1926-01-08

OPENING OF THE SESSION

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker read a communication from the Governor General's Secretary announcing that His Excellency would proceed to the Senate chamber at 3 p.m. on this day for the purpose of formally opening the session of the Dominion parliament.
Government's Right to Office
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the House went up to the Senate chamber.
Then the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, Speaker-elect, said:
May it iplease Your Excellency,
The House of Commons have elected me as their Speaker, though I am but little able to fulfil the important duties thus assigned to me. If in the performance of 'those duties I should at any time fall into error, I pray that the fault may be 'imputed to me, and not to the Commons whose servant I am.
The Honourable the Speaker of the Senate, addressing the Honourable the Speaker of the House, then said:
Mr. Speaker, I am commanded by His Excellency the Governor General to assure you that your words and actions will constantly receive from him the most favourable construction.
Then His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to open parliament by a Speech from the Throne.
And the House being returned to the Commons chamber:
Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
state that the House having attended on His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, I informed His Excellency that the choice of Speaker had fallen upon me, and, in your names and on your behalf, I made the usual claim for your privileges, whioh His Excellency was pleased to confirm to you.



GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO RETAIN OFFICE

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House):: The House is now properly organized, and in view of the peculiar circumstances under which this parliament is meeting, which have necessitated this early summoning of hon. members, the government thinks it its duty, as the first act of government in this parliament, to submit the following motion, whioh I make, seconded by the Hon. Mr. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):
That in the opinion of this House, in view of the recent general election, the government was justified in retaining office and in summoning ,parliament, and the government is entitled to retain office, unless defeated by a vote of this House equivalent to a vote of want of confidence.
I quite realize that this motion will involve some discussion and I am prepared ito discuss it to-day; but, on the other hand, I should not like anybody to be taken by surprise, and if it is the wish of the House that the

consideration of this motion should be postponed till Monday I am quite content to agree, provided the motion is disposed of before we take up any other business.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the manner
in which a group of men who claim to constitute the government has opened this House is quite on a parity with the conduct of the same group since its defeat in the last election. May T say, first of all, that I do not rise to ask any grace from that group of men? I am not proposing to ask for any adjournment of anything. I take the ground, though, first of all, that this motion without notice is out of order.


Mr. FORKE:: I might suggest that we do
not know what it is about.


Arthur Meighen: It is not about very
much. It is in the form of the usual motion of which notice must be given and this alleged government has no right, whatever autocratic sentiments its members may recently have imbibed, to proceed in this House without notice. To suggest that they may do so is in itself a discourtesy to parliament, is in itself a contempt of parliament. When I say that we on this side received no notice of the government's intention, I make a statement that I am sure will occasion no surprise. I am as sure that no hon. member who is not within the fold of the government had any notice of it. Not only had we on this side no notice, but at the opening of the House this afternoon I was provided with an order of proceedings for the day upon which this notice does not appear-in which no reference whatever is made to any intention of the government to make such a motion. We are, in effect, notified that no such procedure as this will be attempted by the so-called administration, and after we have been so notified, he who now assumes to lead or does lead the assumed ministry, comes before this House and ventures to suggest to us that a motion of this kind is in order. It is wholly unprecedented. Certainly the circumstances are unprecedented. The reason for the unprecedented circumstances we all see right opposite us now. But the fact that such circumstances are created by the administration gives the administration no right to do an unprecedented act in this House. I therefore, first of all, rising to a point of order, take the ground that the government has no right to proceed.


Ernest Lapointe: I will not make any
comment on the tone of asserted superiority

Government's Right to Office
exhibited by my right hon. friend. As to the question of order, parliament has 4 p.m. been summoned for the very purpose expressed in this motion-to ascertain, owing to the numerical position of various parties and groups as a result of the election, who should be the executive and carry on the administration. We are taking the very first step and the earliest opportunity possible to submit this question to the judges, to parliament. My right hon. friend is one in parliament, as I am one. We are all equal here, and the question whom parliament wants as the executive, the board of control, the cabinet in Canada at the present time, must be decided by members of parliament, not by the cabinet. This being the issue to decide which parliament has been summoned, after we have been charged with being usurpers who have no authority-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: Then why does my right hon. friend object to having that issue decided?


Mr. WILSON (Wentworth):: The people decided it.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, the people as represented in parliament, not the people of one province or another. The people of all the provinces of the Dominion, as represented here by the members whom - they have elected, are the judges. Now, it was a physical impossibility to give any notice prior to the introduction of the motion. Parliament met only yesterday.
Some hon. MEMBER'S: Oh, Oh.


Ernest Lapointe: Who says "Oh"! Could any notice have been legally given before parliament met? Does anybody contend that this was possible? Obviously it was impossible to give such notice; and now, under our constitutional rules and in accordance with precedent, parliament has the right to assert its power to deal with any public questions of importance before taking up the consideration of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. And in order to preserve that privilege it is customary to introduce, immediately after the meeting of parliament, a pro forma bill dealing with the oaths of office. The purpose of this is merely to maintain this right of the House of Commons to take up any matter of importance before proceeding to discuss the Address in reply to the Speech .from the Throne. The grave matter of public importance at the present time is to decide who, as a result of the electoral situation which was created on October 29
last, Shall be the executive of parliament and shall carry on the administration of the government. This is the very first matter which we must decide, and it is the matter that forms the subject of this motion.


Robert Forke: Government's Right to Office
an administration that purported to act as an administration before the House 'had functioned as such. The only method I know of under our rules is the method I have just suggested: the government moves the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne and, if there is any opposition, the opposing party moves an amendment thereto. That is the manner in which the position of the government is vindicated. The point of order taken by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), that no notice having been given the motion is not in order, is, it seems to me, perfectly well taken. The matter is a very simple one, for the rules of the House clearly determine that a motion of this character shall be considered by the House only af'er notice has been duly given, so that every hon. member of this tribunal may have an opportunity of considering just what he is called upon to decide. That is why notice is necessary. No notice having been given in the present instance, it is clear that the rules of the House have not been observed; and that being the case the motion is out of order. That is the point which is now under consideration.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: My hon. friend from
West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) has well observed that the only question before the House is a point of order raised by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). It is rather singular that the right hon. gentlemen, just as hon. members were leaving this chamber to attend upon His Excellency, handed to my hon. friend who is leading the House at present i(Mr. Lapointe) a copy of a resolution which he intended to move but which was nothing more nor less than 'the negative of the motion which has been actually proposed. My right hon. friend evidently thought that he was going to be in order without having given notice.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then what did he mean by handing to the Minister of Justice that copy of his resolution? Yesterday my right hon. friend observed that there was no government. Well, we want to know as a government whether or not we have the confidence of the House; and by virtue of the privilege which is usually exercised when a bill pro forma is introduced before the consideration of the Speech from the Throne is entered upon we have at the present time the right to submit this motion to the House. Under the circumstances I con-
[Mr. Bennett.1
tend that the motion is in order without notice.


Arthur Meighen: I rise, Mr. Speaker, not to labour that point of order, for no one has seriously contended that it is not well taken, but merely to make a statement with reference to the words of the erstwhile Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) referring to a notice I gave the leader of the group opposite (Mr. Lapointe) immediately after three o'clock. I have no doubt that the House will contrast the conduct I observed with the conduct of the government. Between three o'clock and the removal of hon. members to the Senate chamber, I gave the leader in this House of the government party notice of an amendment which I proposed to move. The opening paragraph read as follows:
The following motion will be made by Mr. Meighen at the first available opportunity:
You will observe that I stated "the first available opportunity." How could it have been stated otherwise? Knowing whom we had opposite us, how did we know what they were going to do? To-day they have sought to override the rules of parliament, as for two months or more they have sought to override the vote of the people. I now put on record the amendment, of which they had approximately an hour's notice, and I do so merely in an explanatory way. The House will observe that I am not moving the amendment now; I am simply standing on my point of order.
Moved in amendment by Mr. Meighen;
Seconded by Mr. That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
In the late general election the candidates of His Excellency's then advisers, at whose instance the appeal to the country was made, were defeated in a large majority of the constituencies,
That nine ministers of the crown, including the Prime Minister, were rejected at the polls and have no seats in parliament,
That the party represented in -the last parliament by His Majesty's opposition 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,
That those who now assume to be His Excellency's advisers have among them no Prime Minister with a seat in either House of Parliament, and under such circumstances are not competent to act as, or to become, the committee of parliament, commonly known as the government, or to address parliament through His Excellency, and their attempted continuance in office is a violation of the principles and practice of British constitutional government.
Had the government followed the order of procedure which they followed four years ago at the opening of the last parliament, and Which they notified me in writing they would follow to-day, I would have moved that amendment to that item of business appear-

Government's Right to Office
ing as number six in this preliminary order paper handed to me by the officers of the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is entirely different.


Arthur Meighen: If the government had any other order of business they should have notified the officers of the House. Apparently the government has deceived the officers of the House as well as the House itself. That order of business-and- it comes immediately after the report of His Excellency's speech- is in these words:
The leader of the House moves that the Speech be considered on a certain day, and that the debate thereon have precedence.
So the government need not have had any apprehension that they would hang long between heaven and earth without having their position challenged in this House.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a question asked by my bon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) who assumes the right to lead the House at this time. He asked: How could notice have been given? I wish to bring to the attention of Your Honour, before you give your ruling on the point of order, how in my estimation such notice could have been given. Rule 40 provides:
Two days' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address,
And so on. This morning I received in my mail box dn the usual way a copy of number one of the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons of Canada, dated Thursday, January 7, 1926. This document, which is the official record of the House, and upon wliich such notice should appear, as hon. members who have not had the privilege of sitting in this House before will learn during the coming weeks,-this document sets forth accurately what occurred yesterday; gives a list of the members returned to serve in this parliament, which is also quite in order; gives a statement by the secretary of His Excellency the Governor General and some statements by the chief electoral officer, and gives also the statement by Your Honour which was read yesterday.
Now, before adjournment yesterday-which was moved in the ordinary way-there was ample time for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lapointe) to have notified the House that today he intended to make a given motion. My hon. friend tries to be sarcastic, but he is well acquainted with the amenities of parliament, the little courtesies which from time to time are observed. But this is not only a
lack of courtesy on his part, it is a violation of a rule of the House. He could have handed his motion to the officers of the House yesterday after Mr. Speaker took the chair and before he moved the adjournment. Then his notice of motion would have appeared in the Votes and Proceedings and would: have been in order for debate.


Ernest Lapointe: Not to-day.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend says "Not to-day". By that interjection he uncovers to us the reason why he did not give the notice yesterday. What is the reason? He could not have made this motion to-day. That is the reason. My hon. friend says in effect: I will defy the rules of the House, I will wholly disregard them, and I will introduce this motion to-morrow and so "put one over" the House.
Now, Mr. Speaker. I want to fortify my argument by reference to a statement made in the public press-a statement which came from the lips of William Lyon Mackenzie King, the gentleman who still claims to be Prime Minister of this country, but who constitutionally is not Prime Minister. That gentleman, not a member of this parliament, states in this morning's press:
Once the Speech from <the Throne is delivered, the government proposes to exercise its normal powers unless it should be challenged immediately by the opposition.
I pause to say that we have no objection to the group of hon. gentlemen opposite assuming the right to lead this House as a government, to attempt to carry on, but, as my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) says, we will challenge them on the first opportunity. But they take another course.
If the government should be so challenged, its future will depend on whether or not it can obtain a majority in the House of Commons.
Premier Mackenzie King said last night that he did not regard the election of the Speaker as a vote of confidence in the government. The choice of a Speaker was a function of parliament, and the selection did not necessarily imply that the government had the approval of the Commons.
On the other hand, he made it clear that the government proposes to resume its fulll powers after the Throne Speech is delivered. The delivery of the Speech implied such a resumption of power, he said	
I want you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House to notice that.
The delivery of the Speech implied such a resumption of power, he said. It was the right of the opposition to question the position of the government shoulld it so desire, but ifailing this the government functioned in a normal manner.
Since the election the government has refrained from exercising the power of appointment, and consequently a number of vacancies are unfilled. The above statement indicates, however, that unless challenged im-

Government's Right to Office
mediately the government will go ahead and make such aipporintaiients as it considers necessary.


