1926-01-11

REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Annual report of the Librarian of Parliament for the year ended March 31, 1925; also report of the Commissioner of Internal Economy, for year 1925-1926.-Mr. Speaker.
Report of Chief Electoral Officer under section 4 of the Dominion Elections Act; also report under section 4 of the Representation Act, 1924, both in French and English; also report of the Postmaster General for the year ended March 31, 1925, both French and English.-Hon. Mr. Lapointe.
Public Accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925; statement of allowances granted under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924, during the fiscal year 1924-25; statement of allowances granted to dependents of civil servants under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924, during the fiscal year 1924-25; statement showing amount [DOT]of contributions and payments under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924, during the fiscal year 1924-25; statement of superannuation allowances to civil servants during the year ended December 31, 1925, under chapter 17, R.S.C., 1906-R.S. chapter 17, 1925; statement of Governor General's warrants issued since last session of parliament; statement of Auditor General respecting overrulings by the Treasury Board of decisions of Auditor Genera!; statement of returned soldiers insurance for the year ended March 31, 1925; statement of expenditure on account of miscellaneous unforeseen expenses from 8th May, 1925, to 21st December, 1925, in accordance with the Appropriation Act, 1925; statement of receipts and expenditures of the National Battlefields Commission for the year ended 31st March, 1925; statement

of receipts and expenditures of the Royal Society of Canada for the year ended April
30,	1925; statement of the Superintendent of Insurance of the Dominion of Canada for the year ended 31st March, 1925; volume 1, insurance companies other than life; volume 2, life insurance companies; abstract of statement of loan and trust companies in Canada for the year ended 31st December, 1926; interim report of amounts paid to certain creditors of the Home Bank of Canada under the Home Bank Creditor's Relief Act, 1925; Thirty-third Annual Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925; Regulations of the Board of Grain Commissioners for the period ended August 31, 1924; annual report of the Weights and Measures, Electricity and Gas Inspection services.-Hon. Mr. Robb.
Annual report of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs for the year ended March 31, 1925; list of land sales cancelled by the Department of Indian Affairs in accordance with Section 61 of the Indian Act, for the period from February 1, 1925 to November 15, 1925; list of enfranchisements under section 3 of the Indian Act for the period from April 1, 1925 to November 15, 1925; annual report of the Department of Mines for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925; report of the Department of the Interior for the period ended1 March
31,	1925; amended regulations indicated under the provisions of section 5 of the Reclamation Act; statement showing the lands sold by the Canadian Pacific Railway during the year ended September 30, 1925; statement showing the leases, licenses, permits or other authorities cancelled under the provisions of section 3, chapter 21 of the Statutes of 1922; list of permits to take intoxicating liquors into the Northwest Territory during the year ended 31st December, 1925; orders in council passed in the last return under the provisions of the Dominion Lands Act, the Forest Preserves Act, the Migratory Birds Convention, the Dominion Lands Survey Act.

Hon. Mr. Stewart.
Annual report of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery for the year ended March 31, 1925; Annual Report of the Department of Public Works for the year ended March 31, 1925-Hon. Mr. King.
Annual report of the Department of Agriculture for the year ended 31st March, 1925; report of the Director of Experimental Farms for the year ended March 31, 1925; orders and regulations passed under the authority of the

Railway Act Amendment
Destruction of Insects and Pests Act for the year ended March 31, 1925.-Hon. Mr. Motherwell.
Annual report of the Department of Customs and Excise for the year ended March 31, 1925; report of the Department of Customs and Excise concerning navigation.-Hon. Mr. Boivin.

Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton, Minister of the Interior and Superintendent General of Indian Affairs):: I hereby give notice to the House of Commons that no remission of sales of Indian lands has taken place during the year; that no irrigation regulations have been enacted under the provisions of chapter 61 section 57 of the revised statutes; that no regulations have been enacted covering Dominion lands in the railway belt under the provisions of the order in council of September 17, 18S9, and that no regulations have been enacted under the provisions of chapter 5, section 5 of the Reclamation Act.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No, 1 to amend the Railway Act, 1919.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Explain.


Mr. CHURCH:: The object of the amendment is to restore the special rate that applied prior to the war in regard to tickets purchased on such special occasions as Thanksgiving Day, and certain other holidays, and for the purpose of attendance at the fall fairs, conventions and sporting events as are held throughout Canada. Before the war, single fares or a fare and a third were charged, instead of the full return fare, to persons attending various functions of this character on certain days and special occasions and conventions of different kinds held in the spring of the year by farmers' and other organizations. In connection with sporting events, such as soccer, lacrosse, football and hockey and other games, there was also a cut rate for week-ends. If the old special rate that obtained for these events prior to the war were restored, there would be a large increase in the earnings of the railways from this class of traffic.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Post Office Act (Newspaper Ownership).
He said: The object of this amendment is to provide for a uniform law, as in the United States, England and Australia, requiring from all newspapers, magazines, trade journals and other periodicals which contain certain articles designed to influence public opinion, sworn semi-annual statements giving the names and addresses of editors, owners and stockholders. There is a proviso that this act shall not apply to religious, fraternal, temperance, scientific, or other publications of a similar character. The names of small stockholders are not required to be given. A copy of these sworn statements shall be published in such newspapers or other publications after thej' have been filed as required by the act. Any such publication which fails to comply with these provisions shall be denied admission to the mails. Paid editorials and other reading matter for which money is paid shall be plainly marked "Advertisement", as they properly should be. Statements under the act are to be made in duplicate and delivered to the Postmaster General, who shall make regulations for the carrying out of the provisions of the act. This legislation is made solely in the public interest and in the best interests of a free press and of the liberty of the press in a liberty-loving country. If the press is to serve the public more adequately in the future this legislation is not only a social but an economic necessity. -
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Since the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment no longer sits in this House, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Lapointe) the position of the government with regard to relief to war pensioners of less than twenty per cent disability? The situation, I think, will be clarified if I may read this telegram:
City of Winnipeg definitely refusing relief to war pensioners of less than twenty per cent war pension disability claiming Dominion government's responsibility. Veterans' organisation flooded with relief applications from this class of pensioners. This class is entirely cut off from source of relief. Action therefore

Government's Right to Office
is a cruel discrimination against this class of disabled pensioners who suffered in defence of their country. Urge on government rescinding of their order.
A. E. Moore,
On behalf of Joint Veterans of Winnipeg.


