at the hands of the majority, or that the government should resign because that item or this item should be reduced by the House.
I sum up the whole situation when I say that we must have greater liberty of expression of opinion in the House and greater liberty on the part of the government to administer affairs, but to administer them under the supervision and authority of the House of Commons. If this is not British policy, I ask my hon. friend for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) to find the book, the page, the reference, the date and show me the precedent. But in the meantime I stick to my view.
In closing this long and rambling talk I apologize to my hon. friends on both sides of the House for having wearied them, but they must make allowance for my silence of eighteen years.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me express the pleasure which I have no doubt we feel in all quarters of this House that we have back with us an hon. member so well equipped intellectually and so well informed on all matters pertaining to this country, the empire and the world in general, as is the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I can well

Government's Right to Office
remember twenty-five years ago when I had the first opportunity of hearing the hon. member for Labelle in the House of Commons as it existed at that time. I well remember the important and distinguished position which the hon. member held in that House in the estimation of hon. members on both sides, and if I mention it without any disrespect or discourtesy -in those early days he was Jooked upon in parliament as a sort of theorist, an idealist, a visionary, I think I can say at this distance of time that he continues to bear some of the characteristics which we noticed then. If there be anything wanting in his wonderful mental equipment it is a touch of the practical, and that is what is most needed on the part of hon. members in this Chamber. The matters which we have to deal with, the questions which we have to consider, are questions of a very practical nature, and while we can enjoy and appreciate a discoursive address-a very academic address, I might call it-such as we have had this afternoon, still some of us are inclined to think that on a question such as that which is now before the House a few more practical suggestions from the hon. member for Labelle would have been much more to the purpose than the delightful discourse which he has given to the House this afternoon on almost every subject under the sun. He has, of his own choice, for many years, occupied a position of isolation in the public and political life of Canada. He is a man strong in his views and opinions, not easily moved by the views of others, a man not inclined to follow leadership, nor to confer, to discuss or to reason with others, but very largely influenced by his own mind in all matters. That is, perhaps, the reason of his isolation. There have been times when his hand has been against every man, and there have been other times when the hand of every man seemed to have been against him. Yet, with all his peculiarities and defects- and we all have defects, we must admit- we are glad to welcome him back in this Chamber. He is a very able debater, a well equipped parliamentarian, and by virtue of his great gift of oratory, clear reasoning power and ja discriminating taste in the use of language sets an example that we might with profit strive to emulate. We welcome him back, and if I say nothing further in regard to his effort this afternon, the reason is that I desire to confine my brief remarks to the question now before the House.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) as leader of the government-and in speaking of the government in this debate I use the term
"government'' as one of convenience; I do not use it by way of admission that we have to-day a legally constituted government in this country-but as leader of the government for the time being he opened the debate by asking for the calm, moderate judgment of the House of Commons upon the question which is now the subject of debate in this House. I have no fault to find with the method iu which the Minister of Justice presented his side of the case. Anyone who watched him could see at once that he was labouring under a good deal of strain, suspense and excitement. But for the most part he managed to suppress his excitement and he delivered a fairly well balanced and well reasoned argument on the question before the House. The most notable point in his speech was his evasion or omission to discuss the most vital question in the amendment. He absolutely omitted to mention what we all consider to be the vital question and what the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), in his address last night, mentioned as the vital question, the real question, that is, the absence of the Prime Minister from a seat in this parliament. That, in my humble judgment, is the crux of the Whole matter.
I should like to deal for a few minutes with the effort of the Solicitor General in this debate; [DOT]but before doing so, may I say that one could hardly describe that effort as a judicial presentation of the government's case by one of the leading law officers of the crown. If wre are asked to give an unbiased, unprejudiced, impartial judgment upon the question now before us, the speech delivered last night by the Solicitor General could not be called a judicial presentation of the case. It was biased and it was prejudiced, full of inaccuracies, charged with exaggerations, with precedents not well chosen, not well digested and not quite fairly explained to the House of Commons. On the whole, however, I have no great objection to taking the speech as he made it last night. I believe with time he will improve. It Was his first effort in this House as Solicitor General of this country. As his first effort we should view it with charity and compliment him upon it, but it was by no means a judicial presentation of the government's case. It was such a (presentation of a case as one would expect to hear on the hustings or in some rough and tumble political meeting during an election.
We have been asked, as I said, to treat this question seriously, earnestly. If this government so intends us to treat this question, the government itself has made a very bad start. The start was made when the Speech from the

Government's Right to Office
Throne was prepared. That speech was a deliberate attempt on the part of the government to prejudice the question in the first instance. The Speech from the Throne is little short of a preelection manifesto, full of allurements, inducements, blandishments, to wave before the eyes of the Progressive and Independent members of this House. On Friday last we were ushered into the Senate chamber to hear it and on returning to this chamber, while the music of the speech was still jingling in the ears of Progressive members, we were treated to a decided innovation in this House. Instead of the usual motion to consider that Address, the traditional time-honoured motion, the leader of the government for the time being sought to steal a march on the House, and by a rather cheap artifice to introduce a novel measure, a motion of confidence in his own government. I wonder if in our search for precedents any precedent can be found of a government that has met parliament with a motion asking confidence in itself. I do not say that it is unprecedented, but I do say that it is most unusual; and during the course of twenty-five years at least I can say that it has never happened before in the parliament of Canada. The ordinary and well-established course which the government should have followed, was to meet the House, as they did, bring in the Address, as they did, and move for the consideration of that Address on a fixed day. That we expected; that we anticipated. Then the Address would have been proceeded with on that day so fixed, just as my hon. friend from Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) expected the government to do. This method would have given the House the usual opportunity of discussing the Address, and it would have given the opposition the opportunity which has always been afforded of moving any amendment they might see fit to propose. It is said, and it has been said to me by some Progressive members, 'Why did you not wait for the discussion of the Address?" We did not wait because the government tried to trick us in the matter; it tried to steal a march on us; it tried to spring a motion which it had no right to make inasmuch as such a motion must be preceded by notice. Then having defeated them in their object we could take no chances as to the government's next move. So on the first opportunity which offered, my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) moved the present amendment. Under the circumstances I say that he was absolutely right in doing so. I quite agree with the hon. member for Kindersley that this discussion might better have taken place on the discussion of the 
Speech from the Throne, and it would have taken place on that occasion had the government not attempted to trick us out of our opportunity.
The Speech from the Throne was prepared, as I say, as a sort of pre-election manifesto for the distinct purpose of swaying the Progressive and Independent vote in this parliament. It was the bait offered to the Progressives, and the motion of confidence which was to go before it was the hook: if they took the bait they must swallow the hook first. That is the position the government took; it was out fishing for Progressive support. The bait in the Speech from the Throne and the hook in the motion which the Minister of Justice endeavoured to move at the opening of the House were the means by which the government tried to land the Progressive support. Does anyone suppose that the Progressive party is going to be entrapped in that way? Every effort has been put forward by the government in order to entrap them. They have been threatened and they have been cajoled, and an insinuation has been made that their indemnities may be lost if the amendment carries, by reason of the fact that the House may dissolve. Everything has been done to enlist their sympathy, and by fair means or foul, to induce them to support the government in the crisis which now faces it. All we ask of the members of the House, all we ask of the Progressive and Independent parties, is that they judge this question on its merits and give it that calm consideration which the Minister of Justice pleaded for. But do not let hon. gentlemen be led astray by these inducements, these blandishments which appear in the Speech from the Throne, ostensibly for the benefit of the Progressive party.
Just a word now in regard to the so-called constitutional question. I realize, as the House does, that this question has already been presented by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) in such a thorough, able and exhaustive manner that little or nothing can be- added to what they have said!. The House is in possession now of all the material precedents and of all the learning that can be got together on the subject; and1 the House will be able to judge. I have only one or two remarks to make upon a single aspect of the constitutional question which by reason arose during the speech of the Solicitor General last night. Now I do not say that I disagree with all the legal argument of my good friend the Solicitor General, for upon many points we are in agreement. He boldly declared that this

Government's Right to Office
parliament had the full right to deal with this question and he laboured his argument very considerably. We all acknowledge his contention on this point on this side of the House; parliament is empowered to deal with the question. The hon. member need not have gone back to the reign of William and M!ary to elaborate a principle which is generally admitted. But the question is, how should parliament deal with the matter? Should parliament deal with it in a legal, constitutional manner, or should parliament consider the matter merely for the purpose of finding a way out for the government from the difficulty which now faces it? I submit that there is only one way to deal with the question, that is, to follow constitutional precedent. If hon. gentlemen will vote in accordance with the law and constitutional precedent governing such a situation they will make no error. My hon. friend said last night that he had been able to find, in the library of this building or somewhere else, precedents which fully sustain the position taken by the Minister of Justice and negative the position taken by the leader of the opposition and the member for West Calgary. And he gave instances.
Before I consider the hon. gentleman's remarks, let me point out that the leader of the Conservative party was very careful indeed to Say that he challenged any man to find a precedent in the last eighty years. There was a reason for his fixing that period of limitation, and the reason was that perhaps the greatest authority on parliamentary usage and custom, the late William Ewart Gladstone, announced in speeches and in written works that our constitution only became firmly established and accepted, So far as cabinet government and ministerial responsibility was concerned, subsequent to the year 1845. That is why my right hon. friend fixed that period of eighty years; it is approximately eighty years since that principle was so fully recognized. Now, in the alleged precedent as cited by the Solicitor General you will note, first, that he has gone far behind the limitation, back to the year 1792, taking the well-known Pitt case, a case which is by no means unknown but which has been discussed in the newspapers of this country recently, and the full details of which were in the possession of the hon. member for West Calgary when he spoke yesterday, but the Pitt case was not referred to by him because he realized that it was not a precedent at all. The Pitt case was a most exceptional case and arose as a matter of fact
many years before our constitutional custom or usage was settled. How did it arise? In 1792 William Pitt was Prime Minister of England and supported by a large majority in parliament. He was appointed to the warden-ship of the Cinque Ports, which is an office carrying emolument, and by reason thereof his seat became vacated. Before the vacation of his seat in the House of Commons he summoned parliament, and parliament was to meet in January following. My hon. friend the Solicitor General shakes his head; we will settle it now; I have the proclamation here. Pitt summoned parliament to meet on January 3 following. Upon vacating his seat he accepted the nomination for the University of Cambridge, and he was elected and returned for that seat on December 17. My hon. friend the Solicitor General gave a very real description of the situation as it existed in England at that time. He said -that it was tlhe time of .the French revolution; all Europe was ablaze; there was tremendous excitement in London, mobs parading the streets, and as a matter of fact historians all refer to these matters. Tht public excitement was great; the regular regiments had been called out; the king himself under his royal sign manual called out the militia, and the Militia Act provided that if the militia were called out at any time, within fourteen days thereafter parliament must be convoked. Parliament had been summoned1 by William Pitt for January 3. But when the king called out the militia parliament had to be convoked within fourteen days, and1 was so convoked-I have here the proclamation calling it-and it met on December 13. That is. the incident my hon. friend referred to.


Mr. CANNON:: In fairness to myself I
think my hon. friend will state that the argument I made was that parliament met when the Prime Minister was not a member of either house, which was the case.