Mr. CANNON:: What paper is my hon.
friend quoting from?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is in all the papers.


Lucien Cannon: What is the name of the
particular paper he quotes from?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quoting from the
Ottawa Citizen.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Your paper.


Lucien Cannon: I understood my hon.
friend to say that it was a statement of the Prime Minister.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So it is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was about to say when I commenced reading this statement that it comes from the lips of Mr. William Lyon Mackenzie King.


Mr. PARENT:: How do you know?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know it, and it is a
statement just as direct from his lips as if it had been delivered in this House. It is an indication from him that he intends to seize upon the opportunity of making appointments just as soon as the Speech from the Throne is delivered.
Mr. Speaker, the point before us is this: Shall this parliament have a reasonable and constitutional opportunity of determining whether or not this group of individuals who have usurped the power of government are properly and constitutionally a government? I repeat, Sir, in support of my hon. leader that this motion is not only out of order but is an affront to parliament, and it is out of order because the hon. gentleman did have an opportunity of giving notice of it. It should have appeared on the Votes and Proceedings, and then would have been in order for debate and discussion when the necessary time required for notice had elapsed. That, I contend, would have been on Monday next. I support the point raised by my right hon. leader that this motion is distinctly out of order and not debatable to-day.


Ernest Lapointe: As my right hon. friend
has spoken two or three times, perhaps I may be allowed to say another word.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not understand why we should have such a display of temper.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend had
been able to see the look in his own eyes a few minutes ago he would know where the temper was.


Ernest Lapointe: I have moved that in
view of the situation resulting from the recent general election the government was justified in retaining office and summoning parliament, and is justified in carrying on unless and until it is defeated by a vote of this House. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition has read the amendment which he intended to move, an amendment which is purely and simply a negative of the motion I have submitted to the House. We say that we were justified in retaining office and summoning parliament, and in asking for the decision of this parliament as to who should be its executive. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition says that we were not justified. The arguments he gives are arguments which will be adduced by him to oppose our motion, but why that difficulty now? Apparently my friends opposite want the same question submitted to the House, so why should they object to our submitting it?


Arthur Meighen: Debate the point of
order.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend
was not debating the point of order when he read his amendment.


Arthur Meighen: I had the case complete.


Ernest Lapointe: It is all very well to
give lectures on procedure, but there is also such a thing as courtesy in debate and discussion.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, you know how these things are prepared. You know that the government is not responsible for the list .Which has been supplied to my right hon. friend as well as to me. We certainly are not bound to follow any order of procedure which is put in our hands by any officer of the House.
So far as my hon. friend the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) is concerned, I admit that if it had been possible to give two days' notice of this motion, possibly we should have done it, but as I said before, that was an impossibility if we were to have this motion before us to-day. The motion presents the very issue that parliament is called upon to decide at the present time, and my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, who contends that notice was required of the motion, knows very well that no notice is given of the motion to introduce a bill respecting the administration of oaths of office. There is a tradition that parliament has the right to take up a matter of public importance .before dealing with the Address, and tha/t is what we are doing now.

Government's Right to Office


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, as a simple-minded person who for some eighteen years past has lost the fine sense of hair-splitting, on parliamentary procedure, may I join with the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) in suggesting that in order to recover our senses, for those who have lost, them, or to acquire them in the case of those who have none, this whole procedure should be adjourned till Monday, first, in order to give you, Sir, time to study the course of things to be followed.
I am a great respecter of rules, provided, of course, the rules are useful for some purpose;
I am a great respecter of precedents, provided of course, precedents do not lead us to foolish things; I am a great respecter of traditions and of courtesy provided! of course, they mean something tangible. But I believe there is a feeling throughout Canada that parliament-I am not referring to any particular party or any particular session-has lost much time and leisure and has given many efforts of intelligence, or something akin to it, to many things that have not produced results. I believe with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that the country is just as anxious as he is, though perhaps not exactly from the same motives, to find out which government we are going to have. I think the country desires the atmosphere to be cleared. But on the other hand I think it is a matter grave in itself, and especially grave in its consequences, that this question should be settled, either as a point of procedure- which to my mind is perhaps the least important aspect of the question-or otherwise, at leisure and with cool thought. It is, however, a very important question to decide who shall lead this parliament. I sympathize with both parties. When I came to this House to choose my humble seat I met two of my old friends belonging to either party and I gave to both of them the same message for their leaders-to offer them my sincere and friendly compliments and to tell them that I felt much happier than they must feel in their present position. Therefore it seems to me that if, in order to give to each of us, either as individuals or as members of a party anxious or not anxious to be in power, time to reflect upon the consequences of this motion, and to give you, Sir, the opportunity to decide upon its parliamentary effect, the whole question were adjourned until Monday, the position of neither party would be compromised, and ample time would be given to the members of the opposition to sum up all their arguments and to organize their onslaught against the government at a time when the government's position is very
inviting to attack. On the other hand, the members constituting what remains of the government and their supporters would have ample time to consider whether it is their best policy to run after a decision of the House or simply wait until the House has itself decided. However, that is a question which I leave to their own wisdom, and intelligence. Under the circumstances, as a humble member of this House, as one who is happily, the head, the heart and the tail of his own party, I move, if I can find1 a seconder, That the debate, both on -the (point of order and the motion itself, be adjourned until Monday.


Hewitt Bostock: It is moved by the hon. member for Labelle, seconded by the hon. member for 'Comox-Albemi;
That the debate be now adjourned.
Mr. ME/IGHEN: With all due deference, Mr. Speaker, I would call your attention to the fact that the debate on a point of order cannot be adjourned.


Hewitt Bostock: The point of order is only an incident of the question before the House. I have been asking myself, therefore, whether I should not defer my ruling on the point of order. It seems to me that the motion of the hon. member for Labelle is perfectly in order.


Arthur Meighen: I take the ground that there can be no debate on this motion, consequently there is no debate to be adjourned. I quite agree, however, that Your Honour may if Your Honour sees fit ask for time to consider the point of order; that is another question. There is no debate which can be adjourned until the point of order is decided.


Hewitt Bostock: Whether the issue be on the point of order or on the motion to adjourn the debate it must be submitted to the judgment of the House. If I am asked to give my opinion on the spur of the moment, I must confess that I am taken a little by surprise, I should greatly prefer an adjournment until Monday before pronouncing my opinion.


Ernest Lapointe: If Mr. Speaker intends to take until Monday to consider his ruling on the point of order, perhaps my hon. friend the member for Labelle would not object to my moving the adjournment of the debate.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not in the slightest.


Arthur Meighen: I see now the significance of the situation, and I want to press, and press with all firmness the point I have taken. Certainly discussion on the point of order is a debate but it can only be deferred at the request of Mr. Speaker; it can never be deferred on the motion of an hon. member. There is no other debate before the House
Governor General's Speech

which an hon. member can move to adjourn. That is the poin't I take, and take most firmly. I acquiesce readily if it is the desire of Mr. Speaker to adjourn the debate on the point of order but not at the instance of any hon. member.


Hewitt Bostock: With all due regard to the argument of the right hon. leader of the opposition I still maintain that the motion of the hon. member for Labelle is in order. That hon. gentleman moved the adjournment of a debate which had started on the motion of the hon. Minister of Justice. That is my ruling against which the House can appeal if it so desires.


Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: Do I understand from you, Mr. Speaker, that you take the ground that any member of this House may decide for you as to whether a motion is or is not in order, because that is what the moving by the hon. member for Labelle of his so-called motion really amounts to. I have always understood it to be the practice of the House that the Speaker had the right of pronouncing judgment and that, in order to afford him time to be sure that he was correct, he was at liberty to postpone his decision on any point of order. But I never heard before of moving to adjourn the debate on a point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: I rise at this juncture to remind the hon. member that a motion to adjourn is nolt debatable. However, some latitude must be permitted at the beginning of the session when hon. gentlemen are not so familiar with the rules. It seems to me that the ruling which I have suggested is the proper one. On the motion which was presented a point of order was taken by the right hon-. leader of the opposition. Other members have not spoken so pointedly on a question of procedure as the right hon. gentleman and the bon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) suggests that in view of the importance of the question t'he whole debate should be adjourned until Monday. I must confess that if I had been pressed to give a ruling on the point of order I would have asked, in deference to the House, not out of consideration for myself, to defer that decision until Monday. The right hon. leader of the opposition has argued that the debate on a point of order cannot be adjourned, but I must give a ruling on the point of order which is grafted on the main motion.


Arthur Meighen: Your Honour has misinterpreted me. I have not suggested that because a motion, which indeed, cannot be made, is made, Your Honour is compelled to

immediately decide the point of order. Not at all. Your Honour has the privilege of deferring your decision until Monday, but it is Your Honour, and Your Honour alone, who can defer discussion on a point of order; no member of the House can do that. As long as Tour Honour takes the position that at your own instance you defer the debate, I am entirely content.


Ernest Lapointe: May I interject, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend from Labelle moved the adjournment of the debate even on the main motion. He was speaking on the point of order. Now I had the floor on (the main motion and have remarks to offer concerning it, and if there is a motion to adjourn the debate, I think I am entitled to make those remarks. I am quite willing to meet the wishes of hon. members in that respect.


Hewitt Bostock: In order that I may be afforded an opportunity of considering my ruling on the point of order which has been raised, I would ask the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) to withdraw his motion, as I would like to defer that ruling until Monday. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to withdraw his motion?


Arthur Meighen: There is no motion.
Motion withdrawn.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General this day in the Senate chamber, Hir Excellency was pleased to make a speech to both houses of parliament. To prevent mistakes I have obtained a copy which is as follows:-
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
It gives me pleasure to welcome you to your important duties in this first session of the fifteenth Parliament of Canada.
Since our last meeting, the Empire has been called on to lament the demise of Queen Alexandra. In our Dominion the memory of the late Queen will ever be held in affectionate remembrance. At the earliest opportunity a resolution will be submitted to you expressing the deep sympathy of the Parliament and people of Canada with His Majesty the King and other members of the Royal Family in their bereavement.
Canada has been signally honoured by the selection of a member of its Government as President of the sixth assembly of the League of Nations.
I congratulate you on the growing prosperity of this favoured land. The products of our agricultural and other basic industries have greatly increased. Our export trade shows remarkable expansion. Our manufacturing and related industries throughout the Dominion have experienced a development not enjoyed in many years. Further evidence of industrial progress is reflected in the greatly improved earnings of the railways.