Ernest Lapointe: The minister has had some representations along the line suggested by my hon. friend and they are actually under consideration. I shall be pleased to bring this matter to his attention and I will give my hon. friend all the information that he might wish.
AUDIBILITY OF DEBATE On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: As
we are about to go on with one of the most important debates we have ever had in this House, might I be permitted to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to request hon. members who are taking part to speak loudly enough to enable us to get the information necessary to cast an intelligent vote?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I hope hon. members
will speak louder.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, January 8, consideration of the motion of Hon. Ernest Lapointe for consideration of the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session, and its precedence over other business, and the proposed amendment thereto of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen.
Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, after the friendly admonitions of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien), I will try to speak loudly enough so that at least he can hear my voice. We are met together in this parliament under circumstances that are unique in the annals of Canadian history. I doubt if any parliament since confederation has met under similar conditions, and it is doubtful*if any future Canadian parliament will be confronted with such a situation. It had not been my desire to enter into this debate so early in the day; in fact I should have preferred to keep silent and to listen to the views of others so that I might obtain necessary information. Indeed, that was my object in adjourning the debate. I had almost come to the conclusion that a division of the House was looked for on Friday evening and I was 
not then in a position to cast an intelligent vote. I had hoped that a number of speakers on either side of the House would reveal their position so that an intelligent opinion might be formed respecting the matter at issue. The Situation, however, is such that I am compelled to address the House.
During almost the whole of our history we have had the two party system in Canada. From the time of confederation until possibly the year 1919 Canada knew nothing other than the two party system of government. In 1919 there was the commencement of a third group in this House. It was small at the beginning, consisting as! it did of some dozen or more members, but in 1921 those numbers were greatly augmented so that the group to which I have the honour to belong had a following in this House of some sixty or more members. In the recent election, it is true, the public dealt harshly with us and we have come back here with considerably reduced numbers. Nevertheless our position is one of great importance. I doubt if any other group holds a position of such primary importance as that held by the Progressive group in this House. The largest group sitting immediately to your left, Mr. Speaker, is composed of 116 members; the second largest group, sitting to your right, comprises some 101 members, and our Progressive group numbers twenty-four. We also have a fourth group. It was in the last parliament and it is in this parliament; it is known as the Labour group, and is composed of two members. I believe we have the head, heart and tail of another group, composed of and concentrated in one individual known as an Independent. I am not sure but what we have a second Independent group, and if that be the case, all these go to make some six groups in this House.
During my time in this chamber it has been our custom and practice to go by majority rule. A majority of the House decides a question. Usually it was a majority in the House that carried on the government, but at present we have the second largest group bringing down a legislative programme and functioning as the government. I am not just sure whether or not we are establishing precedents in that respect. I recall the Prime Minister's pre-election statement that with 117 members in this House he was too dependent on the Progressive group of some 60 members to be able to carry on his government properly; and yet we have the strange situation of some 101 members coming back to this House, eager and anxious to function

Government's Right to Office
as a government while depending upon the support of some 24 Progressives. If a vote is taken in this House, as it will be shortly, assuming that all Liberals in the Liberal group, some 100 in number, record their vote; that both Labour members support the government and that each of the two independent groups do likewise, then in order to have an even division it would require, at the very least, that 18 Progressive members vote with the government. That is the present situation. In other words, the turning of seven Progressive members and the casting of their votes with those of the group to your left, Mr. Speaker, will defeat the government. Do we realize what an important position we hold in this House when seven Progressive members can decide the governmental fate of the country? It causes us who comprise this small group to think very seriously of the position we occupy.
On Friday last a motion was proposed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), seconded by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Antigonish-Guysborough), as follows;
That the speech of His Excellency the Governor General to bo-th houses of parliament be taken into consideration on Monday next, and that this order have precedence over all other business of the House except government notices of motion and introduction of bills, until disposed of.
To that motion we had 'an amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) which I need not read, seeing that it is already on record. However, looking at the substance of it we note that the second paragraph makes the statement that a large number of Liberal candidates were defeated in the last general election. I am prepared to agree with that statement. The next paragraph states that nine ministers of the crown, including the Prime Minister, were defeated. I believe that this statement also is correct. In the next paragraph it is stated that the Gonservative party received the largest popular vote, and I believe that in speaking to the amendment the leader of the opposition mentioned some 200,000 of a plurality as having been given in favour of that party. That statement- also, I have reason to believe, is correct. The last paragraph takes up the constitutional objections to the position of the Liberal forces on the treasury benches. Well, I am not prepared to enter into that field of discussion when I see such individuals as the Minister of Justice taking one view very decidedly and the leader of the opposition taking the contrary view. In the circumstances I hardly think it consistent on the part of anyone in this small group to venture 14011-3



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
into the field of speculation and to suggest a solution. I prefer to look at the amendment in perhaps a different light. In essence, the amendment, if it is carried, means that we vote no confidence in the Liberal government; that is the point of view we must take with regard to it. It means that we shall either have another election or put a Conservative government in power. We may talk around it and we may use varying phraseology, but in substance that is what it amounts to. If the amendment as proposed carries, this House decides that it has no confidence in the Liberal government and we are faced, as I say, with one of two alternatives

another general election or government by the Conservative party in this House.
If on the other hand the amendment is defeated what will be the situation? What does its rejection signify? It means that by our vote we declare that we have confidence in a defeated government; we say virtually that we have confidence in a group that has been defeated in the country. I do not think I need enlarge that statement. The fact that 101 members have come back to represent a party which originally comprised 117, and the fact that nine -ministers of the crown went down to defeat, coupled with the further fact that the Conservative group received 200,000 more votes than the Liberal -group, is evidence sufficient to show that the Liberal government was defeated 'in the last general election. So that the defeat of this amendment just means that we in this House are, so to speak, flouting -the will of the people as expressed at the polls and voting confidence in a defeated government.
As a member of this Progressive group I have been compelled to consider very seriously what my vote would mean if given one way or the other. If given against the amendment it -means that I, a Progressive, am attempting by my vote to bolster up a shattered party ini this country. That would imply that we defy public opinion las expressed in a majority vote. Is it any wonder that some of us in this corner of the House 'have considered this matter very gravely? We have put in hours, nay, days of thought on the question. The fate of our future government depends upon the decision of the Progressive group, perhaps upon the decision of a few members of this group. I look at the rituation not so much ini the ligiht of the possibility of either one group or the other enjoying the "sweets of office " or " the fruits of office " or party election advantages, much as these things may be cherished on either side. I do not choose to look at this phase of it. These considerations may appeal to some hon, members who