Hugh Guthrie: I think technically there
may be something in that, because among the historical writers who advert to this very case one says that four days elapsed before the Prime Minister was returned ,to parliament, another that he was absent for five days, and a third that there is only a tradition to the effect that he -was not in his place in the House. There seems to be no certainty on that point. The records ^how that he was returned when parliament was convoked for a special purpose in a special way, but the date of the precedent is ,all-important, the surroundings and the circumstances are all important, and if conditions existed in Canada,
Government's Right to Office

to-day such as existed in England in 1792 no one would raise a voice in protest over an irregularity such as the absence of the Prime Minister. For these reasons this case has never been cited as a precedent to show that the Prime Minister of the country can be without a seat in either house.
But apart from that, let us take the speeches and .writings of Mr. Gladstone upon the subject. The Pitt case was in 1792. Mr. Gladstone has assured the British speaking world that until after the year 1845 the practice in regard to seats of cabinet ministers was not j settled practice, and the usage was not a well-defined usage. Why go behind that date for precedents? Every precedent from 1845 down to the present day supports the argument- of my right hon. leader and the member for West Calgary that the government cannot function while the Prime Minister is without a seat in either house.


Lucien Cannon: Would my hon. friend
allow me? I will ask him to discuss another case which does not go back to 1792, the case of Mackenzie Bowell.


Hugh Guthrie: I think he was in the
Senate.


Lucien Cannon: Is not the Senate a house of .parliament?
-Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Lucien Cannon: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but I wish to be rightly understood. The case I wish him to discuss is that which arose when Mackenzie Bowell resigned and Sir Charles Tu-piper was called from England, and a certain interval elapsed when the Prime Minister had no seat in either house.


Mr. STEVENS:: He was in the Senate.


Lucien Cannon: Sir Charles Tupper was
not in the Senate. That is a Canadian precedent. ,


Hugh Guthrie: I remember the incident, and I remember that Sir Mackenzie Bowell was a senator of Canada and did resign as Prime Minister of Canada, and (that Sir Charles Tupper came to Canada from England, was elected for a riding in Nova Scotia, and subsequently became Prime Minister. That is as I understand it; if I am wrong in my facts, some one will no doubt correct me, because I have not looked at that particular case recently.
The other case cited by my hon. friend the Solictor General last night was the Baldwin case. That, too, takes us back to 1842, 
and it was the case of the late Robert Baldwin, which arose in the old parliament of United Canada one year after the Act of Union came into force. I have always considered that Robert Baldwin was not Prime Minister in the government of that day. Robert Baldwin -was not called the Prime Minister, and the government is known in history as tihe Lafontaine-Baldwin government. Mr. Lafontaine was elected for Hastings. Mr. Baldwin was defeated in the fourth division of York and afterwards in the second division of A ork, ultimately obtaining a seat in the province of Quebec. There was a dual system of leadership in Canada at that time. It was argued by some then that a government, to be in power, must have a majority in Ontario and a majority in Quebec. Certain it is that they had two prime ministers or leaders in those days, and the fact that Mr. Baldwin was defeated while Mr. Lafontaine, the head of the government, remained in power and in his seat surely can have no bearing, and cannot be quoted as a precedent in this case. Those were the only two precedents that were raised; they are not precedents at all.


Mr. POWER:: May I call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that Lafontaine was also elected during the session and for a while, if Lafontaine was Prime Minister, there was no Prime Minister in -the House. They both went to the country at the same time.


Hugh Guthrie: I think perhaps something like that did take place, but the House was adjourned to allow the leaders to find places. During the adjournment Lafontaine was returned, and Baldwin defeated, and the government did not -attempt to function. That is another point. However, if I am wrong in this perhaps some hon. member will correct me. That government is called and known in history as the Lafontaine-Baldwin government. Lafontaine was not defeated; he never lost his seat; there was no vacancy so far as he was concerned. He was Premier and Attorney General for Lower Canada, and Baldwin was Attorney General for Upper Canada; there was a dual system, a dual leadership, and if one leader was in the House and the other out of the House I think the wishes of all parties were satisfied, and the requirements of the law fulfilled.
Now then, what other precedents have been cited? Quotation after quotation has been given from the leading authorities on constitutional law. We need not encumber the record with them. The point is so clear that he who runs may read. A man to be the head of the government, to be the Prime

Government's Right to Office
Minister, under British constitutional law and practice, must have a seat in parliament. My hon. friend stated' the case admirably last night when he said, " I agree to that proposition of law." Then why argue it further? The So'icitor General agrees, we all agTee; but the Solicitor General added as a condition, that it did not matter if the absence was only temporary. Now who can assure this House that the absence of the Prime Minister is only temporary? That is a practical question and no lion, member has the right to speak for the Prime Minister in this House. The Prime Minister is excluded from this House and from, its precincts. He has no right to speak here or to be heard here; he has no more right than has John Smith or Tom Brown walking along the streets of Montreal or Toronto. The Prime Minister is a stranger to this parliament, and although two hon. members yesterday interrupted on behalf of the Prime Minister, they had no right to do so. In one case a member rose to deny a statement made by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) to the effect that the Prime Minister speaking in Edmonton had made certain references to the indemnity of the Progressives. The denial would have been very proper had the Prime Minister been here, and had he been in a position to make it, but nobody has the right to do it for him in his absence. He is excluded from this parliament, and nobody can speak for him in this House. In the ether case yesterday when some mild criticism was offered of the Prime Minister, an hon. member across the floor immediately got up and said, "You are criticizing a man who is not in the House and cannot answer." That is the difficulty of the situation. Nobody can assure the House that the Prime Minister will come back. He cannot do so himself. He has been out of the House now for well on to a week, and if he can continue for a week to be chief adviser of the crown without a seat in either house of parliament, why cannot he go on for several weeks? Why cannot he go on for the whole session or the whole life of parliament? If he is right in doing it for a single week, he would be right in continuing to do so for a parliament. The principle is the same. Where does this lead to? It simply means that we are carried back to pre-revolutionary days, to the year 1688, to the days w'hen a king governed by himself, or through his favourites, when such a thing as parliamentary government and ministerial responsibility did not exist. Is that a serious question, or is it otherwise?
That is the broad question which the House is asked to decide by this amendment.
There is a vast distinction between the case of a prime minister and that of any other defeated minister of the government. My submission is that there is! no government of Canada at this moment. When the head of the government goes, the who'e government goes. The Prime Minister is the only minister chosen by the sovereign or by the sovereign's representative. All the other -ministers are chosen by the Prime Minister and their names submitted to His Excellency. An ordinary minister may resign at any moment, and it does not affect the government; the government continues. But the moment the Prime Minister resigns the whole government disappears, and my submission is that the King government- legally disappeared tlie day this House opened. The other ministers in the cabinet are called advisers to the crown only by courtesy. There is only one actual adviser of the crown. His Excellency accepts advice from bis1 Prime Minister on'y. It is true he consults and has the right to consult his other ministers, and does so in practice, but the only adviser of the sovereign or his representative is -the Prime Minister, and to-day if we have no Prime Minister we have no legally constituted adviser. It is true, generally speaking, that all the ministers are advisers of the crown, in the sense that they advise among themselves; there is a joint responsibility among them, hut their advice, whatever it be, goes to His Excellency through the mouth of the Prime Minister.
Now the situation in parliament at this moment is this: We have a body of men assuming that they themselves constitute the government. There is no member of this House who has the right to approach His Excellency -to-day and tender him advice. There is no link to-day between this House and His Majesty's representative, and there should be. These are some of the irregularities which arise from the situation which has developed	through- the unconstitutional
methods of a man who claims to be Prime Minister of Canada.
I have been asked, "What else could Mr. King do?	What should) he have done?"
We know what he should have done. We know that as soon as he had- obtained the election returns in October last and realized that the popular vote was hopelessly against him, as soon as he realized that 133 of his candidates out of 245 had been defeated at the polls and nine of his ministers defeated, he should have done just what other defeated
Government's Right to Office

prime ministers have done, tendered his resignation to His Excellency. But he did not see fit to do that. I am afraid the Prime Minister is rather of the clinging (kind. He certainly desires to cling to office. We can see from his point of view his real objection to resigning at the time when he should have resigned. His resignation at that time would certainly have cost him the leadership of the Liberal party, and he knew it; and that is the real reason why he did not resign and the most important reason which has operated on his mind ever since. What would have been said in 1921 if my right hon. friend and leader who was then defeated had held on to office and 'had met parliament? Had he done so, what would he have been called? As it was, he was called a usurper, and everything he did was termed a usurpation of power. But my leader took the constitutional course. As soon as he ascertained that the popular vote was against him he resigned'.


Lucien Cannon: How many seats did he
have?


Hugh Guthrie: We had some 50 to 52
seats, and there were some 65 to 67 Progressive and Independent seats, while on the Liberal side there were about 116 to 118 seats. Had my leader at that time desired! to persist, he might have gone to His Excellency and said:
I have so many seats; the Progressives and Independents have so many seats; they are an independent party, and' I expect to get their support in the next House; I am going to hold on till the House meets, and if I am defeated then, I will go out.


Mr. RINERET:: He had the right to do
it.


Lucien Cannon: He could have done it.


Hugh Guthrie: I submit he had no constitutional right to do so, and particularly without a seat in parliament.


Lucien Cannon: Why not?


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: In how many provinces of Canada did the Conservative party fail to obtain a single seat in the 1921 election?


Hugh Guthrie: You have not got many seats in some of the provinces to-day.


Paul Mercier: In five provinces you had no seats at all in that election in 1921.


Hugh Guthrie: Very true, and from the province of Ontario there were six ministers in the last House, and we have no ministers frota Ontario now.

Mr, MERCIER (St. Henri): In Quebec in 1917 we had no minister at all responsible to the people.


Hugh Guthrie: I think my hon. friend is right, but till 1921 there were two ministers from Quebec, Mr. Ballantyne and Mr. Doherty in the House and one minister in the Senate. However, that is not the point. The point is this: Had my leader in 1921 pursued the course pursued to-day by the present Prime Minister he would have been denounced as a traitor and usurper from every platform in Canada. WTiat should the Prime Ministter have done?


Lucien Cannon: I do not wish to interrupt too often but before my hon. friend continues would he state to the House why, if the then Prime Minister had retained office, he would have acted against the constitution?


Hugh Guthrie: I say again that when he knew the result of the vote, when he saw that the popular vote was against him, his duty according to the constitution, was to retire. I grant that if there is ground for a reasonable doubt there is something to be said in favour of his meeting the House, provided he has a seat.


Lucien Cannon: That is the point here.


Hugh Guthrie: The point has narrowed down to this: Why did the Prime Minister not get a seat? How can he meet the House, how can he lead parliament without being here? We desire his leadership in this House, we desire his guidance and his advice on many occasions. The people of this country expect the Prime Minister to be in his place to advise and to lead their representatives. He is the chief exponent of government policy. If he cannot fulfil these functions he must step out. Such is iconstitutional law and constitutional custom. The Solicitor General said last night that he believed the Prime Minister was bound to have a seat here, but he excused him on the ground that his absence was merely temporary. I put this to my hon. friends: We have been assured by two or three members of the government that the Prime Minister, if this motion carries, will find a seat. They say he can find a seat. But who has authority to say that he is going to be elected even if he does find one. He may go to a constituency as did Mr. Baldwin and be defeated; it is very probable he will be defeated if he runs in the province of Ontario. Is the whole business of the country to be held up, is parliament either to adjourn or have business suspended, until the Prime

Government's Right to Office
Minister finds a seat for himself and allows parliament to function once more?


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend is adding strongly to my argument.


Arthur Meighen: It needs it.


Hugh Guthrie: I say that under the law and the constitution there cannot be such a situation. Therefore we ask that when the vote is taken this matter will be set right, that constitutional custom and practice will be followed and that the House will declare that the present government has no right to function under the circumstances which exist in Canada to-day.


Lucien Cannon: The moment the House decides that the government goes out.


Hugh Guthrie: That is one of the very points the Solicitor General argued last night to the extent of fully one-half or one-quarter of his speech-that this parliament had the right to decide the matter. On that point we are in entire agreement.


Lucien Cannon: That is why we called parliament.