Government'& Right to Office
This increased prosperity and advancement have been aided by the policies of the Government and the reductions in expenditures and taxation made from time to time. In the opinion of my Ministers the improved conditions warrant further substantial reductions in taxation.
Every effort will be made further to reduce expenditures. To aid in the reduction of expenditures in administration certain of the departments of the public service will be consolidated with others and government services more effectively co-ordinated.
Our revenue is derived partly from taxes made necessary by the war and partly from other sources. In order that the people of the Dominion may have an exact knowledge of the sources of their revenue and the objects of its expenditure simplified forms of account will bo issued periodically.
With the improvement of conditions throughout the country the Government have formulated and put into operation a comprehensive immigration plan. My Ministers desire it to be known that the Dominion welcomes settlers of the classes which can be absorbed into our population. Regulations have been simplified, transportation rates greatly reduced, and the care of settlers to destination and during early settlement given every attention. Measures will be taken to further the retention on the land of our existing agricultural population, to encourage the return to rural parts of urban dwellers possessed of agricultural experience, and the repatriation of Canadians now living in other countries. Special arrangements will be proposed for settlement on Crown Lands.
An agreement has been made between the Government and the railroad companies providing a larger measure of co-operation in immigration activities in the British Isles and on the continent of Europe. An agreement entered into with the British Government has already been instrumental in stimulating immigration from Great Britain.
While it is of importance to attract new settlers it is equally, if not more important, to assist those who are already established on the land by reducing the cost of agricultural production. To this end a measure will be introduced offering wide facilities for rural credits.
My Ministers are of the opinion that a general increase in the Customs Tariff would prove detrimental to the country's continued prosperity and prejudicial to national unity. In their view the incidence of this form of taxation should bear as lightly as possible upon the necessaries of life and on agriculture and other	primary	industries.	They	believe that in theinterest of industrial development every effort should be made to eliminate the element of uncertainty with respect to tariff changes; that changes in the tariff should be made only after the fullest examination of their bearing upon both primary and manufacturing industries and that representations requesting increase or decrease of duties should be made the subject of the most	careful	investigation	and	report by a	body
possessing the necessary qualifications to advise the Ministry with respect thereto. A Tariff Advisory Board will accordingly be appointed forthwith. This Board will be expected to make a careful study of the Customs Tariff, the revenue to be derivecT therefrom and the effect of the tariff and allied factors on industry and agriculture.
While recognizing the importance of the Canadian home	market,	the great value	of markets in	othercountries for our natural and manufactured products must	also be	considered.	In	particular our	trade
within the Empire should be encouraged by all means consistent with our national welfare. In this connection
a trade agreement entered into with the British West Indies, Bermuda, British Guiana and British Honduras will be submitted for your approval.
In pursuance of the fixed policy of the Government to encourage the movement of grain and other Canadian products through Canadian ports, the Board of Railway Commissioners has been instructed to include in the General Rate investigation now in progress, a special inquiry into the causes of diversion of Canadian grain and other products through other than Canadian ports, and to take such action under the Railway Act as it may deem efficient to ensure as far as possible the utilization of Canadian ports for Canadian traffic.
My Government propose to submit provisions for the completion forthwith of the Hudson Bay Railway.
With a view to affording such remedies as may appear to be practical and appropriate, the Government also propose to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire fully into the claims that the nights of the Maritime Provinces in regard to the operation of the Intercolonial Railway have not been observed, and that in regard to transportation, immigration, and other economic factors these provinces have suffered prejudicially, in their position under Confederation.
Your attention will be invited, among other measures, ta a bill to provide for the transfer to the Province of Alberta of its natural resources, and to a bill amending the Dominion Elections Act.
Members of the House of Commons:
The accounts of the last fiscal year and the estimates for the coming year will be submitted for your consideration.
Honourable Members of t-he Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
In the policies and measures I have outlined, a sincere effort has been made to take into account the diversified conditions and interests of our Dominion in a manner which will promote mutual understanding and closer co-operation between all parts. It is believed that these measures which, taken together, form a coordinated plan of national progress, will ensure our common aim of a prosperous and united Canada.
In their consideration and in other of your public duties may Divine Providence guide and bless your deliberations.



MOTION FOR PRECEDENCE-GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO RETAIN OFFICE

Ernest Lapointe: (Leader of the House): I move, seconded by Mr. Macdonald (Antigonish-Guysborough) that the speech of His Excellency the Governor General to both houses of parliament be taken into consideration on Monday next, and that this order have precedence over all other business of the House except government notices of motion and introduction of bills, until disposed of. In order that nobody may be taken by surprise, I may say that, according to the officers of the House, the motion which I have submitted will appear under government notices of motion on Monday.


Arthur Meighen: As the House and the
Chair are already informed, I have an amendment to propose to this motion. It is well, that we have returned at last to the regular
Government's Right to Office

proceedings, and that these clumsy and abortive efforts to switch the House into other channels has failed. The amendment which I propose to make is the amendment which I read to the House after reference had been made to it by the hon. member-I almost said for Pictou-for Antigonish-'Guysborough (Mr. Macdonald). I am prepared to go on with the motion now, or prepared to adjourn, whatever is the desire of hon. members opposite.


Ernest Lapointe: I think the point of order that will be raised in regard to this motion will have to suffer the same fate as the former motion. I contend that this motion is a pure negative of the other motion which is already before the House and cannot be put.


Arthur Meighen: I hand to you, Mr. Speaker, my motion and still retain the floor. The motion reads:
In the late general election the candidates of His Excellency's then advisers, at whose instance the appeal to the country was made, were defeated in a large majority of the constituencies,
That nine ministers of the crown, including the Prime Minister, were rejected at the polls and have no seats in parliament,
That .the party represented in the last parliament by His Majesty's opposition 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, That those who now assume to be His Excellency's advisers have among them no Prime Minister with a seat in either house of panliamient, and under such circumstances are not competent to act as, or to become, the committee of parliament, commonly known as the government, or to address parliament through His Excellency, and their attempted continuance in office is a violation of the .principles and practice of British constitutional government.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
amendment.


Ernest Lapointe: I rise to a point of order. This motion is a pure negative of the motion which is already before the House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Which motion?


Arthur Meighen: Of course we contend that the motion proposed by the hon. minister is not a motion at all. It is not before the House and cannot be before the House. As you, Mr. Speaker, have deferred decision on the question until Monday, as long as that postponement on the point of order on the former motion stands, I can quite readily see that Your Honour will not care to decide the point of order raised at the present time, because it entirely depends on your ruling on the former motion.
I am prepared to go on.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not see any objection to the present motion moved in amendment to
("Mr, Meighen.]
the main motion that the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General to both houses of parliament be taken into consideration on Monday. The main motion speaks for itself and this amendment to that motion is in order. The other motion objected to will come up on Monday and by my ruling the House will know if it is in order. This amendment has mo relation to that first motion which was deferred until Monday. It is an amendment to the motion to debate the Address on Monday.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, we have, perhaps, enjoyed the rather ludicrous performance which members of the late government have interjected into the proceedings this afternoon and, after all, possibly, it has cost us no more than a couple of hours of time. I desire to proceed now to a discussion of this amendment and, in such discussion, to confine myself very closely, even more closely than I think is the usual custom in the House, to the terms of the amendment itself, and to present to the House an argument designed to show that, if established, the facts set out in the amendment lead inevitably to the conclusion which appears at the end of the amendment.
The terms of the amendment call upon me to establish, first of all, that in the late election the candidates of the administration of that time were defeated in a large majority of the constituencies of Canada. It is hardly necessary to take the time, but for the formal necessity of re-establishing what everybody knows, to make plain to the House that this is true. In the late election 245 constituencies were contested, if we count as two those wherein two members were to be elected. The contest resulted-and here I make no comment on the means adopted by hon. gentlemen of the government to bring about the result-in the return of 116 members of * what was at that time the opposition in this House, commonly known as the Liberal-Conservative party of Canada. It resulted in the return of 101 members of the Liberal party of this country, included among whom are more than one who contested with the prefix "Independent" attached' to the word "Liberal" and who, doubtless, because of that qualification, gained an accession of votes which they otherwise would have been denied. The third parties including that known as the Progressives? which has come back with, I believe, some twenty odd members, and inclusive of those who contested1 as Labour candidates and as Independents generally, constitute in the aggregate twenty-eight. These figures no one will contest. Indeed the only possible avenue of contestation is in relation to one constituency in Alberta which,

Government's Right to Office
for the purposes of these figures, I have accorded to the Progressive party, but in which I understand the litigation is not yet complete, which litigation, if it resulted otherwise than as contended by them, would mean the election of the Conservative candidate there. Consequently the facts I have adduced are fortified against all possible doubt or attack. It will be seen from them that the supporters of the late government are in a large minority in the present House, in a minority represented by some forty, and in addition to these facts, of those who were elected not as adherents of either of the two great parties which historically have divided our country, but as Progressives or some other members, no less than seventeen contested their seats against, and defeated candidates running on behalf of, the then administration.
I have in my possession a list of those who triumphed over candidates of that administration. There were, I think, eight in Alberta, four in Saskatchewan, four in Manitoba and one in Quebec. Hon. members who have come from the contests and are now in this House will be able to give to you, Mr. Speaker, more graphically than can I, an account of the manner of the attack upon them in the contest itself, and how definite was the division between their own candidatures and those of candidates representing the government of the day. Adding to the 116 the seventeen, mentioned,
5 p.m. and not mentioning, for the moment, those who though running as Progressives, did not defeat government candidates, or those who contested seats which the government of the day abandoned, we find now sitting in this parliament 133 members elected by the people of this country against candidates of the late administration. Of the import of this fact not only can there be no question, but the gravity, the significance of it, surely the whole of this Dominion fully comprehends. In the face of a verdict in which, in 133 seats out of 245, the candidates of the late administration were signally defeated and left at home and in which their own candidates returned with only 101 out of 245, a remnant of the ministry of the last parliament comes before this parliament and has the assurance to ask of this parliament a vote of confidence, so that that remnant may continue in office.
Let us now look at Ithe result from the standpoint of the popular vote. The returns completed now show that the 'candidates of the government-and again I say there are included among them at least two who contested seats as Independent Liberals-received 1,266,000 odd votes; that the candidates representing the Conservative party received 1,467,000 votes. The excess of the Conservative vote over the vote of Liberal candidates was more than 200,000 in this Dominion of Canada.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Does the right hon.
gentleman include in those figures the votes given in the province of Quebec for the so-called Patenaude candidates? I want to assure my right hon. friend that I did not ask the question for the purpose of raking applause;
I asked it merely for information.