[Stage Direction]
Government's Right to Office
either are on the treasury benches or are aspiring to get there. I prefer to look at the far-reaching effect which the division on this question will have.
Each of the two major groups in this House has had a policy, presumably at least. It is recognized that the Liberal policy is one of either free trade or freer trade. At any rate, prior to an election that is the policy. The Conservative government, in season and out of season, has preached and practised1 a high tariff policy. I am not go sure, Mr. Speaker, that in this House the two old-line parties are so very far apart on that policy. I have had the privilege of sitting in this chamber for the past four years, and so far as tariff concessions given us by the Liberal government go, we would not need a very large suit case to carry them all home. But in profession at least there is a difference between the policies of the two major groups. Therefore if any such policy were put into force, it would have a far-reaching effect, an effect that would extend from one end' of the Dominion to the other, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Business conditions throughout the country are affected by whichever course is taken in this House.
Now, in order to give an intelligent vote on this question it is necessary that we look at different phases of it. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) made his motion in reference to the Speech from the Throne, and an amendment has been moved to that motion. It is perhaps necessary, then, that we glance hastily at the Speech from the Throne and see what is embodied therein, because if a group proposes a legislative programme our vote is perhaps going to be largely influenced by such programme. I find in the legislative programme as outlined in the Speech from the Throne a clause embodying rural credits. Now this is something that is of vital importance to the portion of the country from which I come. Western Canada is vitally interested in the question of rural credits. We have out there not only hundreds but thousands of struggling agriculturists with a load of debt upon their shoulders, a debt upon which they are paying eight, nine, ten and) even twelve per cent interest, running into thousands of dollars, and in many cases it is impossible for them to carry that load. Some of them are getting from under it one way or the other; it is absolutely necessary in the case of a great many of these people that something should be done to relieve them of that burden. Here we have in the Speech from the Throne a definite promise that a rural credit scheme is going to be given us. Well, I was a member of the Banking and1 Commerce committee dur-
ing the past four sessions. I recall that in the session of 1924, after considerable debate, we passed a resolution calling upon the government in the session of 1925 to implement by legislation the suggestions contained in Dr. Tory's report. I recall in the session of 1925 what a strenuous time we had in the Banking and Commerce committee to get a resolution before this chamber to the effect that such legislation should be proceeded with. I recall particularly the stand of many hon. members from the province of Quebec, and I was given to understand in the last session that the representatives from that province did not favour rural credits for Canada. Well, when I look across at the treasury benches and I see, or pretend to see, 61 members from the province of Quebec out of the 101 government supporters, I wonder how the change of heart came about. I wonder whether it is a real conversion or merely a bait handed out for Progressive support. In the session of 1925, after repeated urgings on the part of members of the Banking and Commerce committee from this group, we succeeded in having a semblance of legislation introduced, but it was not brought down until the dying days of the session, and it was well known that such legislation would never be enacted.
Then, following that, we have in the Speech from the Throne another clause stating that the government proposes forthwith the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. Very good. I am sure that a great sigh of gratitude arose from western Canada when they read that statement. But looking back over the last four sessions-and it is rather unfortunate for the government benches that we do not forget all the things that happened in the last four years-I recall that the then member for Prince Albert, Mr. Knox, persistently and insistently brought forward a resolution urging the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. Each session-in 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925- that resolution was brought forward. We had 117 members sitting on the government benches and we had something over 60 members in this group; it would have been an easy matter to introduce legislation and carry it through if there had been any desire to do so. But what did we find in the last parliament? When we took a division in 1924, only 20 members voted for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, and four others were paired-a total of 24 votes cast in favour of the scheme in that House of 235 members. Now, I am led to ask myself: Whence came this change of heart on the part of those on the government benches? I recall that the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-

Government's Right to Office
burg (Mr. Duff) had a pocketful of snapshots that he used to slide around this chamber to enlighten us as to the impossibilities of that route, showing huge ice floes, and fields of ice, and vessels marooned in the ice. I wonder if he has destroyed them-or may we look for them again?
Then, in addition to those two items, we have a tariff clause. Well, there is nothing very definite in that paragraph. It says that a general increase in the customs tariff would prove detrimental to the country's continued prosperity. That does not tell us that there will not be some minor increases or some particular increases; it ju9t says that a general increase would prove detrimental. This is one question upon which; I am not just sure what kind of opinion to form. I recall that in the last parliament the then member for Brantford, I believe it was Mr. Raymond, a very estimable gentleman-I am not sure that he did' not go to the slaughter-asked this question of the right 'horn, leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) when he was speaking on his tariff resolution:	"If you should become Prime
Minister, would you restore on agricultural implements the duty thalt was taken off during the previous session?" If I remember correctly, the right hon. leader of the opposition said: "Most certainly I would."
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I am not sure what
to infer from that applause, but I know that the people of western Canada do not want any further tariff on agricultural implements. It is true that the reductions were very trifling; it is true that the prices of agricultural implements were not very considerably lowered, but it was a slight step in the right direction. It was supported by this group in the hope that at the next session a longer stride would be taken in the same direction, but we hoped in vain; no such 'action followed. I rather fear the occupying of the treasury benches by a group headed by a leader who has definitely pronounced himself in that respect, except from this point of view: he <and his group cannot raise the tariff without the consent of this group. With regard to the tariff question, therefore, we are faced with these two view points: the occupying of the treasury benches by one group who are pledged to raise the tariff but who could not raise it unless we said so, or the occupying of the treasury benches by another group who are pledged to lower the tariff, but who will not lower it. So that so far as the question of the tariff is concerned, it seems to me that we can lay it aside.
There is one other clause in the Speech from the Throne in which the government 14011-3J
congratulate themselves, or rather "congratulate you," on the growing prosperity of this favoured land. Then they further state: "This increased prosperity and advancement have been aided by the policies of the government." It would be far more appropriate to give Divine Providence the credit.
There is one other matter that is not embodied in the Speech from the Throne, and it is a matter of vital importance to the section of. the country from which I come. It is a matter upon which I have heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) express himself in no uncertain terms in this House-indeed I believe he did in the country also-and that is the matter of the statutory rates as existing under the Crowsnest agreement, that old bill of rights that was given us in western Canada away back in the year 1897, and to which the average westerner looks for protection. That agreement has all been thrown in the scrap heap with the exception of the rates as respecting grain and flour. I do fear, according to the statement as expressed, that an effort might be made to wipe out the rest of those rates, and I do fear the result of such action. I am satisfied that western Canada would not stand for the wiping out of the rates on grain and flour.
One of the reasons why I would like to have seen the debate carried on by members from each of the larger groups is that such questions as these might be enlarged upon and definite pronouncements made upon them. I am not going to say that the right hon. leader of the opposition should reverse his decision, because I do not think he would do so; I have that opinion of him, that his opinions as expressed are usually lived up to, but if his expressed opinion in regard to this one subject is to be carried out, I fear there is not much western support back of it.
The Progressive group in this House has come into being in a rather unique way. We are not a party in the sense of the Liberal group or the Conservative group, though we may be called a party, and some may look upon us as a party. We are really a group of individuals representing public opinion. The origin of the Progressive group, so far as western Canada goes, dates back to the year 1901. The action as taken among western Canadian farmers at that time was for economic advantage, but they found later on that it was necessary to take political action in order to reap the economic advantages at which they were aiming; and so we found in the year 1919 that a few members of this House started what was known as the Progressive group. I do not know where the