Hugh Guthrie: AH we ask parliament to do is to exercise its power constitutionally.


Lucien Cannon: We agree again.


Hugh Guthrie: That is all we ask for.
Now, there were other parts of the argument of tile Solicitor General to which I think more serious objection could be taken. There were his references to the speeches made in the province of Ontario since the election, by my right hon. leader, -and notably a speech made by him in Hamilton. If there is a single member of this House who should be careful in regard to election speeches, either pre-election speeches or post-election speeches, that man is the Solicitor General, and I think I might couple with him his colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin).


Mr. CARDIN:: If I may be permitted I will inform my hon. friend I am not afraid of anything I said during the campaign.


Hugh Guthrie: I object to being interrupted in this way.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am ready to repeat anything I said during that campaign; I have no wish to deny it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: No hon. member has the right to interrupt without the permission of the hon. gentleman who has the floor.


Hugh Guthrie: I shall not discuss the subject further except to say this: Anyone who wishes to take the political measure of the Solicitor General or the Minister of Marine and Fisheries only needs to read the files of the press during the last election. They must then be convinced that so far as their work in the last election was concerned the campaign was conducted on the old Conscription Act of nine or ten years ago and a Turkish war to take .place five or six hundred years hence.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Hugh Guthrie: Shortly before the House took recess my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) cited another precedent, or alleged precedent, in regard to the question whether a prime minister could hold office as Prime Minister without a seat in the House, and he instanced the case of Sir Charles Tupper and intimated that Sir Charles Tupper -had occupied the office of Prime Minister of this country without a seat in the House. At the time I was unable to look up the citation, but during the adjournment I have been able to do so, and I find that the statement of the Solicitor General in that respect is entirely erroneous. Sir Charles Tupper returned from England to Canada in January, 1S96, and was sworn in as a minister of the crown, with the portfolio of Secretary of State. Immediately thereafter he went down to the riding of Cape Breton for reelection, was returned for that riding and took his seat in the House of Commons as Secretary of State in the Mackenzie Bowell government. That government resigned office on April 27, 1896, when Sir Charles Tupper became Prime Minister, at a time when he certainly occupied a seat in this House as member for the constituency of Cape Breton.
I have now covered the three alleged precedents which have been mentioned on the government side during this debate and I think I can say with a good deal of assurance that none of them has the slightest application to the case before us at the present time, and that the statement of my hon. friend and leader (Mr. Meighen) on Friday last, that you could trace all precedents and all authorities for the last eighty years and you could not find a single instance of a prime minister who had not a seat in one or other of the houses of parliament, either in this country or in- Great Britain, has been verified. No precedent can be found to justify
Government's Right to Office

the Prime Minister of this country in the extraordinary position which he has taken or in his determination to hold on to office.
Passing, however, from -that particular branch of the subject, let me say a few words upon another branch which is, I think, of great importance in the discussion of this subject, and which has not yet been sufficiently emphasized or discussed by this House. We have heard something in the course of this debate of the possible results of whatever action the House may take on this motion. It has been intimated that if this motion carries the government will of necessity resign, and that the country will immediately afterwards be plunged into a general election. It has been intimated, on the other hand, that if this motion is defeated the government will seek an adjournment of the House to enable them to complete their cabinet, and that the House will be reassembled later on and the ordinary work of the session will proceed. I do not know that we are much concerned, or should be much concerned, with the ultimate result in a matter of this kind. We should be more concerned with upholding constitutional authority, be the result what it may. However, I propose to discuss very briefly what may possibly result from the adoption or from the rejection of this motion. Unfortunately we have not the advantage to-night of the presence in this House of the Prime Minister. We can obtain no leadership from him, no guidance from him; but in another view of the question we are fortunate, because we know precisely what he would do, and what he said he would do, under a given set of circumstances which has now arisen in this House. I propose, therefore, to look at the great speech, the preelection pronouncement of the Prime Minister of this country, made upon a formal and solemn occasion, when he informed the electors of Canada, why he had decided to dissolve the House, and what would be done, or what he proposed to do in regard to the future. If the speech which the Prime Minister delivered to his constituents on the 7th September last at Richmond Hill were in the nature of an offhand statement made by a minister on the hustings or on any other similar occasion, I would not take it too seriously. But when the head of a government, at a critical time prior to a genera! election, gives to the Canadian electorate a manifesto or formal pronouncement of his sincere views and conclusions, the people of the country are entitled' to take him at his word.

The last parliament was elected for the usual parliamentary term of five years. It had run but three years and a half at the time the Prime Minister determined upon a dissolution. After the general election of 1921 the government was able to count about one-half of the House of Commons as its supporters. The Conservative party mustered only something like fifty or fifty-two supporters. The remainder of the House, to the extent of some sixty-seven, was madie up of Progressives and Independents. Foir three years the Prime Minister struggled along under what, I admit, were very adverse circumstances. We have seen him and his government humiliated in this House. Those of us who sat in the last parliament will remember many an instance of this kind simply because the Prime Minister was not sufficiently in control of parliament to carry on the government. He must have felt that the humiliation and the experience was a trying one for any government. That the government failed was not wholly its own fault. It was the fault of the composition of the House of Commons which differed from the government to a very great extent. Let us recollect that night when perhaps the most- popular member of the administration was humiliated in this parliament. Those of us who are here will remember *when Mr. Graham, then Minister of National Defence, brought in his militia estimates, assuring the House that he had cut the amount down to the last dollar and saying:	"If I cut them
another dollar, I shall have to go below the margin of safety, which I cannot do." We on this side of the House cheered him. If a minister of national defence has one duty it is to keep up the margin of safety in our national defence. Yet his own followers repudiated him. Chaos arose in the Chamber: the militia estimates had to be withdrawn, and two days later Mr. Graham had to come to parliament and say:	"Notwithstanding
my assurance that I had cut my vote down to the margin of safety, I have had to take some two or three hundred thousand more off and consequently I have gone below the margin of safety." The government could not do otherwise and hold office. That is only one instance. Take the freight rates muddle into which this government plunged the country,

not of their own volition, I grant, but through force of circumstances; because the government was not strong enough in the House of Commons to resist the demands that were made upon them.
Take the lake freights fiasco, where the government, yielding to demands made at

Government's Right to Office
that time, passed laws in this parliament which they could not enforce, and the whole country was humiliated by the fact -that notice had to be given subsequently by the government to American vessel owners that they might disregard Canadian laws. Take the annual tariff tinkering. Take a prime minister who was a member of a government that enacted the FieldingiLaurier -tariff-I supported it in those days and I was proud of it, thinking it was a good ita.riff; a prime minister who was in the government which passed (the 1907 tariff at the demand- of opposing forces in -the House of Commons he had to tinker with it at practically eveiy session until he took all the protective element out of it. He -rendered if innocuous and worthless for any -purpose whatever, not' because -he desired to do so but because he was forced to do so owing to the situation in the House of Commons. I have mentioned only a few of the muddles and a few of the difficulties of the King government during three and a -half years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Petersen contract.


Hugh Guthrie: I will leave that to somebody else to deal with. These are only a few of the muddles, misfits and miscalculations of the government. We sympathised with the Prime -Minister and his colleagues m his troubles. He was entitled to sympathy. He had a hard load to carry, and after three years and a half-not five years, which was the parliamentary -term-he concluded that things could not continue. He concluded that he had not the support of this House to the extent that he should have it if he was to give a satisfactory account of himself and properly govern the country. He had actually the support of half the House in those days. Now he says, to quote in his own words: "I consulted with my colleagues over the situation." I fancy all the ministers at present sitting in this chamber were consulted upon the situation last September by the Prime Minister and after consultation with his colleagues he prepared for the people of Canada a formal pronouncement, a serious document based on -three and a half years of parliamentary experience, of governing under adverse conditions; a document meant for the electorate of the Dominion of Canada, prepared in advance and circulated amongst the newspapers of Canada in advance. In the town in which I live I was told in the morning of the day on which the speech was delivered that I could see it in the newspaper office. It was a speech -much advertised, much heralded, a speech of which the Toronto Daily Star says: "There was a tremendous crowd to
hear it and over five hundred thousand people heard it by radio." The speech was published in every quarter of the Dominion and it was intended as an official manifesto to the people of Canada. Let us take the Prime Minister at his word-but perhaps I had better put on Hansard his exact language, although it is already there. He said:
As I have already said, I have not the least doubt we shall be able to command such support as we all along have had in the House of Commons at another session; but shall we be able to do more than that? That is the question I have put to every one of my colleagues in the government, and to not a few of the members. It is a question I now put to you who have honoured me with your representation in the House of Commons. It is a question I put to the electorate of this country. Is it sufficient that as a government we should continue in office, drawing our indemnities as members and ministers, and enjoying the other fruits of office, when great national questions press for solution, with which for want of an adequate majority in parliament we are unable satisfactorily to cope ?
Let me read another quotation further on.
I refer now to all important national problems that are pressing for solution, and which cannot be solved in a parliament constituted after the manner of a parliament elected in 1921, or by any government which does not command a substantial majority in the House of Commons.
Further down:
At most we would be reduced to marking time. This is not a moment in our country's affairs at' which to mark time; it is a time to march forward.
Then later on:
May I say further, I believe each of the problems mentioned is a pressing one; I do not believe any one of the four can be dealt with effectively at a last session of parliament. They can only be satisfactorily dealt with by a House of Commons fresh from the people and with a mandate from the people to carry out their will. I would say -further, I do not believe that any one of the four can be dealt with effectively by a government which is not supported by a substantial majority in the House of Commons. Group government and minority government may be inevitable in transitional phases of our political history, but neither is the kind of government wherewith to achieve great reforms.
That, Mr. Speaker, was a solemn official pronouncement and expressed, I believe, the considered judgment, the absolute conviction of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. May I quote in respect of that speech what the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) said last night in reference to the speech alleged to have been made by my leader (Mr. Meighen) in Hamilton? I will use the very words of the Solicitor General and ask the House to apply them to the position of the Prime Minister himself. Speaking last night the Solicitor General said:
Your leader was either sincere when he made his declaration in Hamilton or he was not.
Government's Right to Office

I say to the government: Your leader was either sincere when he made his declaration at Richmond Hill or he was not.
If he was sincere, how many will stand up in this House and support him?
I ask hon. gentlemen opposite now, how many of them will stand up and support what their leader said at Richmond Hill?


Lucien Cannon: Will the hon. gentleman tell us whether the question-about which the leader of the opposition made his speech in Hamilton-is unchanged to-day? And has not the situation of both political parties been changed?	[DOT]


Hugh Guthrie: I am not going to be drawn aside by a question of that kind. I will reply as the Solicitor General replied to a question last night-"I will not reply to stupid interruptions." The Solicitor General made this statement last night in reference to the leader of the opposition:
If he was sincere, how many will stand up in this House and support him?
I ask the hon. gentleman the same question in regard to his leader's speech at Richmond Hill


Lucien Cannon: Why borrow anything
from a stupid man?