Arthur Meighen: I would give the hon. gentleman credit for considerable prevision did I assume that he asked the question in order to raise applause. And if he did not ask it for that purpose then why did he ask it? The candidates to whom he refers were included among the Conservative candidates and ran directly antagonistic to all the candidates of the government. The government, then, stands in a minority in the country, as opposed to the Conservative candidates, of something over 200,000; and including the candidates who ran against the government and not as Conservatives, their minority is many scores of thousands more. The government obtained, indeed, very little less than half a million votes fewer than the number obtained by the candidates Who ran not in favour of their administration and almost wholly and directly antagonistic to them.
These are the indisputable facts, none of which I have over-stated in the least degree. I appeal to hon. members now whether I have not stated simply the outstanding and indisputable facits of the last election. We have a group of men in this House-and I direct the attention of hon. members to them as they sit in their seats-who come to parliament and assert that they are still the government of the country, although many members of that so-called government are absentees. And not only do they come to parliament to gdt its verdict, buit prior to coming here (they announced in effect from many a stump in this country that they proposed to carry on for four more years in defiance of the will of the people. So much as to the first assertion in the amendment, that the candidates of His Majesty's late advisers, at whose instance the election was called and the appeal was made, were defeated in the large majority of the constituencies of Canada. The amendment proceeds to say that nine ministers of the crown, including the Prime Minister, were rejected at the polls and have no seats in parliament. It would be but to absorb the time
Government's Right to Office

of the House uselessly to dwell upon this clause of the amendment; the seats opposite speak for themselves. Half the government was defeated; just which half it was, whether the upper or lower, I am not prepared to say. The fact is that half of its members went down to defeat, none of (those defeated members having now seats in parliament. The Prime Minister was included in the six ministers who were defeated in Ontario; three others outside the province of Ontario were defeated; and in addition to those nine ministers, ia minister designate from the province of Manitoba found the handicap of prospective membership in a Liberal government under Mr. Mackenzie King too great in his constituency and lie was defeated as well.
The third assertion in the amendment is to the effect that the patty represented in the last parliament by His Majesty's opposition 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. That this is clear there is no question. This party stands now, assuming that the result in Peace River may not reverse the situation that exists there now, with fifteen members in excess of those of the party opposite.
The last clause of the amendment, to which I wish to direct attention especially now, declares that those who now assume to be His Excellency's advisers have among them no Prime Minister with a seat in either house of parliament and under such circumstances are not competent to act as or to become the committee of parliament commonly known ae the government, or to address parliament through His Excellency, and that their attempted continuance in office is a violation of the principles and practices of British constitutional government.
Before commenting further on the constitutional effect of the Prime Minister's absence from this House or from the other House by reason of 'bis rejection at the polls and his not yet having a seat, I want to refer to the conclusion with which this paragraph ends as related to the other assertions in the amendment itself. That a government whose candidates were successful in only 101 seats out of 245 should seek to continue in office js of course without precedent in our Dominion. Were they however in the position that, taking part in the election in question, there was no other party which had been returned with a larger number of supporters than themselves, then undoubtedly [DOT]they would have been justified in assuming that they had the same right to expect the 
allegiance or at least the independent support of those who ran in other capacities, such as Progressives or as Independents, as would another party which had a minority in comparison with themselves, and if they did get that support they would be justified in assuming that they would be able to carry on the administration of the country. I make that statement subject of course to this limitation, that in the present instance the Prime Minister, before his defeat, declared that even under such circumstances he would not assume the responsibility of office inasmuch as, if he did1 assume it, the utmost he could expect to do would be to mark time, to draw salary and indemnity, and to enjoy the sweets of power, and that he could not serve this country in fhe manner in Which the country must be served under such conditions as now obtain. However, leaving aside the remarks of the Prime Minister to that effect, there would [DOT]have been justification for the present course of the government, even had they come back in a minority, did there exist no stronger party elected to the House, with a right equal to theirs to present to parliament the programme of that party and to ask for the support of all elected on other tickets, if that programme appealed to them. Never in the history of this Dominion; never in the history of the British parliament; never in the history of any province of our Dominion or of any province or state in any other dominion, has a government returned from an election, held under its own auspices and at its own instance, merely representing within its fold a minor group of the House, while a larger group has been returned, and ventured to assert its right to hold' office or even to appeal for [DOT]confidence to parliament.
So I ask hon. gentlemen opposite to reflect for a moment on the position in which they find themselves. To their coming and facing parliament there can be no legal objection. But there is a constitutional objection. The practice has been for many years to resign office before the assembling of parliament- a practice invariable over half a century save in one instance, and that was more than a third of a century ago, where a defeated government decided to wait for the express verdict of parliament before resigning. That the example of more than a third of a century ago, an example which at the time was severely commented upon in the press of Great Britain, should be followed is itself no credit to this alleged administration. But they are not even in a position to rely upon this somewhat hoary precedent for they have emerged from the election as merely a minor group of the House

Government's Right to Office
of Commons, with a group substantially larger, elected at the same contest,, opposing them. In circumstances corresponding to these no leader of a party, no former administration, has ever ventured to wait for the assembling of the House before resigning office. But, after all, we are past that stage now. We are in the House, we are here, and we find the government in those very circumstances asking this House to vote confidence in it and to enable it, in tie words of its leader, to enjoy for four years more the sweets of office, to draw salaries and indemnities, and to mark time so far as the country is concerned.
I want to come now to the last paragraph of this amendment and to make some observations on the significance and constitutional effect of the absence of the Prime Minister- the assumed Prime Minister-from a seat in either house, because of rejection at the polls. The office of prime minister is an exalted office. The powers of a prime minister are very great. The functions and duties of a prime minister in parliament are not only important, they are supreme in their importance. The Prime Minister is not only the leader of the House, in whichever House he may be, but he is the spokesman of the nation before the crown or the representative of the crown. He is the spokesman, and the only spokesman, of the nation. He is the sole via media between parliament, as parliament, and the crown or the representative of the crown.	.
The office of prime minister has been described by authors not a few. The attributes of the office have been defined by Mr. Asquith, by Mr. Gladstone, by Mr. Low, in his latest work on the subject, and by numerous other authorities, and all concur that the Prime Minister's position is one not only of supremacy in the cabinet but of primacy; that he alone can speak with authority 'as between parliament and the crown. While His Honour the Speaker may, as between the House of Commons and the crown, be the via media here, as between parliament in the collective sense and the crown, the Prime Minister is the sole medium, except when the Houses for grave reason resort to joint address. Ever since our system of constitutional government, copied as it is from that of the 'Old Land, reached its maturity in Great Britain, the Prime Minister has 'been t'he sole selector of all his colleagues to constitute ithe ministry of the day. From. 1839 to the' present hour the Prime Minister has had solely in himself, without reference to the crown-that is to say, without the power of naming on the pant of
the crown-the right to choose his colleagues and the Tight to present those colleagues as the executive committee of parliament, assuming that they have seats in either house; and since that time the doctrine of the unification, of the oneness, of the ministry has been complete. The ministry is embodied in the Prime Minister. He personifies his ministry in so far as parliament is concerned, in so far as the crown is concerned', and he speaks as 'between parliament and the crown. All this implies-and it is the result of many years of constitutional development, a development which proceeded against struggles not a few- that the minister known as the Prime Minister, in order to enable the government to function within the walls of parliament, must be a member of one of the houses of parliament. He must be a member because parliament has the right to demand that he come there to expound the policies of the government, to defend those policies, and admit his submission to the control of parliament. Otherwise though he be the king's servant he is not the agent of parliament.
Now, let me repeat; for I do not wish my words to be misunderstood, and still less to be misstated. To enable any ministry, assuming to act as advisers of the crown, to act as well as a committee of parliament, commonly known as the government, the Prime Minister must be a member of either house of parliament. In other words a government cannot ordinarily function in parliament unless the Prime Minister is a member. The House will note that I have not Stated that parliament itself cannot, for certain purposes, function.
I do not contend that parliament is powerless, even though a group of ministers assuming to be a government present themselves without a prime minister in either house. There have been cases-they are very old; they go back to the early part of the last century- when parliament has functioned in the absence of a prime minister although fortuity ously, during a session, he had not a seat; but never until to-day, since the full fruition of responsible government, has a government sought to assert the authority of government and do the work of government in parliament while the Prime Minister was without a seat in either house. This statement is absolutely true, right back to the time when the ministry assumed the stature which it now possesses both in the British parliament and our own, that is, back to the time when the Prime Minister gained the right to choose his colleagues and when the doctrine of the oneness of the cabinet was established back as far as 1839. Even though we go beyond that

Government's Right to Office
date, and go back to the revolution of 1688, there has never been a case where a government presented government business in the Bouse and assumed to act as a government under a prime minister who was without a seat in either house, save in the circumstance where, during the progress of parliament, the Prime Minister for some reason or other lost his seat, and then only until the Prime Minister actually contesting a seat, was returned. May I restate, for on this I stand most firmly that since 1839, when for the first time the fulness of stature of constitutional ministeries in the United Kingdom was reached, never has any government dared to address itself to a new parliament as a government while its Prime Minister was without a seat in either House. And my words apply not only to Great Britain but to Canada and to every British dominion since these have attained responsible government. Not only is this true as a matter of historic precedent and fact, but it is true as a matter of necessity, as a matter of the preservation of those rights of the people which our ancestors reached after long struggles. If a government has a right to function in parliament without a prime minister in either house, then he who stands between parliament and the crown cannot be questioned in this House, cannot be held to account, has not accepted responsibility to parliament, and the old days have returned when the king could address parliament of his own right, and not on the advice of him who above all others is responsible to parliament and the people. This is what the present ministers, who have been doubtless acting as advisers to the crown, are now assuming to do in this House of Commons. A Speech from the Throne has been read, and one of them moves in this House that this Speech from the Throne be taken into consideration on a fixed date. That is a government motion. Now I contend that this House cannot, that this House certainly ought not-and I use both phrases without qualification-take into account any Speech from the Throne which comes from an alleged government through the mouth of His Excellency when that alleged government has not a prime minister in this House or in the other House answerable to parliament.
The Prime Minister writes the Speech from the Throne. I stop not to quote the authorities now; they are numerous; the Speech from the Throne is written by him or under his direction. The Speech from the Throne comes from him to this House through the mouth of His Excellency. We are asked to consider that Speech, asked to consider it by an assumed government, with the Prime Min-

ister absent from both houses and unable to sit in either.
Let me state the case from the point of view of precedent once more. Never has a government even assumed to act since the days of constitutional government as we have it now-never, I repeat, has it assumed to act as that committee of parliament which is authorized to present a Speech from the Throne or to ask for the consideration of a Speech from the Throne when its Prime Minister was without a seat in either house. This is the position the present administration has placed itself in. I have heard it argued on their behalf-I do not know whether they will demean themselves so to argue-that the reason the gentleman who presently assumes to act as Prime Minister has not at least contested a seat is that he wished to leave things in statu quo pending a decision of the House; that because of his desire to leave things just as they were he has denied himself a seat in parliament. I do not give credence to that argument. I do not know whether that argument will be used here or not, but I know this, that When the Prime Minister, finding himself the leader of a mere minority group after the election- an election called at his own instance and held under the auspices of his own government-chose to retain the seals of Office and face parliament, then lie inevitably forced himse'f into the position in which he has to plead this argument. Had he taken the manly stand, had he taken the constitutional stand, had be accepted the verdict of the people as he well knew that verdict to be, he would never have found himself in this position now, coming to parliament and asking parliament for its verdict. He finds himself now committing a breach of what has been an elementary rule of parliament for almost one hundred years, a rule which compels the head of the government to be within the walls of one or other of the houses of parliament, to be capable of and be in or on the way to a seat within the walls of either house before his government attempts to function in parliament.
I have proceeded, I think, far enough to establish that this claiming government has not only no right to be in office, that it in fact is! not a government ini the sense of being a oommittee of this House, but that all proceedings initiated by them in this House are null and void and a usurpation, an assertion of power which they have not; and that this parliament should repel them.