Government's Right to Office
name came from; there is nothing in names anyway. We might as well be called the People's group, or the Woman's group-because we have in this group the only woman in parliament. Call us anything you like; the name signifies nothing. The fact of the matter is we are here, and we are here as a protest against partyism in Canada. I am not so sure that we have the best system of government obtainable. 1 followed the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) last Friday, and if I gathered what he was proposing, it was to the effect that a committee of this House representative of all the groups in this House should function as government. I am not sure that that would be a very bad thing for the country. Surely in the present situation it might be a way out of our dilemma. It is possible we may come perceptibly nearer to that proposal than we are at the present time. Personally I do not see any reason why we should be divided into two camps deadlocked as we are now. I do not see why there should be such a difference between legislation pertaining to our Dominion affairs and legislation pertaining to our municipal affairs. It has been my privilege to sit in a council chamber for some twelve years, watching the deliberations of seven men elected from nine townships and carrying on all the legislative affairs pertaining to those nine townships. There was no such thing as two or three groups or more; there was only one group of men elected by the people to represent them and carry on, and my ideal would be a similar situation for the Dominion of Canada. But it so happens that Canada has become steeped in partyism, and it is very hard to get away from it. As a matter of fact a Conservative outside of his party is very human in his make-up; a Liberal also outside of his party traditions is a very likeable person, but either one of them in party harness is an altogether different animal. The constituency which 'I have the honour to represent has said time and again that it is tired of partyism. A part of it provincially has sent forward a representative elected in a similar way to its representative for the Dominion House.
The population of my district is some thirty thousand.	Let us look at the vote that was
jast in that constituency in the last federal election. We had a three-cornered contest. The Liberal standard bearer was a very estimable gentleman. He had occupied the position of representative in our provincial House for eight years, and during four years of that period he 'held the exalted position of

Speaker of the House. I would' take it, then, for granted that when the people were expressing their opinion at the polls they certainly would be influenced his way if an estimable gentleman had any influence over them, and yet on October 28th last he received only 2,614 votes. The Conservative candidate received 1,218 votes, and the votes cast for the Progressive amounted to 3,631. The combined vote, therefore given the Conservative candidate and the Progressive candidate amounted to 4,849, or nearly two to one against the Liberal candidate. Now whatever interpretation anybody else might place upon that, I interpret it as a vote of want of confidence in the Mackenzie King government. My opinion is that so far as my constituency has expressed itself, that vote was a mandate against the Liberal government.
But when I come to the question of my personal attitude in the matter I find it very difficult indeed. I find that I am between the deep sea and a certain individual with an unsavoury name that I care not to mention, and I am not just sure which will be the better way to go.


An hon. MEMBER:: Which is the deep
sea?


Archibald M. Carmichael: I am not certain
whether the deep sea is in Ontario or Quebec. We have the Liberal proposals and they are very generous-in fact there has been held out to us almost all that could be offered, unless it were a turkey for Christmas; and western opinion is in favour of such a programme. On the other hand we have the amendment by the Conservatives, and the thought of majority rule; and thete is the expression of opinion as given by this country at large and by my own constituency. Certain persons in the country -yes, and certain newspapers, and representatives or correspondents of newspapers-choose to throw out the rather small insinuation that the Progressives are .thinking more of their sessional indemnity than of anything else. We have heard that stated throughout the country. Well, I should like to say to all such that the Progressives in this corner of the House can perhaps come back here with greater ease than any other hon. members. The constituency that I have the honour to represent, without, or with very little, organization and practically no funds, sent their member here at a (total cost of less than $500, 4 p.m. nearly all of which they paid themselves. It is not a very difficult thing for a representative to enter parliament when the people come forward and put him here, and I am quite sure that what has been done already may be done in the

Government's Right to Office
immediate or more distant future. Personally I am not worried very much about any such suggestions. I am anxious to decide aright on the vote that will be taken on this question.
I should prefer that we have a definite pronouncement in regard to certain questions that have 'been raised. I should like to be assured that some of these matters, such as rural credits, will be satisfactorily dealt with. I notice, by the way, that there is on the order paper a notice of motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) which deals adequately with the question of rural credits. I should like to know that -that question will be satisfactorily dealt with. I should also like to know that some of the other points raised will be satisfactorily handled-for instance the Hudson Bay railway and the matter of the Crowsnest pass rates on grain and flour.
I cannot say definitely just now how I shall cast my vote in the light of what further debate is likely to bring forth. The opinions I am expressing are not necessarily the opinions of this group; -they may not represent the opinions of any other members of the group, but they do represent my own. We enjoy the privilege here of expressing our opinions and convictions without fear of any party whip or leader, and in what I have said to-day I have expressed what is my own personal opinion. If during the remainder of the debate the questions to Which I have alluded are dealt with in such a manner that all doubt shall be removed from my mind and I can be convinced that the best interests of the country I represent will be served, by the bringing about of a certain result, I will cast my vote one way. If I am not thus assured I will cast my vote another way.