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member asked further:
If he was not sincere do you think for one moment that he should become Premier of Canada?
I put the same question in regard to the Prime Minister's speech at Richmond Hill. If he was not sincere in that solemn pro? nouncement to the electors of Canada as to his difficulties in the past and his prospects for the future; if that pronouncement was merely a piece of cold calculated deception- which I am sure it was not-he should be rejected not only by the House but by every voter in the Dominion of Canada. Every hon. member of this House knows in his heart that the statement was genuine; it was sincere. The statement was made after the Prime Minister had had a conference with all his colleagues, and it came after an experience of three and a half years of government under adverse circumstances, when he had at his command one half of the House of Commons at least, or a majority of two. as I think he said in his speech. The Prime Minister pictured to the people of Canada four great outstanding problems with which he said he was unable to cope unless he had a substantial majority in the House of Commons. And they were important questions. Transportation was a mighty problem; the

railway problem was another one of tremendous importance; and immigration and senate reform were also both vital questions. These I think were the questions which he was discussing at the time, and his statement was that unless he had a substantial parliamentary majority he could not cope with them and that all he could do for Canada was to mark time or, in other words, to stagnate. This, he said, was a time for marching forward, and without a substantial parliamentary majority it was impossible for him to do so. That is a plain statement; it is a fair, honest, candid statement based upon conviction and experience, and made a few short months ago, seven weeks before the election and two or three days prior to dissolution. Has anyone any doubt as to the reasons he gave His Excellency for obtaining a dissolution? In the very language of his speech you will find his reasons set out.
Now. in a body of serious-minded men such as we find in this House, for the most part business men, what should we do with that statement before us? What is our duty in the matter? Here is a situation far worse, from the Prime Minister's point of view, than anything he ever experienced in the last House. There he had 116 or 117 members while here he has 101. Here the Conservative opposition comprises 116 members while in the last House it numbered only 51 or 52-48, someone says. In the last House the Prime Minister had the support of some 67 Progressives and Independents; in this House the members of these groups number only 28. If his statement was sincere is jt not our duty to take him at his word? Should we not believe him? I will put a question to my hon. friends in the far corner, some of whom have expressed some concern as to what might happen in the event of this amendment either carrying or being rejected. What will any man say to his constituents if he votes to retain this government in power, having before him positive notice from the Prime Minister himself that he cannot do more than mark time, that he cannot cope with the great and pressing questions that confront the Dominion of Canada to-day under existing conditions in this House? Would any man in his right senses employ as manager for his farm or his business or his factory one who said at the outset that under the conditions then existing he could only mark time and could not cope with the big ends of the concern? If such a man should say, "This i3 a time for marching forward but jl can only mark time," would any one of us employ him to manage anything at all? Then, if not

Government's Right to Office
in private or in corporate business, would you ask such a man to manage the affairs of this great Dominion after he had1 solemnly assured the people that he could not cope with the great questions under such conditions as exist at this very moment? If we are honest with ourselves; if we are honest with the Prime Minister himself; if we take his statement as an honest, truthful assertion of his conviction and of his experience, and of what he will do in the future under conditions similar to those which exist in this House today, there is no alternative in regard to our vote on this matter. I submit that no member of this House should look beyond the question in the resolution; but if we are tempted to go beyond it, if we are tempted to consider ulterior results, then let me say this in the presence of my leader and with his authority, that if this motion carries, if this government resigns, and if he is called upon to form a' government in this House, he will undertake the task. He will undertake to carry on that government from session to session without dissolution, and he will do so just so long as he receives parliamentary support. Hon. members who form the Progressive group in this House will realize this: Their position will be just as strong under a new administration as it is under the presejit one. They will occupy the same dominant position in the councils of this House as they do to-day, and if a new government were formed and legislation satisfactory to them introduced and proceeded with, there is no reason why such a government should not continue to the end of the parliamentary term. But the Progressives have this safety valve. Should legislation be introduced not acceptable to them, then on account of the peculiar position which they occupy, they would have the remedy in their own hands. Oh, let no hon. member fear the result of this motion. If this government is displaced a new government will be formed under a leader who is outstanding in the political life of this country, a leader in whose ability we trust, whose courage we know, who is not afraid to cope with those great questions which' demand settlement and which, on his own statement, the present Prime Minister is unable to cope with. How, without repudiating the Prime Minister; how, without telling him to his face, "You did not tell the truth on September 7", a man can vote now against this amendment, I do not know. If the Prime Minister spoke the truth in his speech at Richmond Hill, surely we can take him at his word. If he did not speak the truth to the electors at Richmond Hill, then 14011-7
lie has no right to occupy any position in this House.
Now, Air. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the House may not be led away by any ulterior consideration or by any side issue. I trust that when we come to vote we will vote upon the simple question that is before the House. That, it is true, is a constitutional question, but it has a very large and important practical side to it: Shall we uphold by our votes in this House the constitutional usage and practice of all British parliaments in all quarters of the world?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton, Minister of the Interior):: Mr
Speaker, the debate so far has been carried on by the legal members of this House both on behalf of the government, and-very largely so; indeed almost altogether-by the members of the opposition. The fact is stressed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and by those who support him that the government, up to a certain period, have acted constitutionally in remaining in office and in calling parliament; but now we are on the horn; of a dilemma because, forsooth, the Prime Minister has not a seat in this House. Well, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the government I have been- intensely interested in the discussion on this very important question.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want the minister to leave a statement attributed to me in an incorrect form. I did' not say that. I stated that they could legally justify themselves, but-that it was not the best constitutional practice. .


Charles A. Stewart: I am speaking of the legal aspect of the question.


Arthur Meighen: You said, "constitutionally".


Charles A. Stewart: If T said constitutionally I did not catch my right hon. friend's fine distinction about the matter, and I did not catch that fine distinction from the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) who, I think-


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.


Charles A. Stewart: -is equally competent, to deal with the question from that standpoint. Well then, let us take it from the legal standpoint. I do not propose to deal with the very fine distinction drawn by hon. gentlemen opposite, because I think they have been very well answered by the members of the government on this side of the House. But there is one thing I do commend to the consideration of hon. gentlemen op-



HEVISET) EDITION' COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Government's Right to Office
posite, and it is this: that in season and out of season this government has maintained the supremacy of parliament upon all occasions; it is doing so to-night, and we are not seeking to remain in office without the taking of a vote on this question. And if any group in the House welcomes the raising of thei question, we on this side certainly welcome it in order that it may settle the very difficult situation which has arisen. Now, may I deal with that situation, and deal with it very shortly? .
What my hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Guthrie) has said is all undoubtedly true. His statement in connection with the election is perhaps as fair as it could be made. On October 29 we did appeal to the electorate and asked for a mandate to give us a greater number of- supporters, to give us power to carry an. That was refused.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles A. Stewart: I am simply dealing with it from the point of view of my hon. friends, if they can get any comfort out of that. But after all if we examine the figures as to the votes cast it will be found that we polled almost the same number of votes as we did in 1921. I propose to deal with that point at some length.


An hon. MEMBER:: What has that to do with it?


Charles A. Stewart: What
I have stated is correct, as hon. members will see if they look up the figures. On October 29 there were elected to parliament 116 Conservatives, 101 Liberals, 24 Progressives, 2 Labour, and 2 Independants, tl am interested in what my hon. friend said in this connection just before he sat down, because this is a question which agitated our minds very considerably - not the question. I may say whether my hon. friend would accept the obligation of carrying on government with a minority in this House That was not the point upon which we had doubt: we always felt that he would attempt to carry on government. Perhaps I had better speak for myself in that respect: I had no doubt that he would make the attempt. He would not care to plunge the country into another election, nor indeed would it be wise for him to do so until he had made an attempt to carry on. Therefore, :I personally have no doubts about what he might do, but I do think that some consideration should be given to the situation that we found ourselves in after the 29th of October. We found that the Conservatives had 116 members in this House, the Liberals 101, and the Progressives 24, and an analysis of the vote later on showed-I men-

tion this because my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) raised the question the other day when he was speaking-that the combined vote of Liberals and Progressives resulted in a plurality of 80,000 votes over the votes polled by the Conservatives. My hon. friend from West Calgary argued the other night that because of the adverse vote of the Conservatives and Progressives, we had a right to assume that the whole vote was an adverse vote. I am going to argue, Mr. Speaker, that it was not, and is not an adverse vote to the government of this country.
The Progressives did not and were not claiming that they would have sufficient strength to form a government. They were appealing upon a platform more radical than that of the Liberal party. That has been their programme ever since I have known anything about the formation of that party, and I have no quarrel with their endeavours in that direction. But I say that to assume, as my hon. friend from West Calgary assumed, that the Progressive vote should be counted against the government of the day is hardly fair, and I propose to give reasons why I think my statement is correct.


Mr. MANION:: How about the seventeen
Progressives that ran against Liberal candidates only?


Charles A. Stewart: My
hon. friend knows full well that in almost every constituency where a Progressive was up for re-election there was a three-cornered fight.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh no.


Charles A. Stewart: There
were only two exceptions in Alberta.


Mr. CLARK:: And three in British
Columbia.


Charles A. Stewart: Three who were opposed only by Liberals?


John Arthur Clark: No Liberals running in three constituencies, by arrangement with the Prime Minister.


Charles A. Stewart: All
the more reason, then, for me to assume that the votes given for the Progressive party were more favourable to the Liberals than to anybody else.


Robert James Manion: In my question I was referring to Progressives who ran against Liberals and Liberals alone, not against Conservatives.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend will look the situation over, he

Government's Right to Office
will find that the preponderance of votes was in favour of the Progressives and Liberals rather than the Progressives and Conservatives. Does my hon. friend know of a single ease, except one, and that was in a constituency in Alberta, in which the Conservative candidate did not offer himself for re-election?


Robert James Manion: I understand there was
more than one.


Charles A. Stewart: Not
that I know of. The constituency of Vegre-ville was the only one in our province.


Mr. BENNETT:: There was no Liberal
candidate in Lethbridge.


Charles A. Stewart: No,
because the Liberals and Progressives combined in Lethbridge. All these facts only strengthen my argument. I say that the combined vote of Liberals and Progressives amounted to 80,000 more than the votes polled for the Conservative party.
May I state this, as an added reason why my right hon. friend would not appeal to the country? The character of the campaign waged by the Conservative party against the Prime Minister of this country, against alleged acts of his and otherwise, had the desired effect, of course, in the old province of Ontario, where protectionist feeling ran higher than in any other part of Canada, and the Prime Minister was defeated in that province. He was maligned from every platform wherever it was humanly possible to do so, something that he did not deserve. His services for Canada warranted better treatment than he received at the hands of his opponents in the last election. I make this prediction and throw out this challenge to hoij. gentlemen opposite: Bring on your election if you are successful in this vote, and I predict that there will not be 116 sitting on that side of the House or on this side of the House after any election that may be brought on either by this government or by my right hon, friend should he succeed to the office of Prime Minister of this country.
More than that, Mr. Speaker, while I am on the subject of majorities, I was intensely interested in what my friend the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa.) had to say this afternoon about the great cities of Toronto and Montreal. I would point out to the Toronto members and to the House that the Toronto seats accounted for more than one half of the majority of the Conservatives over that of the Liberals. It seems to me on examining these figures that they must have killed and buried all the Grits in the city of
14011-7J
Toronto. Apparently no Grits li^e there. They may live in the rural parts, but they certainly do not live in the city of Toronto.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: That is where Mr. Mackenzie King had lived and was well known, and there was a majority of 100,000 against him.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: That is where he got his black eye.


Charles A. Stewart: My
hon. friends took care of that. But what was the issue in the last election?


An hon. MEMBER:: The government.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Turkish war, in Quebec.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. May I ask hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House kindly not to interrupt?


Charles A. Stewart: The tariff was the fighting ground in the last election, and that issue was chosen by my right hon. friend. It certainly was the issue in Ontario.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: It
certainly was the issue in western Canada, and throughout the whole length and breadth of this country. My hon. friend from Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) will not deny that it was the issue in British Columbia.


James Dew Chaplin: The death-knell
of protection.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friends do not seem to like the remarks L am making.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. So far the debate has been kept on a very high plane, and I hope that interruptions from any part of the House will cease.