Government's Right to Office
I want, now to refer, and very briefly, to some special circumstances which make the offence of the present assumed administration still more culpable. In What circumstances was the late appeal made? Hon. gentlemen will remember that Mt. King as head of the government of the time declared in a speech he made at Richmond Hill in the constituency of North York, that an appeal was necessary. Before I proceed to quote his words, I want to emphasize again, by way of precaution, that for the soundness of my constitutional position I do not depend a particle on any ass^jtion whatever made by the Prime Minister at Richmond Hill or anywhere else. No matter what he says, no matter upon what ground he appealed to the people, having appealed and finding himself not only defeated but the head of only a minority group, no government would have the right, with him still the assumed Prime Minister, to attempt to function in parliament. But the character of the offence, not from its constitutional aspect but from other aspects, is the more incomprehensible when we recall just the circumstances under which he made his appeal. Speaking at Richmond Hill on the 6th of September last, he spoke as follows:
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 dn 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 youir 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 and salaries as members and ministers, and enjoying ithe 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?
Then he used this further language-and the speech from which I quote was given to the press dictated in advance, and is no doubt the matured production of the then Prime Minister's mind:
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 the parliament elected in 1921, or by any government which does not command a substantial majority in the House of Commons. Let me recall what I said a moment or two ago. As a government we can continue to hold office. We could, I believe, so arrange our sessional programme as to command in the House of Commons a support equal to that we have had during the 'last four years, but I doubt if we could do more than that. I doubt if, on the eve of a general election, we could introduce an .parliament any great measure of reform without its whole aim and purpose being completely misconstrued and the legislation itself being thwarted. At most we would be reduced to marking time. This is not a moment in our country's 14011-2
affairs at which to mark time; it is a time to march forward.
Then he proceeded to recite some of the questions which imperatively demand solution, and he used this language:
May I say further, I beilieve each of the problems mentioned is a pressing one, I do not believe that 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 as 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.
The opening speech of the campaign was not the only one in whidh these sentiments were outlined. Speaking at Regina on September 29, just one month before the elections, the Prime Minister is reported to have used the following language:
He was convinced that a government without a large majority in ithe Commons could not govern Canada, with all its problems. If the government had possessed a large majority it would not have been necessary to appeal to the country and the election would not have been held until 1927.
But all hon. members of the House are fully familiar with this language used on many successive occasions by the Prime Minister of that time. I do not need to quote any further. The Prime Minister on many occasions said: This election is held for one reason and -one only. We have but a majority of one in parliament-as he termed it, a "visible" majority of one. We have to depend for such support as we can get upon the Progressive party-they, I suppose were the "invisible" majority. We cannot attack ithe problems of Canada depending on their support. We cannot adequately conduct the [DOT]business of this country as a government when we have to depend upon the support of the Progressives under circumstances which, he said, bore down upon them, hobbled them and prevented the realization of his policy. Because of these circumstances and these circumstances alone, he appealed for a decisive majority. Now, what is his position? Under iwhat circumstances does he ask to be allowed to conduct public affairs still? Where is 'his majority of one? Where is the "visible" majority? It has turned into a minority of over forty. Where is now the "invisible" majority? Even if all support him-in order to carry his measures he would have to get the whole of them-it would only give a majority varying from one to ten, whereas in the last House he had a majority of something


Government's Right to Office
over one hundred. Under the circumstances of the last House, he could not govern; yet now in order to enable his ministers to enjoy the sweets of office, the salaries, indemnities and tihe fruits of power while the country struggles with grave problems, he yearns to mark time and do nothing more. Now he faces parliament and asks that he be allowed to get along with his majority of one converted into a minority of forty, and his aggregate majority, visible and invisble in the aggregate converted from one hundred and twenty odd to a maximum of, say ten. Using the language of the Prime Minister, the appeal of this group of advisers of the crown to us is this:	"Please enable us, who acknowledge
we could not govern with a visible majority and an immense invisible majority-please enable us to struggle on though we have no majority at all, when we are hopelessly in the minority in parliament, and when all the circumstances that hobbled us before are multiplied ten times over." It surely marks the avidity of hon. gentlemen opposite-the few that remain-for the sweets of power, the salaries, the indemnities, the fruits of office, that they could address parliament and ask for anything of the kind. "Oh", they answer, "we have a majority over all." The election was held upon their challenge, held under their auspices. We returned the strongest group in the House, and we ask for the right to present our programme to parliament. We appeal to the fairness of hon. members of ,whatever party. Who has the best right in this House to present its programme and its policy and to appeal to parliament for support? Not only have we the largest numbers in parliament, but we do not come here with our whole campaign prefaced by statements such as the Prime Minister made at Richmond Hill and Regina. Are we not in an infinitely stronger position than hon. gentlemen opposite? I am unable to comprehend how ministers of the crown could have so little respect for British traditions-I had almost said, could have no respect for themselves as public men-and after the decisive verdict of the people in the last campaign, after the utterances of their own leader in that campaign, should now assume to come to parliament and seriously ask parliament for its support.
I ask hon. members of this House to reflect on these things. I have never pretended in the matter of certain policies of Canada vital to our country to be in line with hon. gentlemen to my left of the Progressive party. I have never courted them as allies;
I have not fawned at their feet; I have not sought to maintain my position in parlia-I Mr. Meighen.]
ment, by representing to them that my principles were identical with theirs, praising the common purposes that they all had. Similarly I have not reviled them.


Georges Parent: You are doing it now.


Arthur Meighen: What does the hon.
gentleman say?


Georges Parent: You are doing it now.


Arthur Meighen: I am reviling the hon.
members of the Progressive party?


Georges Parent: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gelftleman has remembered very little from the elections.


Georges Parent: I am only judging the
right hon. gentleman by his remarks, that is all.


Arthur Meighen: Well, whatever may be
in store for the hon. gentleman, I hope he is never made a judge.
Now, labouring under a severe reverse, labouring under a decisive defeat, these hon. gentlemen come to this parliament and say, "We want to depend upon the Progressive party for support." They are the same hon. gentlemen who, when they wanted to defeat these men in their constituencies, declared that they belonged to a "holier than thou aggregation"; declared that they had been of no use to them in the House; declared that the government had not been maintained in power by them at all; declared that only Liberals were of any value in getting through legislation that the country needed. To them I appeal, and I would even appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite themselves: Do they not see-surely they see; I know some of them do, I know that quite well-that a government which long ago lost the confidence of this country has now earned its contempt? Do they not see that every hour and every day simply mortgages the future of their party before the people of this dominion? Whatever else we may differ upon, surely we believe in those cardinal principles of democracy and British constitutional government which for centuries have prevailed. Surely all of us, no matter what may be our political opinions, want the voice of the people to rule in this Canada,-the voice of the people to be obeyed.


Ernest Lapointe: The right hon. member (Mr. Meighen) has issued his challenge and I am rising to take it up. I do it the more willingly owing to the fact that our first act this afternoon, after the delivery of the speech by His Excellency, was to invite the

Government's Right to Offi-ce
very discussion which is now taking place. We wanted to show to the House and to the country that we are not usurping the functions of government and that we place ourselves in the judgment of the House in that regard. We are inviting expressions of opinion. I am going to address to the House a few remarks, observing moderation, avoiding the use of strong epithets and adjectives, and with a full consciousness of the ultimate consequences of the present proceedings and the result which will follow the vote which is going to be taken on this motion. This parliament was elected on the 29th October.
I am quite willing to admit that the result was not quite as decisive as some of us would have liked it to be on both sides of the House. I wi'l not dispute the figures given by the right hon. leader of the opposition as to the number of Liberals, Conservatives, Progressives and Independents who were successful in the election, nor as to the plural vote in the country, except perhaps to Say that the point raised by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) was well taken, and it is rather interesting to-day to see the right hon. leader of the opposition claiming, as his followers, the men who ran the elections in Quebec against us stating, that they were just as independent of the leader of the opposition as they were of the Prime Minister.
It Shows that we were right in asserting that my right hon. friend was really the leader of their party and was running his election in Quebec by proxy. The government met as soon as possible after the date of the election, and after having considered the situation as created by the result, the right hon. the leader of the government tendered his advice to His Excellency, and in a statement which he issued and which appears in the Ottawa Journal of November 5, he said:
After several interviews with His Excellency, at which the position brought about by the recent general election was fully discussed and all alternatives presented, I have taken the responsibility of advising His Excellency to summon parliament for the earliest practicable date in order to ascertain the attitude of the parliamentary representatives towards the very important question raised by the numerical position of the respective political parties. His Excellency has been pleased to accept this advice.
The advice was accepted by the representative of His Majesty, and as the dissolution of the last parliament contained a proclamation that the next session would commence on the 10th December, that date was tentatively taken for the meeting of the House of Commons, if the returns of all the members could be sent in prior to that date.
Later it was found-and the Chief Electoral Officer gave advice to that effect-that the returns could not be sent in prior to the 10th December, that the earliest possible date for the summoning of parliament would be in the early days of January, and the 7th January was fixed for the opening of parliament. Meanwhile, the government expressed its intention not to make any important appointments to public positions in Canada, and indeed that no question of real importance would be settled, until the representatives of the people had a chance to decide who were going to constitute the executive in the next parliament. This decision has been sharply criticized by the right hon. leader of the opposition who issued a statement on November 6, characterizing the decision of the Prime Minister as follows:
The Premier's statement, stripped of its sophistry-
I recognize there the language of my right hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Good language.


Ernest Lapointe: The statement continues:
-stripped of its sophistry is merely an announcement of his determination to hang on-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Lapointe: I see that those words
are sweet to my hon. friends on the other side-
-in defiance of a heavily adverse verdict from the people of Canada.
To ding to office under such circumstances is usurpation of power and contempt of tihe popular will.
The attitude of the leader of the opposition was supported with amplification by his followers both in the membership of the House and in the press, and we have been subjected to a campaign of recrimination, insincere criticism, and frequently violent vituperation. I rise to-day to defend the public honour of the right hon. the leader of the government, and to show that not only had he the right to do that, but that it was his supreme duty to do it. Any other attitude on his part would have been a breach of trust, an infringement of the rights of parliament.
My hon. friends opposite should take this seriously, because it is a serious matter. This House is the offspring of the popular will. It is the instrument chosen by the people to give effect to their will as to the selection of those who should be the executive and the government of this country. The mem-

Government's Right to Office
bers of this House are the men who must express the will of the people and interpret it, if that will is doubtful in any way. They are the judges and not my hon. friend or .myself nor any group in this House. The .people of Canada are represented here by all the members from all the provinces, and they are the men who must decide who, in the situation created by the result of the last election, shall be the cabinet and the executive of the government of the country.
To fully understand this matter I think it is necessary to realize what a cabinet or a government is. The Cabinet or the executive consists of men who owe their position to parliament and who are responsible to parliament for their conduct of affairs. I cannot do better than quote the words of Walter Bagehot on the English Constitution, page 13, where he says:
The cabinet, in a word, is a board of control chosen by the legislature, out of persons whom it trusts and knows, to rule the nation. The particular mode in which the English ministers are selected, the fiction that they are, in any political sense, the Queen's servants, the rulle which limits the choice of the cabinet to the members of the legislature-are accidents unessential to its definition-historical incidents separable from its nature. Its characteristic is that it should be chosen by the legislature out of persons agreeable to and trusted by the legislature.
la the United States the first magistrate, the President, is selected by the people directly. In Great Britain, as in Canada, the executive is selected by parliament, by the representatives of the people. Here it is the main business of parliament to select and to maintain the executive. The House of Commons in this matter acts as the adviser of the crown and this great power is placed in its hands, not for mere political purposes, but in the public interest. It follows that t'he executive represents the dominant phase of popular opinion in so far as it can be consolidated and organized in favour o*f an immediate programme. It follows also-and my right hon. friend knows it as well as I do-that when the House overthrows a government, as my right hon. friend would wish this House to do, it must be to select a new government which is likely better to represent the opinion of the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, if a government headed by the right hon. gentlemen who leads the opposition would represent better the feeling in the whole of the country, it is for the House of Commons here to say so. May I quote in that regard these words which I read in Todd's Parliamentary Government in England?