Mr. R. S. WHITE (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the House while, for a short time, I endeavour to state some of the reasons why the amendment which has been placed in your hands should be adopted. That amendment is a bald narrative, a recital of plain, unvarnished facts, and there is no hon. member who can successfully controvert any statement in it from beginning to end, except perhaps in respect to the concluding paragraph. No one disputes the fact that a large majority of the ministerial candidates went down to defeat on 29th October last; that nine ministers of the crown, including the first minister, were beaten; that the Conservative party came back with its strength greater by 120 per cent; and that the popular vote was cast against the government. It is in such a situation that this House meets, with a defeated, a decimated, a discredited, a degraded government endeavouring to carry on the affairs of the country.
I followed with attention on Friday last, and have since read with great care, the speech of the Minister of Justice (Mt. Lapointe) in which, fortified with many precedents, he endeavoured to sustain the view that the government as presently represented in this House is justified in carrying - on. I trust the hon. minister will not think me offensive, because such is far from my thoughts, if I refer to -the heading of one of those delightful papers of Addison in the Spectator:	"Very busy about
nothing and out of breath to no purpose."
Sir, there was not one single citation of a precedent frpm British constitutional history made by the Minister of Justice which has the slightest appositeness to the amendment that is now before the House. -Everybody knows-and -those who do not know will have learned' from his speech-that governments in England have resigned after defeat at a general election without waiting the meeting of parliament, and that, on the other band, governments have awaited the meeting of parliament after defeat at the polls before resigning from office. One of the latest examples-not very re-cenit either, as it happened nearly sixty years ago-was that of the Disraeli government in 1868, which having a minority in the House was permitted by grace of the majority to carry on until the constituencies Were reorganized and a general election could be held, and Todd, one time Librarian of this parliament and -a recognized authority on constitutional law and- procedure, used this language in reference to that situation:
This prolonged the unseemly and unconstitutional spectacle of a ministry holding office by sufference and unable to exercise any effectual control over the proceedings of the House of Commons; a condition of things which, it need scarcely be said, was palpably at variance with the first principle of parliamentary government.
But Sir, another instance occurred in 1892, when the Salisbury government, having gone to the electors, and having been defeated at the polls, decided to continue in office until a vote of want of confidence was had in the House. In both those cases, and in every case cited by the Minister of Justice, there was a prime minister, but, sir, the minister has not cited one case-because there is no precedent-Where a government decimated as this one has been-, without any regular channel of communication between the House of Commons and the crown undertook to meet parliament and carry on the affairs of the country.
Now perhaps it is an act of impertinence on my part to tender any advice to the third

Government's Right to Office
party, but I may point o-ut to them, as well as to eveiy other hon. gentleman in this House, that the amendment upon Which the vote is to be taken is not an amendment upon party politics. It is a declaration as to constitutional principles. I see my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) smiles, because he realizes that doubtless if this amendment should receive the approval of parliament it would follow as a matter of course that the first minister should tender his resignation. Suppose he does so, Whiat is the situation so far as the Progressive party is concerned? If there was a change of government to-morrow, the Progressive party would exercise in this House identically the same power, $ie same influence and would be in the same position as it is to-day. But the amendment is to vindicate the principles, yea the sanctity of our constitutional system, in our parliament. As to the fate of the Prime Minister and his colleagues who, in face of a reverse at the polls in a general election, cling with slippery hands to office, it is a matter, of course, of taste. There is an old text which tells us that "the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life." These gentlemen have reversed the order, and with them it is the spirit of the electorate that killeth and the letter which giveth them life. Now if evidence is needed that this government ought not to continue to direct the affairs of Canada, I can produce an authority that at least should command some respect at the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite. I refer to their leader, the late member for North York. We are all familiar with that long blaze of apologies which he made at Richmond Hill When he said among other things-time does not decently permit me to quote more than one of them, perhaps two:
Is it sufficient that as a government we should continue in office, drawing our indemnities and salaries as members aaid ministers and enjoying the other fruits of office, when great national questions press for solution with which, for want of an adequate majority in parliament, we are unable satisfactorily to cope.
Now that was a gem of purest ray. What a lofty position he took on that occasion. Can he occupy that position to-day? iMort assuredly not.
The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) who has just addressed the Chair, has dealt with portions of the Speech from the Throne. I do not intend to treat of that Speech beyond saying this, that it is one long list of concessions to a party without whose support the government would not last one hour. Death-bed repentances are frequently subject to suspicion; political deathbed repentances, always.
IMr. Carmichael.]


Ernest Lapointe: The Hamilton speech,
for instance.


Robert Smeaton White: The Hamilton speech does not embarrass me in the slightest. At the appropriate time I am prepared, frankly, candidly and in no unmistakable language, to express my opinion upon that speech. It may become a subject of debate before this session is very old, but I do not think it is particularly pertinent to the amendment that is now before the House. The Minister of Justice declared in somewhat resonant tones-
We all desire the situation to be regularized in order that we shall have a government with full moral and political authority for the tasks, domestic, imperial and inter.naitiional that lie (before it.
That is what the Minister of Justice desires. This is what his chief and leader believes:
All sufficient as these reasons-said Mr. Mackenzie King-may be for not attempting another session of parliament before a general election, there are other reasons of even greater weight. I refer now to allimportant 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.
Which horn of the dilemma do hon. gentlemen propose to take? They cannot have both, and I imagine either one is somewhat embarrassing. I should like, for a moment- and I hope I am not digressing beyond the four corners of the amendment- to say a word as to the Conservative party in the province of Quebec from which I come.


An hon. MEMBER:: Mr. Patenaude.


Robert Smeaton White: Mr. Patenaude, when he was selected as chief of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, caused a shiver to run through the ranks of the Liberal party. Mr. Patenaude has not yet run his career, and if life is spared him, he will yet sit in this House to promote, promulgate and support Conservative doctrine and Conservative principles.
If without seeming to indulge in too much liberty, I may tell the House a little story, it is this. Years ago in the good old city of Quebec When the Irish relatively to the French were larger in numbers than they are to-day, it was the habit of the Irishmen on the 17th of March, in the absence of their hereditary enemies in the north of Ireland, to come out and give battle to the French-Canadians. On one occasion an Irishman who had sallied out with his shillalah early in the morning to vindicate his rights and the superiority of his race, returned home at an unexpectedly early hour with two lovely

Government's Right to Office
black eyes, a bruised body and a generally battered up appearance. His wife said to him: "What is the matter?" and he laconically replied: " Tliim Frinch is improving." In the province of Quebec the Conservative party is improving. In 1917 we had three members. We had not a single one in 1921. We have now four in this House; but more than that, we have increased the popular vote for Conservative candidates in that province by about one hundred thousand.


Mr. POWER:: Who got the black eye?