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry if the truths I am trying to propound do not appeal to my hon. friends. I am propounding them in good faith. I say that the issue in the last election was the tariff, and that my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition chose that issue. He wanted to fight the election upon that issue, and he appealed to the electorate upon it.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: My
right hon. friend admits that. Therefore, there can be no question about what the electorate passed judgment upon in the last election. There may have been other issues

Government's Right to Office
raised in ''the Maritime provinces. I regret I do not know the situation there as well as I should as a member of the government. Maritime rights seems to have been an issue in those provinces.


Arthur Meighen: The tariff was the issue there.


Charles A. Stewart: And the tariff? All right. I am quite certain my right hon. friend would make the tariff the issue.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: He
made it the issue in our province, and succeeded in wresting one seat at least from us on that issue although he did not get any others. My good friend the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) won his constituency on his own popularity and his reputation. But we accept that issue. I do not want -to stray outside the confines of the discussion of this question. I have not argued on .the constitutional aspect of the matter, I am arguing the situation as it exists now, and this was the situation we had to face. The issue was the tariff. The election was fought upon that question; and when the smoke of battle cleared away my right hon. friend had one hundred and sixteen supporters. I am safe in assuming the issue was as I have stated and we had to recognize the fact in deciding what action we should take in the light of the results on the night of 29th October.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister suggest that the tariff was the chief issue in the province of Quebec?
Borne hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: My
right hon. friend admitted a moment ago that the tariff was the issue from one end of Canada to the other.


Arthur Meighen: Oh no. You asked about the Maritime provinces. I said it was in Ontario and the west, I did not say the province of Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend
kept away from Quebec.


Charles A. Stewart: I have heard a great dehl about the province of Quebec and the issues the supporters of my right hon. friend were putting forward there. I want to make it clear that so far as we were concerned the tariff was the issue and the electorate of Canada passed their opinion upon it.
[Mr. C. A. Stewart.l


Mr. BURY:: Does the minister not know
that East Edmonton was not won at all on the tariff, but on the question of the development of the coal industry of Alberta?


Charles A. Stewart: I do
not think my hon. friend would argue that he would have won at all had not the right hon. leader of the opposition come along and proposed putting a duty on coal sufficient to enable Alberta coal to be brought to the central provinces. That and nothing else won East Edmonton, and that was the situation I had reference to when I mentioned the fact before. It w*as the promise of my right hon. friend when speaking in Edimonton, in addition to the other promises lie had made, that he would put on sufficient duty to enable coal to be brought from Alberta and marketed in the central provinces of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman quote my words please?


Charles A. Stewart: I
have not the exact words of my right hon. friend. Will he deny that he made that statement?


Arthur Meighen: I certainly did not use
those words at all. I said with respect to
the coal duties just what I said in the House of Commons on June 2.


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry. I am very sorry that the newspapers have the habit of misrepresenting the right hon. gentleman's statements so frequently.


Arthur Meighen: I think they did get
them right.


Charles A. Stewart: Well,
if they did get them right my right hon. friend certainly did not say in the House that he would put on a duty sufficient to bring coal from Alberta to the central provinces of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Nor did he say it there.


Charles A. Stewart: Of
course I have to accept the right hon. gentleman's word, and I am prepared to do so; but the electors of East Edmonton believed that and voted on that assurance. If the hon. member who represents East Edmonton does not believe that was the promise made to his electors I would like him to say so. That was my understanding.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman, if
he has read any report whatever on the subject, will know that I said that I would put an increased duty on coal and that I also would provide moneys for the purpose of assisting transportation.

Government's Right to Office


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: East Edmonton was won not by reason of any statement which the minister credits to the right hon. leader of the opposition but as the result of the general policy of the leader of the opposition to assist the development of the Alberta coal industry.


Charles A. Stewart: I
accept the statement of my hon. friend because he is a man of honour. All I can say is I do not think he, or anyone else, will deny that his success depended very largely upon the statements made in Edmonton upon the occasion referred to.
However, let me go on and develop my argument. I have said, I do not think anyone will deny it, that the election was fought upon the tariff issue and upon that issue only. In that connection I had a number of quotations which I had intended to read. However let me say this in order that I may conclude my remarks in reasonable time: Having considered the situation the Right Hon. Mackenzie King decided to recommend to His Excellency that owing to this peculiar situation that had arisen while, perhaps, we had no right to expect the unanimous support of the Progressive party we did think we could hope for their support in a very large degree, and that the proper thing to do was to refrain for as short a period as possible from making appointments and from the passing of orders in council that might have far reaching consequences-that we would carry on and have His Excellency summon parliament at the earliest possible moment to decide this question. That was the primary reason which influenced us. My right hon. friend has made very many definite pronouncements about the tariff, and he has made some that would have a far-reaching effect. Pie has said on almost every occasion that if he were returned to power he would have an allround increase in the tariff. That has been his statement. I have heard the statement attributed to him-I never heard him make it-that he would raise the tariff as high as that of the United States. WTe all know how high the tariff wall of the United States has been. But let us take his own words, the words I have heard him utter, in favour of an all-round revision of the tariff upwards.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman has not heard me utter those words either. He cannot find them even in the press.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my right hon. friend deny that he made the statement that he would put up the tariff brick for brick with the United States?


Arthur Meighen: I have told the hon. gentleman a dozen times that I did not. What I stated was-perhaps the hon. member will remember after I tell him now-that as respects farm products I would raise the Canadian tariff to the American level.


Charles A. Stewart: I know perfectly well my right hon. friend made that statement at Portage but he made it after the election.


Arthur Meighen: He made it after the election and at least fifty times before.


Charles A. Stewart: I must accept the corrections of my right hon. friend, but surely he is not going to take the position now that be does not intend to readjust the tariff in accordance with the pre-election promises as to which his supporters have been maligning my right hon. leader-surely not? That being the case, is it not fair to assume, that he took the proper course in remaining in office as adviser of His Excellency until parliament could be convened, and this question submitted to the highest court in the land, that of parliament itself. May I say to my hon. friend and to the members on that side of the House that I for one do not care to remain here and carry on the affairs of this country one moment longer than the moment at which my hon. friends opposite secure a majority vote. When that moment arrives I am prepared to resign, with my leader, and get out.


An hon. MEMBER:: You could not do any better.


Charles A. Stewart: No, of course not, but I want to make it clear to hon. gentlemen, because it is very apparent that they do not want to listen to any statement made by members on this side of the House, but rather would assume-and I resent the accusation-tJhat we hang on to office for the fruits of office. What is the other paramount reason?


Mr. LENNOX:: Does the minister approve of the statements made by the Prime Minister at Richmond Hill?


Charles A. Stewart: I will deal with the statement of the Prime Minister later. I say-and I think the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) will bear me out-that there is another and a very much more important reason, and one that should be given some thought in this House, and that is the situation as it exists to-day in Canada. My right hon. friend has twitted the members from Quebec by making the

Government's Right to Office
statement that the election was not won on the tariff in that province. I am simply using his own remarks. What is the situation that we found after the 29th October? We found that in Ontario over 69 seats had gone Conservative, that in the province of Quebec 61 seats had gone Liberal, and that a situation existed which is not very pleasant to contemplate. Someone remarked, delving into ancient history, dealing with the situation in Europe, 'bat those were strenuous and dangerous days. Liet me say to members of the opposition and to members of the House generally that I consider we are passing through strenuous and dangerous days in Canada. It is important that we should get down to the proper viewpoint. I do not believe, no matter what may be said and no matter how much it may be desired by hon. members of this House, that we will get back ,to the two-party system. We are not going to get back to the two-party system in any great hurry in Canada. We have to face the situation and I think it is important, in a calm and deliberative chamber such as this, that questions of this kind should be given the earnest consideration of members and that with respect to a matter that is so important as the one we are discussing to-night, having in view the desire that peace and harmony shall prevail from one end of the country to the other they should vote in accordance with their judgment. Not so very long before the election I heard statements made by individuals in the Maritime provinces, that unless redress were given to the Mari-times and a fair deal accorded them, drastic action of some sort would be taken. I know the statement has been made in western Canada that unless further relief in the way of tariff and the keeping of contracts with the people were granted some drastic action might be taken in that country. Perhaps those people are not representative, and their advice would not be taken-indeed, I believe it would not be-but at the same time, Mr. Speaker, some attention must be paid to their demands and it is not becoming when a matter of such vital importance as this is being discussed, that we should discuss it heatedly and try to make political capital out of it. It.is well that we should approach it calmly and considerately, having in mind that we are the representatives selected by the people of this country to carry on their business.
The Prime Minister has, up to this moment, acted strictly in a legal capacity. I do not agree with the argument of my hon. friend that because he is unable to take his place in the House the government of the day {Mr. C. A. Stewart.]
cannot function, and I do not believe that we have done anything that is not quite proper. I listened very carefully to thq argument of the hon. member for West Calgary and he did not argue that we had, nor do I believe he would present such an argument. We are here to decide whether or not Mr. King shall continue in office. Mr. King did not believe he would be acting properly in taking advantage of the situation to secure a seat for himself until the Speaker should be elected in this House, and a member of the House should resign in the orderly and constitutional way. There may be differences of opinion about that, and I am not going into those differences. But Mr. King will secure a seat, and he will be in this House as the leader of this government at as early a date as possible.
My hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Guthrie) has held out to hon. gentlemen in that corner of the House, whose votes for the time being, at least, are going to decide this issue, that if this government is defeated they need have no fear that my right hon. friend, who undoubtedly would be called upon to form a government, would carry on. Well, I wonder, and I have wondered how long they would carry on if they attempted to increase the tariff in any particular. However we will leave that to their own good judgment. All I can say to my hon. friends in that comer of the House is this: if statements have been made between themselves and their Liberal opponents that would lead them to believe it was their duty to vote for the amendment to the 'Speech from the Throne, then of course it is their duty to do so. But, on the other hand, it seems to me that the vital issue of this election -was one of tariff. If we are wrong in this assumption, wben this vote is taken we will be put right. If that were the vital issue upon which the election was carried on, then it seems to me the programme which of necessity we had to bring down before parliament could be convened might appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite. If it does not appeal to them I have nothing further to say.
At all events, Mr. Speaker, so far we have carried on, we have presented to the House our programme and we have not asked the House to deal with that programme. We are content to abide by the decision upon the point raised by my hon. friend in his amendment, and if the decision is in his favour then of course he will prepare a programme and will carry on. We have not attempted in any particular to usurp any function, and we do not want to remain in office one moment longer than the moment at which a decision can be reached on this question. If we are

Government's Right to Office
sustained, then, I can say to hon. members of this House that we will do our level best to carry out that programme. We will 'try to give the same kind of government in the next two or three years that we have given in the past .


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles A. Stewart: Some hon.
members seem to think there is something wrong with that. Well the country seems to succeed very well under it. That is one of the sore points with my hon1. friend. Oh, prosperity that was just around the comer came on the jump this fall, and the condition of affairs does not look so gloomy now as it did in 1923. There is a very great change.
Mr. CLARK. There are the crops.


Charles A. Stewart: But
if my hon. friends had been in office the crops would not have had anything to do with it; it would have been the change of government that put Canada where she is to-day. Surely my hon. friends will not deny the government some credit for the reductions on basic commodities, which have resulted in such mighty strides; which have increased our exports to the splendid position they stand to-day. Surely the government had something to do with that. But had the government of my right hon. friend come into office on October 29,1 can imagine what would have appeared in the Montreal Gazette, the Mail and Empire, and the Toronto Telegram-splashing front page announcements that because of the change of government this prosperity had come to Canada! But it has arrived with my hon. friends not ip office, and it is going to stay whether they get into office or not.


James Dew Chaplin: Prophesying
again.