In giving or withholding their confidence the houses of parliament are only restrained by considerations of public policy. Unless they are satisfied that a ministry, which does not fully represent their political sentiments, can be replaced by another, more acceptable and efficient, they will probably be content with vigilant supervision and control over its proceedings and recommendations, rather than incur the hazard of a change of government. But, if they believe that the direction of public affairs ought to be entrusted to other hands, they have only to declare-either expressly or impliedly-that ministers have forfeited their confidence, and a change must inevitably take place. So that, whether directly or indirectly, the ultimate verdict upon every exercise of political power must be sought for in the judgment of the House of Commons.
That is what we did and what we are doing to-day. I have read somewhere a suggestion made by somebody that members of the House of Commons might confine themselves to assuming a position of awaiting legislation, deciding legislation on its merits and not taking any responsibility in the choice of who must be the government and the executive. Indeed, I read in a Toronto newspaper that an hon. gentleman representing one of the constituencies of that city ithe other day at a meeting of his constituents expressed the opinion that my hon. friends of the Progressive party should not take any part in the question of deciding who the government should be. and gave them the unselfish and disinterested advice not to vote when the question was placed before the House. This would 'be a mistaken attitude, because every member of the House is responsible for the choice of who must and should be the executive. If, as I have contended and the contention cannot -be successfully challenged, the choice must be made by parliament, every member of parliament has a responsibility in tha.t choice and cannot evade it.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Ernest Lapointe: Before six o'clock I was
trying to show that it is the main function of parliament to select the executive and that every member has a responsibility in that selection. May I point out also that from the legislative point of view, laws are the expression of the spirit, of the mentality and of the character of those who originate and inspire them, and it is the duty of this parliament to decide now who, during its life, will inspire and originate such laws as may be enacted-and those laws, as I have suggested, should be in keeping with the spirit and the mentality of the majority of the people of this

Government's Right to Office
country. If this vote asserts that parliament, as representing the Canadian people in this chamber, desires the present government to remain in office, then surely the whole structure of the argument of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) falls to the ground and crumbles. On the other hand, if parliament decides that some other government shall be selected as the executive in this House, then the leader of the opposition will form that government with authority; and in either case the supremacy of parliament will have been vindicated.
Why should my right hon. friend desire to become the Prime Minister of Canada if this parliament does not want him? Parliament is going to decide the question; therefore I feel like asking whether my right hon. friend, to use his own choice expression, is so thirsty for the sweets of office that he cannot wait for the expression of their support on the part of the members of this House.
I submit that the course which has been taken by the Prime Minister and the government is in accordance with the practice which has always been followed in the British parliament. Prior to 1868 it had been the practice of all governments in Great Britain to meet parliament after a general election, irrespective of what the outcome of that election was. In that year the Disraeli government, after a general election which had given the Liberal opposition a clear majority of 128, decided to resign without meeting parliament. Six years later the Gladstone government, after a general election which had given the Conservatives in their turn a clear majority of 46, followed Disraeli's example. Since that time it has been the established practice for a government to resign without meeting parliament, but only when an opposition party has secured a clear majority of the votes.
It may be of interest to note that the House of Commons elected on the occasion which is cited as a precedent was the last in which only two parties were represented. Beginning with 1874, every parliament in England has been composed of more than two parties; sometimes there were four or five. This factor had an obvious bearing on the decision of the government after the result of the elections. In fact since 1868 only in nine parliaments has one party had a dear majority over all; in five parliaments no party has had such a majority.
Of course, when a party had a majority over all there was no difficulty. I will divide into three categories the situations which have arisen after general elections in England over a considerable number of years. In the first,
as I said, when the government received a clear majority, it carried on. In 1895, in 1900, in 1906, in 1918 and 1922 the government which appealed to the country was returned with a clear majority over all parties and groups, and of course continued in office. May I note in this connection that the Liberal Unionists from 1886 to 1900 were definitely allied with the Conservatives with whom they gradually formed a single party under the name of the Unionist party? In this regard the Encyclopaedia Britannica in the course of an article on Joseph Chamberlain states as follows:
The 1886 general election returned to parliament 316 Conservatives, 78 Liberal Unionists, and only 276 Glad-stonians and Nationalists, Birmingham returning seven Unionist members. When the House met in August, it was decided by the Liberal Unionists, under Lord Hartington's leadership, that itheir policy (henceforth was essentially to combine with the Tories to keep Mr. Gladstone out. The old Liberal feeling still prevailing among them was too strong, however, for their leaders to take office in a coalition ministry. It was enough for them to be able to tie down the Conservative government to such measures as were not offensive to Liberal Unionist principles. . . .
In that year (1895) on the defeat of Lord Rosebery, the union of the Unionists was scaled by the inclusion of the Liberal Unionist leaders in Lord Salisbury's ministry.
In the second case, when one of the opposition parties received a clear majority the government resigned at once, and the opposition party which had a clear majority over all groups took office. This happened in 1868, in 1874, in 1880, in 1886 and in 1924. At every one of% those elections one of the opposition parties was returned with a clear majority over all other parties, and the government resigned before meeting parliament.
In the third case, where the government did not secure a clear majority, neither did any other party, the government retained office and met parliament, with the following results, and I am going to give every instance : In 1885 the Conservative government of Salisbury was in power. At the general election there were returned 249 Conservatives, 86 Irish Nationalists, and 335 Liberals. The Conservative government was in a minority with the second largest group, but they met the House and were defeated.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: And had a prime minister.


Ernest Lapointe: I will deal with that
later on if my hon. friend can keep his peace. In 1892 Lord Salisbury was again in power and the general election in that year resulted in the return of 268 Conservatives, 47 Liberal Unionists, 273 Liberals, and 81 Irish Nationalists. In a minority with the second largest



*COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Government's Right to Office
group, though the Unionists as a whole constituted the largest group, the government met the House and was defeated.
In 1910 Mr. Asquith was in power and appealed to the country. The result was 275 Liberals, 40 Labourites, 82 Irish Nationalists; and 273 Conservatives. The government in a minority, but w'ith the largest group, met the House and was sustained.
In December, 1910 Mr. Asquith was again in power, and the general election that year resulted in the return of 272 Liberals, 42 Labourites, 84 Irish Nationalists, and 272 Conservatives. The Liberal government, in a minority and exactly equal to the Conservatives in number, met the House and was sustained.
In 1923 Mr. Baldwin was in power and appealed to the country. The new House was composed of 258 Conservatives, 191 Labourites, 157 Liberals, and nine other members. The Conservative government, in a minority but with the largest group, met the House and was defeated on the Address.
As I said, in no case in England when an opposition party as a result of a general election failed to get a clear majority over all groups did the government resign before meeting the House and allowing parliament to decide the issue.
Mr. MANION:: In how many cases that my hon. friend has quoted was the government that went to the country returned as the second or the third group?


Arthur Meighen: Not one.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend is
wrong. I quoted two instances.


Arthur Meighen: They are wrong.


Ernest Lapointe: They are not wrong.
My right hon. friend is wrong; it happens sometimes that he is. I think Cromwell once said to some of his followers: In the name of God, I beseech you, my brethren, to put it into your heads that you may be wrong. I am not a follower of Cromwell, but those words appear to me to be rather wise, and I would commend them to my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition. However, in 1885, the Conservative government, in a minority, and with the second largest group, met the House. In 1892 they were still the second largest group, though afterwards the Liberal-Unionists joined with them. In 1919 Liberals and Conservatives had exactly the same number, and the Liberal government met the House and was sustained.
Reference has been made frequently, especially by my right hon. friend the leader

of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) this afternoon, to the fact that the government did not get a majority of the total votes cast in the recent election. I admit it; and neither did my hon. friends opposite. But is that unprecedented? It is something which happens in England almost continually, and is a necessary result of the situation that exists in any country where there are more than two parties. In November, 1922, the late Mr. Bonar Law went to the country in Great Britain after having formed a government following the resignation of Mr. Lioyd George, and the result was, in round figures, 5,000,000 votes for the Conservatives, 4,000,000 for the Liberals, and 4,000,000 for Labour. The Bonar Law government was sustained, and it carried on although the votes given to the opponents of the government formed almost 200 per cent of the votes given in favour of the Conservatives.
In 1923, Mr. Baldwin, who had succeeded Mr. Bonar Law, dissolved parliament and appealed to the electors on the policy of protection. The result was, in round figures, 5,500,000 votes' for the Conservatives, 4,500,000 for Labour, and 4,300,000 for the Liberals. Mr. Baldwin met parliament, suffered defeat, and a Labour government was formed and carried on the administration, although Labour did not receive one-third of the total vote cast.
Such a situation is unavoidable in any country where there are more than two parties. The cause of the anomaly lies partly in electoral complications resulting from three-cornered fights, but the main reason is that there are three separate organizations each hoping to secure and each securing a proportion of the votes. It is the triangular division of opinion that creates the triangular situation and its consequences. I submit to you, Sir, that the desirable aim is to get a parliament which fairly represents the opinion of the people of Canada as that opinion *is expressed. Whatever my own preference may be, whatever inconvenience this may cause in practical administration, it is the aim of parliament to reflect the opinion of the country as it is, and after all, it is based on the ground of social and democratic fairness. Whether we like it or not, the existence, either permanently or temporarily, of more than two parties will continually be creating at some time or another a situation such as the one we are facing in Canada today. Is it such a dire calamity as some of the pessimists claim it to be? I repeat, the fundamental thing is that the people should be represented in accordance with their opinions as expressed at the polls. It may create

Government's Right to Office
inconvenience, as I said before, but the situation that results is less dangerous than if an appreciable portion of the people in this world of strong political currents, were not represented in parliament. Whether we like it or not, we have groups in this parliament to-day because the people of Canada have desired them to be in parliament, and my advice to all concerned, if I may be permitted to offer advice, is that we should do with the result of the elections as we do with the weather or the order of the universe, simply accept it.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend is
ready to accept it, I am ready, and am content to let parliament decide who shall rule. The situation as it is must be met. What is needed, I believe, under such circumstances, where there are three or four or more groups, is honest, loyal and open co-operation as between the members of the various groups, without sacrifice of principle or of personal independence, for the purpose of achieving reforms which may be desired in common by members of those groups, and to carry on the administration upon lines which are acceptable to those who have common views, or at least have views on many public questions which are not conflicting. An honourable concert is indispensable, and I think the country is entitled to it. Surely broadminded people can deal broadly with broad issues, and this can be done in any parliament, even in a parliament where more than two or three parties are represented.
Another aspect of the situation with which I desire to deal briefly is the defeat of the Prime Minister in his constituency, and his temporary absence from the House. This has been the subject of strong criticism on the part of some hon. gentlemen opposite, also in the press, and my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition referred to it this afternoon in terms of bitterness and contempt which I believe would have come with better grace from one who had not gone through his own experience of 1921. In the first place, let me say that we on this side of the House have more than ever the utmost confidence in the distinguished leader of the Liberal party, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that his absence from this House will be of short duration. He has suffered the fate that has been the fate at some time or another of all the political leaders of Canada since confederation, with possibly one exception. In former times, however, there were two practices which lessened1 the risk of personal defeat of party leaders. In the first years
after confederation, especially in 1867 and 1872, there was the custom of spreading a general election over a considerable period of time. This prevailed as regards all the seats during the elections of 1867 and 1872. It continued, until very recently, to be the practice to defer the nomination for at least some seats. The second practice was that of candidates running in two constituencies, a privilege which was abolished during the time of the Union government a few years ago. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition was the first leader who suffered defeat after this new practice was established, and the right hon. Prime Minister was the second leader to suffer on the same account. I have said that all party leaders have at times suffered defeat. This is not an extraordinary thing when we consider the fact that they have to direct or control the campaign all over Canada and cannot devote to their own constituencies the time and the work which are necessary to the success of any candidate.
Let me say in particular that the great leader of the Conservative party, Sir John A. Macdonald, suffered defeat in his own constituency of Kingston in 1878, when his party swept the country all over Canada. He was defeated in that election by a gentleman named A. Gunn, and Sir John said later that he did1 not know the gun was loaded. But what happened at that time? Sir John had been a candidate at the same time in the constituency of Marquette, Manitoba, and had been elected by acclamation there. But under the laws that existed at that time one had to be an elector in the province of Manitoba to be qualified as a candidate for election to the House of Commons and Sir John A. Macdonald, being a non-resident, was not qualified and the election was void. His government having been elected to succeed that of 'Mr. Mackenzie, Sir John ran in Victoria where the election had- been deferred. So that it is not an extraordinary thing for a leader to suffer defeat in his own constituency; the new practice now in force in Canada which debars candidates from running in two constituencies makes precarious the fate of political leaders.
The abstention of the Prime Minister from securing a seat for the opening of this parliament is the logical and direct sequence of the situation I have described. Having advised the sumimonimg of parliament for the purpose of deciding the issue as to who should constitute the government, and having decided to refrain from making appointments to public office in the meanwhile, the Prime Minister had debarred himself from taking