Robert Smeaton White: If the hon.
gentleman wishes to know, I think it was the late member for North York. The Minister of Justice pronounced a fulsome eulogy upon his leader, informing the House that he possessed the confidence of the Liberal party in greater degree than ever before, and I noticed in the press that at a caucus of that party a resolution of confidence in their leader was passed. A late member of the government-I was going to say a member of the late government, but a late member of the government, Mr. Marler, formerly of St. Lawrence-St. George, Montreal, delivered a speech in the Reform Club of Montreal on New Year's day when he out-Heroded Herod by declaring that when Mr. Mackenzie King had finished his public career, he would go down in history as the greatest Prime Minister Canada had ever had. Poor old Sir Wilfrid Laurier! If his shade had been present in that Reform Club on that New Year's Day it might well have exclaimed in the language olf Rip Van Winkle when he came down from the Catskills after his long sleep and found himself unrecognized, unknown, his name not even a memory in his native village; " My God, how soon are we forgot."
Now, Sir, I fear that the quotation I gave from Addison might fittingly be applied to myself in the rather rambling remarks I have made. But I come back to the whole pith and point and core of the amendment, namely, that the position of the government is a violation of constitutional principles and of parliamentary practice. And it is upon that point and that point only that this division is to take place. You have doubtless read, Mr. Speaker, a recent book written by Lord Ullswater, better known as the Right Hon. James W. Lowther, for more than fifteen years Speaker of the British House of Commons, who was gracious enough to come to Canada to present to this chamber the chair which you, Sir, so admirably adorn by your courtly manner, your fine ability and your strict impartiality. Lord Ullswater's book entitled "Commentaries of a Speaker" is interspersed with amusing anecdotes, one of which it seems to me is very pertinent to the situation of at least two parties in this House. It refers to an advertisement which appeared in the lost column of a London newspaper and which ran like this: 'Lost-a spaniel dog called "Ben"; answers reluctantly to "Damn you, come here." '
I hasten, Mr. Speaker, lest I offend the decorum and proprieties of this House, to withdraw the strong expletive and substitute the milder term "dang," even at the risk of weakening the point of Lord Ullswater's story. As I read it, however, the analogy occurred to me between this government and the Progressive party, who actually and absolutely dominate the ministry,, and without whose support the gentlemen on the treasury benches cannot carry through this House any important measure whatever, and Ben and his master. Their position towards the Progressive party is that of the abject animal called Ben towards his master, and I think it not inappropriate that this government should be termed the "Ben" government and go down in history as such.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Antigonish-Guysborough, Minister of National Defence):: We have just listened to a very interesting address from a veteran in the political life of this country (Mr. White, Mount Royal), and I desire on behalf of those who sit on your right, Mr. Speaker, to welcome the distinguished gentleman once more to this parliament, which he adorned in other days by his position and ability. I am sorry that my hon. friendl, while he indulged in a good deal of denunciation, Saw fit in his speech to evade altogether the real question at issue in this particular amendment. He promised that he would lift the veil and let us know what was going on in Quebec in connection with the position of the Conservative party, and that would have been a very interesting story had he gone into it and related all the events of the last election. We should all have been pleased to know where Mr. Patenaude stood in relation to the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) who leads the party opposite, and where the right hon. gentleman himself stood in relation to Mr. Patenaude; and it would have been more interesting still if my hon. friend who has just taken his seat had gone further and told us where he personally stood in relation to both these gentlemen. I happen to have under my hand a newspaper report of a meeting during which that question was asked our distinguished friend. The meeting in ques-

Government's Right to Office
tion was held in Victoria Hall on October 10 and the report to which I refer appeared in the Montreal Gazette of October 11. A voice from the gallery asked the distinguished gentleman the question:
Are you a Meighen Conservative or a Patenaude Conservative?
And what do you suppose my hon. friend answered? He said:
I am a Conservative upholding Conservative principles and call no man master.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Hon. gentlemen opposite are
applauding because their confrere was so successful in evading an important question. Now that my hon. friend comes to the House and undertakes to lift the veil from the situation in Quebec he is just as enigmatic as he was at that meeting: we do not know whether he is for Patenaude or for Meighen. The real issue before the House, however, is the question as to whether the proper constitutional practice has been followed by this government in regard to the situation that was created by the general election. That is the point which is raised directly by the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition, and that is the point I want to discuss. I want to face it frankly and fairly and I want the House to realize that what we are considering here is simply the question whether or not the proper constitutional course was pursued by this government in the circumstances in which it found itself after the election. What does my right hon. friend opposite say? He has ia resolution in which he makes certain assertions. The first two paragraphs I pass over for the time being, but the third paragraph makes the statement that Jiis party had the largest popular vote and that it has now substantially the largest number of members of any party in the present House. The right hon. gentleman supplemented that statement on Friday last when he declared that we should have resigned immediately after the election and that we had no right to carry on. Let me submit to the House the authorities on the question of a government's continuing in office after an election. Assuming that there was a party in existence to whom could be committed the task of carrying on the government an a parliament * constituted like ours-and there was no such situation-this is what Todd's Parliamentary Government in England, at page 130, has to say on the point:
The verdict of the country having been pronounced against ministers at a general election., it is, nevertheless, competent for them to remain in office until the new parliament has met, and given a definitive

and final decision upon their merits; for the House of Commons is the legitimate organ of the people, whose opinions cannot be constitutionally ascertained except through their representatives in parliament. It is necessary, however, and according to precedent, that in such circumstances the new parliament should be called together without delay.
There the constitutional rule is clearly laid down. My right hon. friend himself speaking on this matter the other day said:
To their coming (the government) and facing parliament there can be no legal objection.
That is to be found on page 14 of Hansard. But he said:
But there is a constitutional objection.
Now, if we are legally here I would like to see any hon. gentleman on the other side produce evidence of where there is any constitutional authority which nullifies our legal right. Mark you, there is no statute regulating this procedure either here or in England. I want to give you another quotation on that point. Keith, on Responsible Government in the Dominions, says:
There is no fixed rule in the colonies, just as there is hardly yet one in England, as to whether a ministry should resign when a general election turns against them, or wait the meeting of the House.
There are two definite, positive authorities. There is no Statute upon the subject, as I have said; we have to go by precedents and we have to go by authority. We are in this position and having our heritage from the Motherland we can say with Tennyson that-we are:
A land of settled government,
A land of just and old renown,
Where freedom slowly broadens down From precedemt to precedent.
That is how parliamentary government has developed in Great Britain, and how it has developed here. The rule which I have quoted from two authorities, a rule which cannot be questioned, indicates that in a situation such as we had to face after October 29, we took the proper constitutional course. We called parliament together at the very earliest possible moment, and I want to give the House the situation in regard to that. It was thought at first that we should meet on December 10, but then it was ascertained that the return of the writs could not possibly be made by that time. On December 10 the return came from Springfield; from Yukon on December 11; from Bagot on December 17; from Peace River on December 23, and from North Huron December 28. So that less than two weeks after the last return came to the proper authorities this House is in session. We have not hung on to power or attempted to deal with this situation in any way contrary to

Government's Bight to Office
what was our just right, but we as a government come to this parliament and ask the members of all parties to determine at the proper occasion, when it arises, whether this government has the confidence of this House. For the moment the determination of the issue raised by this amendment is simply and solely whether or not we followed the proper constitutional practice. That is the only issue, no matter what the result of the vote may be.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we have the right and it was in accordance with proper constitutional precedent to say that we proposed to meet parliament and submit our programme to them, then I want to say further that our position in regard to the absence of the Prime Minister from the House is also fully justified by precedent. Before I leave that phase of the subject, however, let me remind hon. gentlemen who talk so glibly about there being no precedent, that at so late a day-and I am re-quoting what my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) quoted, I am putting it before the House again so it may be clearly understood-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. MACiDQNALD (Antig onish-Guysb or-ough):	Repetition won't hurt. My hon.
friend is not worrying.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: He is only smiling.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonidh-Guyabor-ouigh):: When Lord Salisbury appealed to
the country in 1885 there were returned 249 Conservatives, 335 Liberals and1 86 Irish Nationalists. The issue at that election was Heme Rule. It will be observed that the combined vote of the Nationalists and Liberals outnumbered the Conservatives by almost 200.