Charles A. Stewart: No, it is with us, and the hon. member for Lincoln or any other hon. gentlemen dare not deny it because the facts speak for themselves. That is the situation in Canada.
May I say this to my hon. friends who sit in that corner of the House? Do not be misled by statements of the character of those just made by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). I do not ask you to vote for this government. Use your own judgment. We .shall be content to accept the decision of parliament, and speaking personally, I might have a very much easier time should that decision be an adverse one. Any hon. gentleman who has occupied the treasury benches will agree with
me in that. If those who are so anxious to get into office imagine they would be taking over any sinecure in handling one of the departments of the federal government, they would change their minds before they had six months' experience of it,


James Dew Chaplin: The hon. member is trying hard to keep it.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes,
and I propose to stay. I think I have made some success of the department over which I have control and I am not ashamed of the record of that department.


Mr. HANSON:: Is that the Immigration department?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, the Immigration department, but I will not deal with that now. I hope to be able to deal with that matter on a future occasion, and I shall then be glad to tell my hon. friend all about it. It is not a question which comes up for discussion at this moment. The question we are to ask ourselves now is whether or not, in the light of the issue upon which this election was held, this government did the proper thing in remaining in office and in calling parliament. This government took all the necessary constitutional steps in order to do that, and did it at the earliest possible moment. From the 29th of October onwards this government refrained from taking any advantage that would arise from the making of appointments and otherwise. We have acted conscientiously within the limit of the law, and we are prepared to stand or fall by the decision which will be recorded in this House when the vote is taken.


Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, whatever the present session could possibly contain in the way of disappointments to any members of the House, there is one thing at least in which the fullest of our expectations have been realized already and that is 'that the sitting would contain from the start some very strange and untoward features. For my part, nothing could have appeared stranger to me, sitting in this House as a Canadian of Irish descent, than to hear this afternoon an impassioned appeal by a French-Canadian Nationalist to the parliament of Canada to stand up for the British spirit. It was, perhaps, one of the most gratifying things that a man could have an opportunity of hearing from sudh a source. There are, however, other statements to which I have listened which are not so encouraging. Since the inception of the present debate we have heard the leader of the House, the Minister

Government's Bight to Office
of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) disagree, both in words and in acts, with the declarations of his leader, the former Prime Minister. We have heard the hon. gentleman skate with great skill around and frequently away from the topic that is at present under debate. We heard next the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) adjure this House to adhere to that very topic, and then we heard the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) state openly that he did not propose to discuss it, whereupon he proceeded to discuss everything else m the heavens above, the earth beneath and the waters under the earth. The exceptional and! extraordinary features that began in that way did not even end there. After the Solicitor General had contradicted to a very great extent his leader in the House and his former leader, we heard him proceed finally to contradict himself, and as if not satisfied with that, we heard the hon. gentleman go still further, for yesterday he set out to give us new lessons in theology. When he rose to his feet he told the House that Jericho fell by noise. If my education has not been sadly neglected, Jericho fell by the will of the Lord of Hosts, and if I may remind the hon. gentleman of a fact which, I think, is fairly generally accepted, those who did not profit particularly well afterwards were those who refused to give God the glory. I have been in this House for only three days, but may I say at the outset that in that time I have conceived an extraordinary attachment for hon. gentlemen opposite, and anything I am about to say will be said without any animosity whatever and in the veiy kindest spirit that I can possibly hope to exhibit.
There is but one plain issue before the House at this time, and that is the amendment which my honoured leader has proposed. I- am not going to weary the House by referring to it again excepting to say this, that it has been made the only point under discussion and that, after recitals, it sets out this plain proposition:
That those who now' assume to be His Excellency's advisers are not competent to act as, or to become, the committee of parliament, commonly known as the government.
If that does not restrict the situation to the acts or omissions of our friends opposite,
I cannot imagine what would. There is in this House only one body assuming to be the government, only one body that has had the reins of government for the past three and a half to four years. There is only one body in this House that brought about the recent elections and precipitated the present situation. Now, in addition to the numerical diffi-
culties that confront hon. gentlemen opposite who are seeking to carry on this government, I say that they are indissolubly bound up with their record of achievement or lack of achievement during the past few years. 1 do not desire to weary the House with repetitions of what we have already heard, but I would remind hon. members of the fact that the Prime Minister in his Richmond Hill speech made use of perhaps the most significant expression that he could very well have uttered when he said that "great national issues are pressing for solution." I would invite the leader of the House (Mr. Lapointe) or any other hon. gentleman opposite to inform this House now in what particular sense the pressure to which the Prime Minister referred at that time has in in any way lessened or relaxed.
The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) stated an undeniable fact, which apparently is recognized by gentlemen on all sides of the House, when he declared that this is a defeated government, and notwithstanding the great amount of juggling that has been attempted with the figures that followed the election I do not think that this fact can at all be concealed from the country. The last speaker, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, West Edmonton), has assured us that prosperity has returned to this land. I wish I had an opportunity to take the hon. gont'eman over to the Niagara frontier and show him the unhappy exodus, which not only has been going on during the last three years but is still going on, of our Canadian citizens. I wonder on what assumption the hon. gentleman bases his claim that there has been a return of prosperity to Canada, when from the city alone which I represent, something like 5,000 of our young men have during the past year gone to the other side to get their daily bread. And this number is small when we realize that the total of those who have been forced to leave the country as a whole within the last three and a half years for the same reason has approximated nearly half a million people. The position, too, is exactly the same in the matter of rural credits, as the hon. member for Kindersley pointed out. During the last three and a half or four years there has been a crying need in this regard, but no action has been taken to better conditions'. There may be a difference of opinion as to how that result could be brought about, but there can be no difference of opinion as to the need itself. That is why I was particularly impressed, in listening to the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite, with the statement that there was a

Government's Right to Office
return of prosperity and that good times were, as they put it, just around the corner.
The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) complained last night, and rightly complained, about the failure to debate the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne before taking up this amendment to the motion of confidence. May I remind him that the reason for this is the very obvious one that the acting government was simply attempting to secure a snap vote of confidence before the Address could be reached. The people of this country, if I have any means of knowing their present temper at all, are not looking for sharp votes or snap judgments or anything of the sort; they simply want an honest and straightforward adjudication upon the merits of the case as between the two old parties and the third party that sits at our left. The proposed motion which was presented to the House by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), it has been suggested by certain members, was rigged up after our leader (Mr. Meighen) hud shown him what his own motion was to be.. I do not believe that; not only is it unfair to the Minister of Justice, but it does not correctly represent the position of either himself or his party. It seems to me that the obvious thing was that this government, or this remnant of a government, wanted to avoid if possible any debate on the Address and so took that means of trying to get a decision upon an entirely irrelevant motion of confidence in itself. It has been'well pointed out that the great feature of the Address is an evident and complete change of heart on the part of the government that offered it, and as a matter of fact the hon. member for Kindersley enumerated in detail yesterday the various directions in which that change is apparent. Not only the members of this House but the country as well will remember that the Prime Minister in the last three and a half years has always declared his intention of effecting great reforms for the purpose of remedying the various ills from which this Dominion has been suffering. But he has consistently given, as two great obstacles to this objective, the obstruction of the Senate and the influence of the Progressive party. He made the statement from many a platform that upon his return to parliament one of the first things he would undertake would be Senate reform of such character that the upper house would be no longer in a position to render legislation futile. And speaking in London on October 16 last he made a statement which, if it is not known to every member of the House and to every man and woman in the country, ought certainly to be very
well known. In the hockey arena in that city on the date I mentioned he said:
Only a few days ago a number of senators were appointed. Every one has given me his pledged word he will be prepared, once a measure passes the Commons, to give it his support. Subsequent senators will be appointed with that understanding, and as Providence takes away a few of the older members, you will have a Senate pledged to bring about the reforms for which the administration stands.
Could a man declare in plainer terms that lie aspired, and was determined to be, a dictator in this country? But even dictators at times experience a change of heart, and perusal of the Speech from the Throne shows that any reference to Senate reform is strangely absent from that document. I could not help wondering whether perhaps a siight reason for that omission was to be found in the fact that the Senate might afford a haven of refuge to that gentleman by the time the House opened the other day. It seemed to me that there might be a very good reason why the raging lion of last year should have become the dove of the present occasion, and I could not help thinking that the ex-Prime Minister's situation might best be described in the well known words:
Like the wandering dove that found No repose on earth around,
He could to that ark repair And enjoy himself but there.
But, Sir, knowing the gentlemans previous attitude, knowing his previous actions, is it not fair to suspect that there may be another change of heart just around the corner, and that should the gentleman be returned to power the dictatorship will again be very much to the fore?
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that we can complain particularly about the attitude of our Liberal friends in one respect. Naturally they desire to cling to what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has described as "the fruits and sweets of office". I do not think we can complain particularly if they adopt the attitude of self-preservation, which they appear to have adopted. Who of us in the golden days of his youth has not seen a decapitated chicken feebly flapping its wings long after its head and body had parted company? I have no objection to any effort on the part of the shattered remnant of the Liberal government to convince itself that its wings still will flap; I have no objection particularly to its attempts at self-deception, but I do object most strenuously to its efforts to deceive parliament, and to deceive the country.
Now, in order to establish the argument that he advanced in opposition to this amendment, the Minister of Justice the other day cited at

Government's Right to Office
considerable length certain precedents in constitutional practice both in England and in this country. I do not propose to weary the House by any repetition of them at this time, but I submit that precedents, no matter how many you may get, no matter what their particular nature may be, are valuable only as they embody or illustrate great principles. The hon. Minister of Justice took as his starting point the retirement of Disraeli in 1868 after the general election in that year, and if the minister had been so minded he could have gone on and given to the House the expression of principle upon which Mr. Disraeli relied when he voluntarily relinquished office. Mr. Disraeli said on that occasion:
This course was taken because it was due to our own honour, to the personal convenience of the sovereign, and to the progress of public business.
May I ask, Sir, what prospect there can be for the progress of public business if our friends opposite manage in some way to retain power in this House?
Then two precedents were cited by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), and he laid great stress on them; in fact they constituted almost his entire argument. The hon. gentleman said this:
The Salisbury administration in 1886, assuming office on July 26 of that year, had not resigned although it had not succeeded in its next election in getting a majority of the members returned to the House.
Well, that is true, but once again there is an explanation which is vital to a proper understanding. In that election there were returned: Conservatives, 268, Liberal-Unionists, [DOT]17, Gladstone Liberals, 273, and Nationalists, 81. That left the Conservatives in a minority, but the Nationalists having assisted Salisbury in 1885 he had no intimation, until he met the House, that they were not going to be behind him again, which would have given him a very large majority. The only other case cited as a precedent by the Minister of National Defence had to do with the Russell administration in 1816. and there he commented forcibly upon the fact that the ministry had carried on from 1846 until the end of the parliamentary term in 1847. But, in making that comment he omitted to say that the ministry was carried on at the request of the sovereign; that it was carried on with the consent and approbation of the majority of the opposition, and that it was considered to be for the good of the country, and was so expressed by the leader of the opposition.
Then some precedents were cited yesterday by the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon). If I interpreted the hon. gentleman's speech aright, he divided it into two main divisions: 	,
in the one he indulged in prophecy; in the other he read extracts from certain newspapers and stated that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) if returned to power could not possibly form a government. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the minister last night prophesied that Mr. King would be elected if he ran again, though as yet they have no constituency for him. It would be interesting to know, and I think the House still awaits the explanation, why Mr. King did not seek re-election in the recent byelection. I would like to know how far we can trust to the sincerity of those who tell this House that everything has been done to put him back at the earliest possible moment, and whether we can be sure that an honest and sincere effort will be made to bring him back as soon as possible. The Solicitor General prophesied further that the leader of the Conservative party, if returned to power, could not form a government. I will not dwell on that; suffice it to say that any suggestion as to a coalition or combination which might be effected between Progressives or Independents on this side of the House and 116 Conservatives surely speaks for itself in contrast to any combination that hon. gentlemen opposite might make with 101 Liberals. The Solicitor General prophesied further that if the leader of the opposition were returned to power we would be left in a state of political chaos. As I listened to the eloquent argument which that gentleman advanced along those lines I could not help thinking what a grievous pity it was that that same great gift of prophecy was not employed by him for the benefit of Mr. Mackenzie King before the election.
The Solicitor General devoted considerable time, when he was not reading extracts from newspapers, to stating that it was impossible for the leader of the opposition under any circumstances to form a government, and he attempted to demonstrate that to the satisfaction of the House by reading a few extracts with which we are all familiar. I hope I do not do the hon. gentleman an injustice by suggesting this. He drew attention to the absence of similar comments in regard to his own former leader. Well, I have only this to say, that I do not suppose there is a member in either house of parliament who did not hear those comments coming thick and fast from all over Liberal constituencies as well as from Conservative constituencies after the election. But the main difference between these comments as they appear in our papers and as they appeared in the papers supporting the other side was that most of the