Government's Right to Office
the usual step-I should have said the only step-which would have created a vacancy in the House. It is true that in 1921 the right ' hon. leader of the opposition, who had been defeated in his constituency, did appoint a member of (parliament to public office before he resigned as Prime Minister, for the purpose of creating a vacancy and securing a seat for himself in this House. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) may believe that he was right in doing that, and that my leader is wrong in doing the other thing. There are many people in this country who will think otherwise; and I may add that the action of the leader of the opposition in that respect was strongly criticized. But before dealing with that point let me put this to him: If it is true, as he said this afternoon, that the government no longer exists when the Prime Minister has been defeated and has a minority of the seats-


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that.


Ernest Lapointe: -surely when my right hon. friend appointed a man to public office in 1921 there was no government to make such an appointment.


Arthur Meighen: If my hon. friend will permit me, I did not use the words he attributes to me. I did not say that because a prime minister was defeated the government thereupon went out of existence. I stated that a government could not function in parliament without a prime minister in either House.


Ernest Lapointe: I am in the judgment of Hansard-


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: -as to what my right hon. friend said, but I will not discuss it with him.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would not
either.


Ernest Lapointe: It does not matter very much. When my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition took that course in 1921 and appointed a member of parliament to a public office, I think in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, the emolument of which amounted to only a few dollars a year, my right hon. leader issued a statement which I will read to the House. I take it from the Ottawa Journal of December 29, 1921. It is as follows:-
If it be true, as the press reports of this morning indicates, that Mr. Meighen, in order to provide himself with a seat in the House of Commons, has appointed Mr. A. C. CasseLman, the member-elect for Grenville, to a position in the Department of Soldiers'
fMr. Lapointe.]
Civil Re-establishment, thereby creating a vacancy in the House of Commons, and has caused writs to be issued for a by-eleotion in that constituency on January 26, I can only say at the moment that such a violation of constitutional procedure can scarcely fail to bring the severest censure upon Mr. Meighen, a censure which the party he leads must also share if it countenances such an act.
Just whether this high-handed and unwarranted course on Mr. Meighen's part can be defended on technical or legal grounds remains to be seen. That it is morally indefensible I do not hesitate to say. One thing is certain; the Canadian public will not fail to recognize, nor Canadian political history to record, that Mr. Meighen's last act as Prime Minister, like his first, was one of usurpation. When it is recalled that Mr. Meighen owes his personal defeat and the defeat of bis administration, in considerable measure, to his previous usurpation of office, his attempt to regain a seat in the House of Commons by a like method of procedure amounts to open defiance of the expressed verdict of the Canadian people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh oh!


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friends apposite were not so scrupulous at the time, and they are still laughing. The statement continues:
I resent very strongly the statement which appears in the inspired despatch published in the press to the effect that there is reason to believe that what has been done was not without my knowledge. I had no intimation whatever that any act of the kind was contemplated, let alone perpetrated. If I had, I should never have countenanced it for a moment.
Can any one blame the Prime Minister for having declined to resort to such a doubtful expedient to secure a seat for himself in the House, especially after having expressed the view he did with regard to the performances of my right hon. friend in 1921? Let me tell my right hon. friend that the Prime Minister will enter this house pretty soon and will do so by the main entrance, and' by no other way. It is also true that ministers have been defeated in Ontario and New Brunswick. But is it a new occurrence? Those ministers have been defeated in provinces which voted almost solidly for the other side. It is a regrettable situation, but would the people have any redress if the government were handed over to the right hon. leader of the opposition, who has practically no followers in two very important provinces, namely Quebec and Saskatchewan. Those are situations which I repeat are unavoidable, especially in a federated country 'like Canada. But the genius and the spirit of our representative institutions should be equal to the problem and I believe are equal to it. I am glad that this question is being discussed by this House, because it is the very issue upon which parliament was summoned. This government has ben charged wjith having usurped the office of government and with hanging on against the will of the people.

Government's Right to Office
Yesterday, when you, Mr. Speaker, were proposed for the office of Speaker of the House, the right hon. leader of the opposition said that I could not speak as a member of the government because there was no government. I claim that my right hon. friend is not the judge in this matter. He is one of two hundred and forty-five and the other two hundred1 and forty-four have just as strong a voice in the selection of the executive as my right hon. friend. I say that this government does not want to remain in office one day or one hour, unless the parliament of Canada approves of it. As I said, we took the first occasion open to us to acquaint the House with the question before us. We are discussing the same issue on the amendment of my right hon. friend, and it is just as agreeable to me. It is important that the issue should be settled at once. Public offices must be filled and the ordinary measures of administration must be taken, and parliament being now in session, there is no reason why the normal functions of government should not be resumed and discharged immediately. The king's government must carry on-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Lapointe: I know the word is foreign to my hon. friends and I will correct it by saying that whoever is elected to carry on the government is entitled to fair'play in parliament and in the country so long as the government does its duty. We are an elected chamber, a body of men sent here by the people of Canada. We are equal and our followers are equal. We recognize no master and we have the right to decide this issue which is placed before us in a positive way. We are here giving to the country and the world the spectacle of a parliament which is going to decide in full consciousness of mind, with moderation and coolness, what is to be done in the situation which has been created by the recent election in Canada. I appeal to my western friends who are lovers of democracy, and I ask, what step could be more democratic or more in accord with the spirit of representative parliament and representative institutions. And I add that when this vote is taken, when the issue is settled, no Canadian can deny that both government and parliament have done their duty in the matter. I hope that the discussion may be brief. We all desire the situation to be regularized, in order that we shall have a government with full, jmoral and political authority for the tasks, domestic, imperial and international, that lie before it.
Canadian democracy is on trial. Will this parliament be the chaos that the traditional opponents of popular causes describe it to be? Will parliamentary authority be frittered away by petty squabbles? The government believes that, with a firm determination to carry on a true national policy, we may rely on the support of those who have been elected on a platform of progress and reform wherever they are. The leader of the opposition seemed to assume this afternoon that any member of the House who had as one of his opponents a Liberal candidate should vote against this government. Sir, there may be all sorts of speculations as to what this House was elected for, but I claim that if there is one thing for which the majority of the members of the House have been elected, it is not for the purpose of putting the right hon. leader of the opposition at the head of affairs. To use the words of Mr. Asquith on a similar occasion, by a vote against this resolution parliament does not give a blank cheque to the administration to do what they please with the affairs of the country. Government will be limited entirely by the parliamentary conditions which the election has created. In legislation as well as in all important matters of administration, parliament is and will remain supreme; but above all it is important and necessary that the will of the people of Canada should foe expressed in this connection, and it is for the purpose of having the parliament of Canada express the will of the people that this parliament has been summoned for the 7th day of January. By the verdict and the decision of my colleagues in this House of Commons I state that the government is willing to stand and will abide.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: In this struggle for office which is taking place between the two old parties, it is perhaps well that some of us who occupy an independent position should express what our attitude must foe in regard to such matters. First of all, may I say that the fact -that my colleague and I representing the Labour group here are sitting on this side of the House, has no political significance whatever. We prefer to sit amid the wide spaces on this side of the House to being crowded under the galleries on the other side. That is all the significance it has. But I suggest that while the seating accommodation here has been arranged for two parties only and it thus reveals its inadequacies, there are also many other ways in which the two party system is revealing anomalies and inadequacies. Look at the situation as we face it to-night. The

Government's Right to Office
Liberals who are attempting to hold control of the governmental machinery constitute something like forty-one per cent of this House. There may be one or two individuals who may alter that slightly one way or the other, but approximately they are attempting to hold the government with a minority of only forty-one per cent of the whole House. The Conservatives, it is quite true, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has pointed out, have a larger number in this House and were elected by a larger number. But on the other hand they represent only some forty-seven per cent of this House and, further, according to the leader of the opposition they were elected distinctly on one issue, that of high tariff. Probably the leader of the opposition will not dispute that. I would ask him, even though the Conservative vote was something like 1,467,000 odd, whether out of the total vote of over three millions he could hope that even 1,467,000 would entitle him to power on the issue that he claims was the primary issue before the country.


Arthur Meighen: I am quite ready to state, as I have frequently stated, that hon. members supporting this party in this House were elected mainly on the tariff issue and on the tariff platform moved in this House by myself on June last. The hon. gentleman may describe the situation in his own way. I have never so described it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I presume that some of the reports of the election were not absolutely incorrect. For instance, I notice, according to the Vancouver Province, the leader of the opposition is reported'as having said:
What will we do when we take office? I will tell you. We will first address ourselves to framing a tariff policy. We will put our tariff wall right up to the level of the American tariff wall.


Arthur Meighen: I used no such language and have frequently corrected1 that very statement.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I could quote some other reports. I will ask whether this is correct. This is according to a Canadian Press despatch in the Toronto Globe:
It is the proposal of the Conservative party that we pin our faith to a self-reliant and unmistakable protective policy on behalf of the whole country. . . Put into effect a "Canada first" policy in every sphere of our agricultural and commercial life. An immediate revision on a definitely and consistently protective basis is fundamental.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That seems ito meet with approval. My point is this-and I am quite honest in trying to get ait the position of the leader of the opposition-that if he is 
elected at all in harmony with his reported position, how could he possibly hope to carry forward that policy in a House composed as this is? How can he claim to have a majority either in the House or in the country on that position?