Robert Smeaton White: But there
was a premier in the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will deal with that point; my
hon. friend is not answering my proposition by talking about the premier. I will give him the evidence and I am dealing now with this situation, that as a government we had a proper right to come to parliament as we have come, and I say that is what Lord Salisbury did, although he was in a minority of about 200. In 1892-and that is not so very long ago-after the election Lord Salisbury had 268 Conservatives, and 47 Liberal-Unionists, and found himself opposed by 273 Liberals and 81 Irish-Nationalists. He met the House and was defeated. But my hon. friend says there was a premier in the House.
Let us deal with that question now. My hon. friend says in his resolution upon that, point, and this is the pith of it-
-and their attempted continuance in office is a violation cxf the principles and practice of British constitutional government.
Because the Prime Minister for the time being has no seat. That is the reason he gives for that conclusion, and he dilates upon the fact that the Prime Minister is the selection of the crown and the means of communication between the crown and the ministry and the Commons. Well, let us see where that situation leads us. All constitutional authorities lay it down that the Prime Minister is in the same position as any other minister so far as responsibility to the Commons is concerned. True, he is appointed by the crown, or rather his appointment is ratified by the crown after the selection is made by the party in the House which supports him, but constitutionally his relation to parliament and the House of Commons is just the same as that of any other minister, and no different. I will give to my hon. friends definite authority here, which states specifically that there is no statutory authority of any kind that a minister should have a seat in .parliament when he is appointed a minister, but he should take the earliest opportunity of finding a seat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friends concede that
there is no necessity for the Prime Minister to be in either House, but that he should take the earliest opportunity of finding a seat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not know what my hon.
friends meant when they said, "hear, hear."


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: There is a
difference between minister and prime minister.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is no difference whatever,
with all deference to my hon. friend. If he comes to speak upon this question I would like him to produce any authority that that is so. I cannot find any authority in any constitutional books upon the subject. The Prime Minister is in just the same position as any other minister. A man may be selected as a minister or he may be defeated as a minister, but if he proposes to continue in that capacity, he is bound to find a seat within a reasonable time.

Government's Right to Office


An hon. MEMBER:: Why did he not run for Bagot?
Mr.	MACDONALD	(Antigonish-Guysborough):	My bon. friend need not worry
about my leader. He has had half a dozen seats offered to him, and I expect that within twenty-four hours his decision will be made as to where he will run, and when he runs he will be returned to this House.


Mr. HANSON:: He won't run in Pictou.
Mr.	MACDONALD	(Antigonish-Guysborough):	My friend from York-Sumbury
(Mr. Hanson) had better not get too gay.
I quote from Anson, upon that point, on the Law and Custom of the Constitution:
There is no statutory necessity that any one of the ministers should be in parliament, but in practice a minister who has not obtained a seat could not continue to hold office for a long period of time, and should find a constituency within a reasonable period.
There is the rule, and that is the situation.
I have already pointed out to the House that December 28 was the last date upon which the returns to writs could have been made. We have not in this country any system such as obtains in the Mother Country where, when a seat is sought to be vacated, the member vacating it applies to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for appointment to the stewardship of the Chiltem Hundreds. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) in 1921 took an entirely wrong course when, in order to get a seat, he appointed the member for Grenville at that time to a position in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. My right hon. friend resigned the premiership on December 29, 1921 but two days previously he appointed the gentleman who had been returned for Grenville in the recent general election to a position in the civil service.


Ernest Lapointe: And gave him leave of absence the following day.
Mr.	MACDONALD (Antigonish-Guysborough): Yes, and the following day he resigned. My hon. friend says that this government had no right to function. He is simply blowing hot and cold when he suggests at one time that we should make some appointment in order to create a vacancy for the Prime Minister, and at another time complains because we come here to the free court of parliament and leave it to the people's representatives to decide who shall govern in this country. The Prime Minister did not choose to do that, and there was no way under the proper constitutional practice by which the present Prime Minister of Canada [Mr. E. M. Macdonald.3
could have had a seat by which he could find his way into this House until a member had resigned, and a member could only resign after the Housle had met on Thursday last.


Some hon. MEMBER:: What about Bagot?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friends want to dictate on every subject. The Prime Minister would naturally run in the seat where he would deem it to be in the best interests of Canada that he should run, and I say again that until last Thursday it was not possible legally or constitutionally for the Prime Minister to contest a seat through which he cauld have found his way into this House.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have been reiterating and reiterating that this government has no right to function because they have a bigger group than we have. Does my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition think for one moment that we should settle the constitutional practice in this country in such a way that the moment an election is over- and we can assume that for years to come we shall have different groups in this House- the largest group, no matter whether it has a majority or not, should be called upon to form a government? That is where my right hon. friend gets with his argument. He knows that is not proper, and should not be so. We are in this position: We had a right to wait for the Summoning of parliament; we waited for the summoning of parliament, and we are here. The Prime Minister is exactly in the same position as any other minister would be who was defeated. He had to await his opportunity to find a seat. That opportunity will be sought for, and he will be in the House in the shortest possible time. The Prime Minister will appeal to the country in a vacancy that will arise, and he will come back to parliament.
My hon. friend from Mount Royal (Mr. White) isf a journalist, but evidently some Conservative newspapers do not agree with him in his view as to the constitutional practice that should be followed in the present situation. I have in my hand an article which appeared in the Standard of Montreal, a paper which is by no means friendly to us on this side of the House, but has always supported the Conservative party. What does that paper say?
The Standard has gone to the expense of procuring legal opinion from some of the most eminent lawyers in Canada and Great Britain on the question of the constitutionality of the continuance in power at Ottawa of the Liberal party.
In nearly every case the question came back, "Are you asking an opinion as .to the constitutional right?"

Government's Right to Office
Of course, in this matter, there could be no other aspect worth while presenting to a lawyer.
The consensus of opinion is that constitutionally the Liberal party has unquestionably the right to continue to govern if it can get a majority in the House behind it.
That is what the Montreal Standard says, that the consensus of opinion is that constitutionally the Liberal party has unquestionably the right to continue to govern if it can get a majority in the House behind it. That is the consensus of opinion of the eminent lawyers in Canada and Great Britain who were consulted on this question and with all due deference I put it to my hon. friend from Mount Royal whether the opinions of these gentlemen should not be given consideration.