Government's Right to Office
Liberal comments on their leader were so distinctly unprintable that they could not be offered in public.
Then, having told us that the groups in the House would foil any attempts on the part of the leader of the opposition to form a government, the Solicitor General went on, with charming inconsistency, to say that if the leader of the opposition were called as Prime Minister, that would, of course, precipitate another election. If that is so, in the name of conscience and logic-if there is such a thing-what difference would the groups in the House make? Having told us that, the Solicitor General went on further to state that our constitution was very elastic, that it could be stretched to cover every case, and then he told us that it could not cover this particular case because it was entirely novel and unprecedented. Having endeavoured to convince us that it was entirely novel and unprecedented, he proceeded to quote a number of precedents that he said were of value. May I with propriety suggest that if consistency be a jewel, the only consistency the hon. gentleman possesses must be buried in some of the dark unfathomed caves of the ocean.
There has been some discussion here, continued this afternoon by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), in which the Solicitor General again took part and referred to the emergent circumstances that obtained at one time in England when the king was abroad and there was no one else to function in his stead in parliament, and the Solicitor General endeavoured to make the point, which our leader resented and contradicted in the House yesterday, that Sir Robert Borden had been absent from this House for two sessions and the government had still carried on. Sir, I wondered when I heard the hon. gentleman make that point if he failed to understand, or only hoped the House would fail to understand, that the point of difference was that Sir Robert Borden, though absent, had the right to direct the operations of parliament from wherever he was while Mr. King has no such right.


Lucien Cannon: A radio government.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: You have got
one in the lobby.


Lucien Cannon: It is a Yictrola.


Charles William Bell: I would like to give the hon. gentleman a radio, if possible, because in the near future he may need
it.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) told us that an adverse vote was inevitable, and
that the fact that over 200,000 more Conservative votes were cast in the last election than Liberal votes was not a matter of any particular consequence. He laid stress on the argument, as did the other ministers who followed him, that the deciding factor in the present instance was the supremacy of parliament. The Minister of Justice emphasized that point very strongly. He kept right at it throughout his speech. Why, he asked, should the leader of the opposition desire to become the Prime Minister of Canada if parliament will not let him? I am content, he said, to let parliament rule, having advised the summoning of parliament for the purpose of deciding the issue as to who should constitute the government. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that the best and most positive answer to the learned gentleman's view has been expressed in this House by the ex-Prime Minister, Mr. King himself. The Minister of Justice professes to consider that parliament is so supreme that the vote of the people is of no consequence, but this is what the exPrime Minister stated to this House on the loth of February, 1921:
Unless we have a representative parliament, what becomes of any theory of the supremacy of parliament? The supremacy of parliament is based in every particular upon the circumstance that parliament is supposed to be truly representative of the will of the people.
And yet the Minister of Justice attempts to convince this parliament that the will of the people is of no account, that parliament can make itself supreme in this matter. I ask, Sir, if on the 15th of February, 1921, when the then Prime Minister made that pronouncement in this House, the Minister of Justice agreed with him? If he did not, his dissent does not appear anywhere on Hansard, and if he has not changed his opinion since, I ask why he is not prepared with his colleagues to accept the plain will of the people and resign with them from -the position where it has been shown the country no longer wants them?
It is, and -has been from -the very outset, o-f the essence of -the Liberal party's denial of defeat in -this election that it owns or controls the Progressive party. I do not know what justification there -has ever been -for the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite in that respect. I do know that the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) pointed out last night that 17 Progressives were elected against Liberals and 20 against Conservatives, and the suggestion -that with practically a fifty-fifty division the Progressives would bring control to the Liberals was absurd on the very face o-f it. I know this -too, Sir, that
10S

Government's Right to Office
when we came down to this House there had been expressions of opinion from many more of the gentlemen of the Progressive party than have already spoken to the effect that they had nothing to look for from the former Prime Minister but disappointment and broken promises, and I do not see how they could expect the situation would change if those gentlemen were again returned to power.
The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael), a member of the Progressive party, resented, and I think very rightly resented! that the Progressives could be assumed to be a party that was under the control or domination of either party in 'this House. The suggestion has never been made by the 'Conservative party that the Progressives occupied any such position with regard to it. There is one thing I would like very much to bring to the attention of the House, in view of the assumption that has been made by the Liberal party and the statements that were made, particularly by the last Speaker, to the effect that the Progressive party, so to speak, belonged to the government, and that is this:	Early in
the last campaign, when a gentleman named Drury was running up in North Simcoe, the Right. Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King went up there and stood on Mr. Drury's platform. Mr. Drury, as I suppose every member of this House knows, is the ex-Premier of Ontario. He was made Premier of Ontario by virtue of the fact that he was head of the United Farmers of Ontario, a party which 1 understand is not at all unlike the United Farmers of Alberta. Mr. King went on Mr. Drury's platform in the last election, and side by side with him, said: "They say we ought to have run a Liberal here. Why should we? They say Mr. Drury is too progressive for me. Why,
I assure you he is Liberal to the core". And when Mr. King made that statement he had either forgotten or he hoped the Progressive party in 'the country did not know what Mr. Drury not so very long before, had said about the Libera! party. Because Mr. Drury, that man who according to Mr. Mackenzie King was Liberal to the core because he was a Progressive, had addressed a meeting of the United Farmers of Ontario at Fenelon Falls, and this is what he said:
The Liberal party when in power failed to translate into deeds the policy it has put into words. United 1'aimers of Ontario have a policy to which they are determined to give effect. Between the United Farmers of Ontario and the dead, defunct and discredited Liberal organizations, there can be neither amalgamation, unification nor endorsation.
But I will give them credit for one thing, Sir. It is the same old Liberal party that 
promises everything-as the member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) said, everything but the Christmas turkey-and when the time comes round to collect, does not give them even so much as a wish-bone.
I do not intend to .delay the House any longer, Mr. Speaker, except to say this: There is nothing I am prouder of or more glad to endorse than the attitude my right hon. leader has taken in regard to not being in the market to barter for anything. I am glad of that, and I was proud beyond all expression when the member for Kindersley said here the other night that if there was one man in this whole parliament upon, whom he could rely to keep his word it was the right hon. leader of the opposition. And that, statement came at a particularly effective time, I think I might say, when it was made in the face of the old stale promises thait had been raked up, the promises that had been broken, by the Liberal government during its four years of power. There is no bartering going on in this party for anything like Progressive support; but there is this to be said in line with what the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has already told the House-that if the leader of the present opposition is returned to power he intends to carry on. The only satisfaction the Solicitor General and those allied with him seemed to be able to get out of the situation was they hqped there would be dissension or differences in this part}' which might by some chance split it open. Sir, I want to assure the Solicitor General that he need not lay that flattering unction to his soul. If there ever has been a time within recent years when the Conservative party has been united behind its leader, that time is to-day. This party is standing one hundred per cent, man by man. without division or doubt, behind the man who keeps his word. And, Sir, we have put our hands to the plough. There will be no turning back. We are going forward, under the leadership of the man who is known for keeping his word to the country and to every individual in it, until good government shall again have been restored to Canada, whose sons and daughters we are and whose interests we serve.
Miss AGNES C. MacPHAIL (Southeast Grey): Mr. Speaker, the hon. members of this new parliament are very kind indeed. However, before addressing a few words to the consideration of the question before the House I want to say that this new parliament 'has been a disappointment to me; it is not anything like so comfortable and agreeable as the one which passed out of existence last

Government's Right to Office
fall; But here it is, and I suppose we will have to do the best we can with it.
This peculiar situation of no party having a majority arose because numbers of people in the country came to the conclusion that each of the historic parties was but a cloak under which powerful economic groups governed. And having tried one and the other they decided that some other method of having their economic interest represented in this House must be found. It is true that in theory the historic parties are not the same. In practice, however, they are, and so after trying first one and then the other, large numbers of people in the constituencies decided that they would send to represent them in the House of Commons people who had- their own economic outlook. Accordingly three new groups found their way into this House-the Farmers group, the Labour and the Independent groups. The two party system under which public administration has been carried on in the past in Canada does not allow these several groups an opportunity to function in the government. The government or the cabinet is not a committee of parliament, as is said in the amendment; it is a committee of the party in power. In practice this committee is not responsible to parliament but controls it because of the slavish following of the usage that the defeat of a ministerial measure means the defeat of the government and a general election.
We have now in this House all the factors needed to form a cabinet which should be responsible to parliament, except the will to try. It is true that such a plan would call for the discarding, first, of the theory of the solidarity of the cabinet-I rather suspect it is mostly theory; and second, of the practice that the defeat of a ministerial measure means the defeat of the government. If in future years groups continue to come to this House, some form of government through which they can function will be found. That is my opinion of whait the British constitution means. It is something that we change as the need arises. And when the need for change works its way into the minds of all the groups in this House and the people in the country, a change that will make for better government than we have at present will be adopted. At present the governing party reminds me of the Irishman who was willing to live not only his own life but the lives of everyone around him. That, I suppose, is why each of the historic parties is striving so strenuously to be the governing group.
Now, regarding the constitutionality of the action of the government in retaining power,
I doubt very much if anyone in this House is qualified to give an unbiased opinion on the matter. Able lawyers have expressed their views, but could not these hon. members have argued as ably if they had found themselves on the other side of the question and the other side of the House? I think they could. But if hon. gentlemen in this House cannot agree as to the constitutionality of the government's action I believe all can agree that the King government^ played atrociously poor politics when it continued to hold office after the verdict of the people had been given. The effect of this verdict, as I am sure all Liberals will in their hearts but not with their lips admit, is the increasing resentment of the people of Canada against them.
The difficulty for me and for those who are situated as I am in regard to the amendment offered by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) is that while it deals solely with the constitutional aspect, the people in the country, possibly because of the press, possibly because they do not understand technicalities-I do not know whether anybody else understands them or not-will look upon this as a vote of confidence or of want of confidence. In fact the papers are now carrying headlines that it is a confidence or a non-confidence motion. During the last parliament the King government gave us only crumbs of reform, and those grudgingly. The King government could have put through any reform which we favoured, but instead of that they chose of their own free will to mark time and to appeal to the country on the plea that they had not a sufficient majority, and now weakened in numbers and in prestige the same government comes back and promises everything. I did not notice about the Christmas turkey. Possibly it is in there too. The Prime Minister during the late campaign made public utterances in regard to the support given him by the Progressive group in the last parliament that showed, to my mind, an utter lack both of gratitude and of graciousness. I want to say quite plainly that I have absolutely no confidence in the King government. I am not pleased1 with their past performances, nor have I faith in their promises of future action. That does not mean that I have not a very great affection for the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) however, but on the other hand, I am not in accord with Conservative policy, nor in sympathy with their mental outlook, and I view with alarm-those seem to me like familiar words-the return of the old war horses of the Conservative party to
Government's Right to Office