Arthur Meighen: For the reason that just about two-thirds of the House were elected on the same professions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The island of Montreal,
for instance.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall have to
leave that to the respective contestants to fight out at a later stage. I take it that the situation is this: It is claimed that Mr. Mackenzie King and his government are discredited by .the vote. I am inclined to agree. On the other hand, I submit that the leader of the opposition has no mandate on a policy which, it would seem, he has declared to be the issue. This is the situation. Forty-one per cent on this side of the House, with possibly the support of some ten per cent on the other side, are asking to have the privilege of governing this country. On the other hand, some forty-seven per cent, with, I should judge, no assistance from any other part of the House, are asking permission to carry forward the government of the country. Then there is .the other aspect that some two or three per cent of the House, who happen to be
9 p.m. in an independent position, are so placed as to be able almost to say which of these two sides is to carry it on.
I would ask Whether that is a very satisfactory position from .the standpoint of democracy as a whole. If we are equal here, as the Minister of Justice ('Mr. Lapointe) has suggested, why should either forty-seven per cent or forty-one per cent, in either case a minority of this House, attempt to carry on the government of the country?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: An independent
point of view always brings strange repercussions. The amendment of the leader of the opposition concludes:
Their attempted continuance in office is a violation of <tlie principles and practice of British constitutional government.
To a layman that is not by any means clear. As I understand the matter, the state itself does not recognize groups. It recognizes majorities, and there, it seems to me, is the weakness of the case as presented by the leader of the opposition. I am rather surprised that he lays such emphasis on groups, because he is inclined to emphasize majori-

Government's Right to Office
ties, and .that is what we must deal with in this particular case. Nor is it clear that the largest group in this House has .the right to form a government; and that to my mind is very important.


John Wesley Edwards: Why not let the three per cent do it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Perhaps we shall.
It is not at all clear that the largest group has the right to form a government. We had a curious situation in Great Britain in 1924 It was not closely parallel to this, but it affords a rather interesting study. Hon. members will remember that although the largest group in the House was the Conservative party, Labour came in and formed a government. A writer of the time sums up the situation in the Fortnightly Review:
To-day we see three sharply distinguished and organized parties, no one of which can hold office without the consent of one of the others. This, then, is an entirely new phenomenon, and the question was, which was to be the .fortunate or unfortunate party who was to hold office in the new parliament. The Conservative .party still remained much the largest, the Liberal party the smallest, and the Labour party, though it had now risen to only 190, was clearly, through constituting the regular opposition, in no position to carry on the King's government without extraneous support. Practically the decision rested with the Liberals.
And the position which Mr. Asquith took will appear in the following sentences:
I think there is no ground for departing from the normal usage, and if the Labour party is willing to assume the burden of office in such conditions, they have the absolute, undoubted right to claim it.
He went on to suggest that there might be co-operation between the parties.
In the important sphere of social legislation where progressive thought has grasped the same ideals . . . there is no reason why there should not be-I will not say co-operation between the Liberal and Labour parties only, but I hope between a large number of all parties, real co-operation in those fields of activity, no less than in the reassertion of the moral authority of Great Britain in the councils of the world. . . . I would say that the Liberal party-and if as their leader I would speak-without forfeiting its complete and unfettered independence, without playing false to any of i,ts principles or promises, is prepared to make its contribution to the task.
Now it would seem to me, looking at the present situation from an independent point of view, that both the old parties are failing to recognize all that is implied in the presence of a large number of groups in this House. Whether we like it or not, the groups are here in Canada, as they are in most legislatures in the world to-day. Some people say that they are here to pass away, but that is not at all evident. At any rate the groups are here and it is just as well for us
to acknowledge that fact. We must further recognize that no longer is there any one single issue that clearly divides the two old parties. Any one of us who was present in the last House must have had that fact forced upon his attention; no one single issue any longer divides those two parties. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) referred several times to the government as being appointed by the House. Well, that may be technically correct, but in practice the government is really chosen by the party that happens to be in the majority at the time. There is a great difference. It may be said that ultimately the government is responsible to the House, but I repeat that in practice it is chosen by the party that has the largest following. Setting aside legal and constitutional fictions, we are bound to recognize that the government has come to be simply a committee of the largest party in the House. The Irish Free State has taken one step in advance in this regard. From Article 53 of the constitution we learn that:
-the president of the council shall be appointed on the nomination of the Dail Eixeann.
Furthermore, the other ministers who are to hold office as members of the executive council shall be appointed on the nomination of the president with the assent of the Dail Eireann. In other words, there is coming to be more definitely a reference to the House of the appointment of the government. Why not in Canada as in other places? Further, I suggest that the British model is not the only one we ought to study jn this country. It is often said that the situation in France and Belgium, where there are large numbers of groups, is very unsatisfactory owing to the unstable character of the government. May I suggest then that we study the situation that exists in Switzerland? I can hardly take the time of the House at this hour to quote extensively from it, but I have here Viscount Bryce's book on Modern Democracies. Let me quote a paragraph :
The Federal Council (Bundesrath) is one of the institutions of Switzerland that best deserves study. In no other modern republic is executive power entrusted to a council instead of to a man, and in no other free country has the working executive so little to do with party politics. The council is not a cabinet, like that of Britain and the countries which have imitated her cabinet system, for it does not lead the legislature, and is not displaceable thereby. Neither is it independent of the legislature, like the executive of the United States and of other republics which have borrowed therefrom the so-called "presidential system," and though it has some of the features of both those schemes, it differs from both in having no distinctly partisan character. It stands outside party, is not

Government's Right to Office
chosen to do party work, does not determine party policy, yet is not wholly without some party colour.
The essay goes on to show how that government has been able to steer very largely clear of the party ambitions that have cursed a great many of the other democratic countries. I am not suggesting that we should adopt the Swiss model, but I do suggest that the situation in which we find ourselves in Canada is forcing us to consider whether there is some other method by which we can carry on the affairs of the country. I would venture a suggestion which, I am aware, it would be futile to bring forward as a motion, for I know quite well that the majority on both sides of the House will pass it by with ridicule. But this is the situation as it appears to me. At an expenditure of over two million dollars this country has selected 245 representatives to carry on its business, and I think I am correct in the statement that no one wants another election at this particular time; neither the members in this House nor the constituencies in the country desire such a thing. Now, why not carry on? Why should we be balked simply because 41 per cent on one side or 47 per cent on the other side would like the exclusive privilege of carrying on the business of the country? Why not, using the language of the Minister of Justice, say that we are all equal, and determine here that the best brains in this House shall be utilized in framing legislation that will be in the interests of the country at large? I know that this is not in harmony with what has been British practice, but if I understand anything at all of the genius of the British constitution it is that British people are willing to make innovations in order to meet real needs. Why not select an executive chosen, I would say, ideally by proportional representation? At all events, let us choose an executive from the members of this House. I am not suggesting a coalition, because a coalition involves the sinking of individualities into a sort of amorphous something which will react no one knows how. I am suggesting rather a co-operative arrangement, a council which would be responsible .directly to the House and not to any party. To-day the government is responsible primarily to the party and only very indirectly to the House. That position ought to be changed, and the council or the government ought to be responsible directly to the House.
Furthermore, in this arrangement which I am suggesting the cabinet or council need not speak with one voice. To-day, although you may get what you call a strong government, the fact is that when a man enters the cabinet he must more or less sink his
[Mj. Woodsworth.]
own particular opinions, and unless the matter is of very vital importance he must speak with the voice of the whole cabinet. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) called attention to that very clearly this afternoon when he said that the Prime Minister could speak for the government.
Under such an arrangement, too, the cabinet or council could hold office until defeated on a direct vote of lack of confidence. I am quite aware that this may be regarded as absolutely fantastic, and I have not put my suggestion in the form of a motion because I know perfectly well that it would be defeated by the votes of members from both sides of the House; but I do want to present it as the opinion some of us hold in regard to the situation and what should be done. We feel that we are not particularly interested in the fate either of the Liberal party or of the Conservative party. In what position them do we find ourselves? The procedure of the House gives us small chance for expression of opinion. Some of you may recall the rather curious situation which arose two or three years ago when I introduced an amendment to the budget and we witnessed the very strange phenomenon of even the Conservatives being driven to support the Liberals on the fiscal policy of the country. That simply illustrates the anomalies which may arise, and for once perhaps the Conservatives felt what it is like to be members of a group under a system which recognizes only two parties, and consequently in such a case permits of only one amendment.
Now, I would be quite willing to join with the right hon. leader of the opposition in moving a vote of no confidence in the government. Last session I said again and again that I had no confidence in the government.
I feel the same way this session. But to vote for a motion of that kind under the existing circumstances practically means that I must vote that I do have confidence in the Conservatives, and I cannot take that position either.


Robert James Manion: Why not form a government of your own?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is the practical difficulty. So that either we are forced to leave the chamber or to support the government in such a case. Had the motion made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) this afternoon been declared in order I should have been forced to vote against it, because I cannot say that I have confidence in the government. Just so some of us will be forced to vote against the present amendment. But I will say this: we shall wait for

Government's Bight to Office
the legislation thiat is proposed, and if a majority of this House support the government, and they carry on, we shall hope that more constructive legislation will be brought forward than the government introduced during the last parliament. If, however, a majority of this House support the Conservatives, we assure them that along the same lines we shall consider the legislation they may introduce strictly on its merits. I think that is the only position that we as independents consistently can take.


Mr. LADNER:: The hon. member recited an item from the Globe enunciating the principle of a protective policy. As the representative of labour will he frankly declare that he is opposed to that principle?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think that we are considering the protective policy. As far as I am concerned, I am quite frank to say that in my judgment a protective policy is no economic solution. I will go further- and this is not to balance things up-that in my opinion free trade is not an economic solution. We have to go a good deal deeper than that.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is an economic solution?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall be glad to discuss that when the matter is before the House.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, the question now before the House is of very great importance. As is customary, after a certain period of debate a division is taken, and it is necessary for the members to record their votes one way or the other. Now in this corner of the House at least we are lacking in the information necessary to enable us intelligently to cast our votes. I have in my hand what purports to be an amendment moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). It may not be the correct text, but it begins:
All the words after the word 'that'.
Well, we do not know where "that" comes in. In a word, we do not know what is the text of the Speech from the Throne. I believe this amendment is intended to be moved to take its place.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Well, that shows
how far we are at sea. The amendment probably takes the place of something else. There is information lacking, and yet we are required, and supposed, to cast our votes intelligently.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit me? The motion is, that the House take into consideration on Monday next the speech delivered by His Excellency. The amendment is, that all the words after the word "that"-there is only one "that"-be struck out and the body of the amendment substituted therefor. There can be no mistake.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I thank the right
hon. gentleman for that much information. But this amendment is of very great importance. If carried, it means that we vote no confidence in the Liberals of Canada; that is the sum and substance of the amendment. On the contrary, if the amendment is lost, it means that we vote confidence in the Liberals of Canada. I am not just sure which way I should like to vote at the present time. I should like to have some further information on the matter at least, and because of the importance of the division that is to be taken, because of the lack of information before us,, and because of the salutary effect on our minds of a day of rest, I move the adjournment of the debate.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Carmichael moves,
seconded by Miss MacPfaail, that the debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, before the
motion is carried, I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the motion is as my right hon. friend has said, that the speech of His Excellency should be taken into consideration on Monday, and that the amendment is what he has moved. Now on Monday, unless there is general consent that we should go on with this debate-and I believe that to be the intention of everybody-the orders of the day would be for private members' resolutions, and so on, because the motion has not been submitted to the House. I would ask that it be decided immediately whether we are to proceed with this debate on Monday.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I have not the least hesitation in agreeing, so far as the party I represent is concerned, that we go on with this debate on Monday.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the
leaders of the three groups I see before me are agreeable that this debate should be resumed on Monday, notwithstanding the orders of the day. I will therefore put the motion:
It is moved by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael), seconded by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-Phail), that the debate be now adjourned, under the agreement arrived at.
Reports and Papers


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: In
order that my silence may not be taken as acquiescence in your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that you see before you only three groups, may I say for myself and the only group I represent in my humble person that I am agreeable to the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: The four groups having
consented, the motion carries.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 9.25 p.m.
Monday, January 11, 1926