the front benches. I do not believe in the election methods of either political party, but in Ontario the method of the Conservative party in financing and conducting elections is particularly disagreeable and does much to lower the tone of public life in Canada. I believe the Conservative party as well as the Liberal party represent economic groups that have grown fat off my class, and that leaves me unable to support either party as such. I could not possibly give blanket support to either party, but I stand on safe ground and shall deal with each piece of legis-ation on its merits, regardless of the name of the government or the individual introducing it. I can not state my stand more clearly.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: The situation we are attempting to deal with tonight is puzzling, indeed almost mystifying to the ordinary layman, and when the learned jurists on each side of the House disagree, as they have done for the last two days, it would be of course impertinence for a layman like myself to give an opinion on the constitutional aspect of the question. I am not sure whether the King government acted constitutionally when they retained office after the election. Indeed, I am not very greatly concerned, because when parliament opened I know that if parliament did not want that government it could easily have rejected it. I am not going to be very dogmatic about it, because I believe in the will of parliament, not in government. The trouble is that in the past we have had governing groups that dominated parliament. I want to see a parliament that will dominate the groups.
At the opening of parliament the government brought down a resolution demanding a vote of confidence from the House. That resolution was challenged on a point of order. The Speaker has deferred his ruling on that point. Then following that the government introduced another resolution, and to this resolution the right hon. leader of the official opposition moved an amendment. Now, as I see it, the government, in asking for a vote of confidence, says to the group in this section of the House "We are not prepared to cariy on government under these chaotic and precarious conditions, we are not prepared to permit you gentlemen to sit back and judge each piece of legislation on its merits. We may, of course, be sustained to-day and may be defeated to-morrow. In other words, we do not think it advisable to go to the expense of having these by-elections, getting ready for the session of parliament, knowing that we may be defeated at any moment. We have asked you now to [Miss MacPhail.J
define your position, and we ask you to state now whether you can guarantee us a continuity of support through the lifetime of the parliament, in consideration of the attractive promises we have made you in the Speech from the Throne." That, in effect, is the position of the government. I have not any fault to find with their position. I believe with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that an executive could be or ought to be chosen from the floor of the House.
However, we are dealing to-day not with an abstract .theory, but with concrete facts. We are faced -with this situation; there are two traditional parties here who are not prepared to accept this proposition and we in this section of the House, small in number, cannot hope by any stretch of the imagination, to have the whole House accept our view; therefore we are faced with this concrete fact as I understand it-and if I am wrong I hope the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will set me right- that in effect the amendment we are debating is really a vote of confidence and is not actually deciding on the constitutional aspects of the question at all. Therefore it resolves itself into a decision on our part as to whether or not we have confidence in the present government. I think I am right in that. The question for the group in this section of the House to decide is not whether the government's action was constitutional or not, but whether or not, in view of the promises they have made in the Speech from the Throne we are justified in assuring that government a continuity of support for the lifetime of parliament.


Mr. WOODSWOKTH:: How does the hon gentleman consider that we can possibly be discussing the policy of the government, when the Speech from the Throne is not really before us?


Milton Neil Campbell: That is all we have been discussing these two or three days, the policy of the government, and the latitude permitted to members by His Honour the Speaker in that regard proves to me, if nothing else does, that what we are really dehating is the question of confidence or no confidence in the government.
I am dealing with the problem from that standpoint. I have no criticism to offer of the government for demanding a vote of confidence.
I think if I were on the treasury benches today under such circumstances I would certainly make a similar demand, or refuse to undertake the responsibility of conducting the affairs of the country. Therefore, I say the question resolves itself, so far as we are concerned, into


Government's Right to Office
a question of whether or not we have confidence in the government, and whether, in view of the-attractive promises they have made in the Speech from the Throne, we can guarantee the government blanket support for the lifetime of parliament.
I am not going to deal with the Whole past record of the government. After all, the record of the government during the past four years is the only thing we have to go by in coming to a decision whether we can have confidence in them or not. The hon. member for Kinder-dley (Mr. Carmichael) yesterday dealt very fully with the government's record in regard to the tariff, the Hudson Bay railway and some other issues, so that I will not cover the same ground. But I will deal with one item only and that is the transferable ballot, a reform for which some hon. gentlemen in this section of the House have been looking for many years. At the opening of the session of 1924 the Speech from the Throne contained this paragraph:
Among amendments to be proposed to the Dominion Elections Act will be one providing for the use of the transferable' vote in single member constituencies.
This was a clear, definite promise on the part of the government to give us the transferable vote during the 1924 session. A little later on in the session the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) drew the attention of the Prime Minister to an item appearing in the daily press, intimating that the government had no intention of bringing down this piece of legislation. In answer to his question the Prime Minister used these words:
Any intimation that the government has decided that this measure will not be proceeded with is wholly inaccurate.
Those words are also very definite, very Clear cut. There is only one way in which that can be understood, and yet during the session of 1924 nothing whatever -was done to implement that promise. Later on, the hon. member for Brandon again asked a question of the Prime Minister and this is his reply:
I am afraid that if the transferable vote were introduced it might lead to protracted discussion extending over some little time. Under the circumstances, the government has decided not to proceed further with the bill which is before the House at the present time, but to take it up at an early stage at the next session of parliament.
We come to the session of 1925. I find on February 19, 1925, the former hon. member for Brant put a question to the Prime Minister with regard to the same alternative vote. The Prime Minister's answer was very evasive, very cryptic, in fact. He simply told the former hon. member for Brant to "wait and
see." This was a distinct change of front on the part of the Prime Minister. A little later, on March 17, the former hon. member for Marquette put a similar question to the Prime Minister. These were the Prime Ministers words:
The government has not yet definitely decided whether to reintroduce the legislation this session.
Another entire change of front. The former hon. member for Brant said:
Did not the Prime Minister promise last year most definitely and explicitly that the bill would be brought down this session at an early date?
The Prime Minister replied:
If I made any such promise it will be carried out and the bill will be brought in.
Another change of front. Later on, when the budget debate took place, the Prime Minister was speaking on the budget, and I might remind hon. members who were members of the former parliament that the Prime Minister on that occasion was pleading with all the powers of his eloquence, almost with tears in his eyes, with hon. members in this section of the House for support for his budget, and that some of his promises made on that occasion induced some hon. members here to support his budget. This is what he said with regard to the transferable vote:
Hon. gentlemen opposite have asked me two or three times about the alternative vote. I promised last session that it would be brought down, and it will be brought down, and we will proceed with it.
A very definite promise again. Another change of front on the part of the Prime Minister. Later, on June 19, the hon. member for Brandon again asked a question of the Prime Minister and this is his answer:
I may say to my hon. friends that I think it is somewhat doubtful whether the House is prepared to consider the single transferable vote. However, the government is giving the matter further consideration.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) interjected this question:
Surely the right hon. Prime Minister, the leader of the government, is not going to break his promise to parliament. Surely we will have this legislation brought down.
The Prime Minister's answer is as follows:
The legislation has been brought down. I do not think I ever promised it would be carried through the House. I could not have made that promise.
A very evasive answer seeing that naturally we expected it, being a government measure, would be carried through the House. It could not be otherwise.
Speaking in the city of Saskatoon on October 7 last during the recent election campaign, the Prime Minister used some very strong, condemnatory language in regard to
Government's Right to Office

the Progressive group. He told his hearers very clearly that there was no need for that group in public life. In effect, he told them if they could not vote Liberal, to vote Conservative. A voice from the audience interjected a question asking him:	"What about
the alternative vote?" And this is the Prime Minister's reply as taken from the Regina Leader of October 8:
We introduced a bill and it was thrown out.
I may s'ay that this particular bill was not thrown out, so that the Prime Minister's statement is inaccurate. He goes on to say:
I am prepared to say this:	The more I study the
situation, the more I am coming to the conclusion that such a system simply perpetuates this class group of which I have spoken and which I think is doing more harm to Canada than anything else.
Not very complimentary language addressed to my hon. friends in this section of the House. I am sure if the Prime Minister were here this evening he would use more honeyed words than those. I am quite sure that many thousands of people in the country will agree with the Prime Minister that the Progressive group will be doing more harm to the country than anything else if they keep this government in power.- Yet, again, the Speech from the Throne, delivered a few days ago, intimates that there will be further amendments to the Dominion Elections Act, and I presume this is another promise with regard to the single transferable vote.
I have no intention of laying all the sins of omission and commission on the Prime Minister. I have a very high regard for the present Prime Minister. I believe he is a man with a very broad outlook, a very liberal-minded man at heart, and his party must share a good deal of that responsibility. It is the reactionary influences that have seeped into the Liberal party during the last few years and have sterilized its action, that have been responsible for the position in which the party is to-day, and not alone the action of the Prime Minister, although I believe some Liberals would, perhaps, try to make him the goat and heap all those sins on his shoulders. The Liberal party itself has failed to live up to its great traditions, to uphold the ideals of its own leader, and sometimes, I think, in the most charitable manner-and I have a great regard for some of my Liberal friends-a little period in the wilderness with the purifying influence that would have, would be the very best thing for the great Liberal party. I have a very high regard for that party. I followed! it myself for many years. There were some of us in the west who found at last it was not moving fast enough and we had to step out and go ahead 
a little bit. But I have always hoped and I have never hoped more than I do to-night that the day will come when that party will again raise up its old standard and stand by it and come back to this House what it used to be and what it ought to be, the great protagonist of the great mass of the common people of Canada.


Mr. MORIN (St. Hyacintlie):: Does the hon. member expect that from the Conservative party?


Milton Neil Campbell: If my hon. friends will
remain in the cold shades of opposition for a while it will have that purifying effect on them. Let me say that hon. members in this section are called upon to make a decision which is by no means a very pleasant one, and I can assure the House that the position we have reached has not been considered in any partisan spirit. Moreover, it has meant to us many anxious hours and sleepless nights. We in this part of the House do not try to influence any hon. member in the way he should vote, for we believe that it is the duty of every representative of the people in parliament to exercise his own judgment according to the dictates of his conscience. I trust therefore that the decision when it is given, whatever it may be, will be taken in the right spirit. If there is one thing more than another that we in this corner have tried to avoid it is partisan bias, and I do hope that when the vote is taken upon this question hon. gentlemen on all sides of the House will endeavour to forget a little of the party spirit and get down more closely to the management of the country's business. I am sure that all of us, whether we be Liberals or Conservatives, Progressives or Labour or Independent, are anxious to discharge our duty as true Canadian citizens and that we all have the good of the country at heart. Let us therefore all get together to do the best we can in the interests of this great nation.
On motion of Mr. Power the debate was adjourned.


Ernest Lapointe: I move, Mr. Speaker,
that the same order be followed to-morrow and that the debate be proceeded with.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ernest Lapointe: I move that the House do now
adjourn and that when it adjourns it shall stand adjourned until to-morrow at three o'clock in the afternoon.

Government's Right to Office


Hewitt Bostock: As it is probable that new members of the House are unaware of the fact,
I may state for their information that under the rules the House, in the absence of a special motion to the contrary, meets on Wednesday at two o'clock in the- afternoon. During the past two or three sessions, however, it has been found by common consent more convenient to meet instead at three o'clock and the rule in this respect has therefore been suspended. It is also a rule that the House on Wednesday shall adjourn at six o'clock. The Minister of Justice, in keeping with the recent custom to which I have just referred, moves that the House, when it adjourns now, shall stand adjourned until to-morrow at three o'clock. This motion may be put without previous notice by unanimous consent of the House.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.
Wednesday, January, 13, 1926