Arthur Meighen: Who are they?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend inquires from
the paper he will know. He knows the gentleman who owns this paper very much better than I do.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member has
the paper there. Surely he will tell us who these authorities are.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It does not state them.


Arthur Meighen: Oh!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my right hon. friend mean
to say he has no regard for the opinion of a paper of the standing of the Montreal Standard, especially when he has regard to who its proprietors are? I do not know whether the}' supported Patenaude or Meighen in the last election,, but they are always for the Tory party anyway.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Will the hon.
member tell us whether the journal he is now quoting is the journal that is discredited by the Montreal Herald in the circular I, in common with others, no doubt, got today?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not intend to follow the
windings of the minds of my two journalistic friends who sit over there. I quote further from the Montreal Standard:
The debate on the question should be conducted with clue regard for the importance of the crisis in a manner deliberate and unimpassioned.
The victory in such a case not infrequently goes to -those who do not lose their heads.
The leader of the opposition lost ground when he displayed irritation. It is invariably the case in almost any contentious argument that to him who knows best how to govern his temper goes a decided advantage.	.	,
The debate yesterday might have been intended as an attempt at instructing the Governor.
If it was so intended, it was a waste of time and energy.
The Governor General knows full well what are the rights of the parties, and what are the duties of a governor.
That statement, I submit, cannot be disregarded when we are considering the question of the proper constitutional practice in the present situation. If the amendment of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition were adopted, we would be putting on record in this country and incorporating as part of our parliamentary procedure a practice which does not exist in England, and one that would be a most pernicious one.
Let me recall an instance which comes to my mind of a case where a minister of the crown remained as minister although he did not have a seat in the House. In December, 1845, the great Gladstone became Colonial Secretary in the government of Sir Robert Peel. He again stood for election after his appointment, and was defeated, but still he remained in the government as Secretary for the Colonies until June, 1846, when the government retired. The matter was mentioned and discussed in the English House of Commons, but no hysterical declarations were made such as we have heard here as to the constitution being torn to pieces, because they were simply following the ordinary practice. Then again, in the Lloyd George government, Mr. Montagu ran for election as a member of that government, and was defeated, but he remained in office for almost six months, when he ran again, and was defeated a second time. It was not until after his second defeat that he gave up his portfolio. These are illustrations of the practice which obtains in the Mother Country.
Now what does my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition contend? Where are his precedents in the face of the precedents given by my colleague the Minister of Justice and myself? Let us look at his amusing suggestion. He apparently suggests to the House and the country that we should have retired and the Prime Minister should have suggested that my right hon. friend be sent for. What are the facts? There was a great and well-known dividing line between the party of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition and all the other parties running in the last election. This is a sample of the platform which my right hon. friend laid down. Speaking in Vancouver, my right hon.



Government's Right to Office
friend the leader of the opposition, as reported in the Vancouver Province, 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.
The great issue between the two parties in the last election was the tariff. I give tny right hon. friend credit for the manful way in which he stood by his guns and fought for high tariff.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member
permit me again? I have repeatedly in this House and elsewhere stated that I made no such assertion anywhere in Canada at any time.
Mr.	MACDONALD	(Antigonish-Guysborough): Then my hon. friend had better wrestle with the Vancouver Province, a paper which is friendly to him.


Arthur Meighen: It does not bother me.
Mr.	MACDONALD	(Antigonish-Guysborough):	Then take the Canadian Press
despatch in the Montreal Gazette:
We would give Canadian industry such an advantage as would enable it to function in the markets of the world.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.
Mr.	MACDONALD	(Antigonish-Guysborough):	Here it is given in another form
again in the Montreal Gazette.
He sought only to put Canadian farmers and manufacturers alike, on the same basis as their foreign competitor.
Some hon. MEM'BERS: Hear, hear.
Mr.	MACDONALD	(Antigonish-Guysborough):	Hon. members may cheer. I am
pointing out what the platform of their party was, and apparently they are proud of it. On the other hand wherever our Progressive friends ran in the west they were opposed to such a policy; they did not want a high tariff.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit me. Will he tell the House where he stands on the question of protection for iron and steel and coal?
Mr.	MACDONALD	(Antigonish-Guysborough):	I am opposed to any higher
protection on iron and steel.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about coal?
Mr.	MACDONALD	(Antigonish-Guysborough): Coal? We will deal with coal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.

Mr.	MACDONALD	(Antigonish-Guysborough):	In regard to coal I think the
present tariff rates are enough. There should be no general increase of duties throughout this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did you not put up the duty on coal?
Mr.	MACDONALD	(Antigonish-Guysborough): In the last election I was opposed to the policy of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) and to his high tariff policy. Here is the point, although my hon. friends opposite would like to get away from the issue. The situation was this: on one side was the Conservative party, with a policy for a higher tariff. On the other side were the Liberal party who were opposed to that policy. We, as a government have stated our policy in the Speech from the Throne wherein we promise to implement our views into legislation. I want to say further that to every item of policy declared in the Speech from the Throne this government, if it is sustained by the vote of the House, will adhere and will endeavour to place its policy on the statute books. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) entertained the idea that the government was-so childish that it would come and say " Mr. Meighen has got 116 votes and we have only got 101 and we recommend that His Excellency send for him." In other words that we should place in the hands of Mr. Meighen and his friends who are in favour of a high tariff, when they were in a minority in the House, the opportunity of putting their policy into effect, and of putting into effect also the new Hamilton policy of my right hon. friend. I want to say that there is no intelligent member of this House who thinks that should have been done, and that we have followed the constitutional course. We have come to this House, the high court of parliament, and are prepared to abide by the decision of hon. gentlemen who represent the whole people of Canada. The duties of government are such that those of us who have had long experience of public life are not looking to have imposed on us further unnecessary duties or arduous performances. We are willing to do our duty to the country if the task comes to us, and in this matter we will abide by the decision of the House; and the government will stand or fall by that decision. But I must say this to hon. members:	Do not let us be misled
by the issue as raised by this resolution. There is no hon. gentleman here, who has studied constitutional precedent, no hon. member who wants to do that which is right, and to follow the path which the statesmen and public men of Great Britain have blazed in

Government's Right to Office
regard to public affairs, who will be found voting for this resolution. Rather he will vote that it should be defeated and we will then proceed ito deal with the country's business and endeavour to advance its interests.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, I, in common with other members of the legal profession, recognize the soundness of the observations made by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) when he said on Friday last that he had much difficulty in appreciating the situation. For it is true that the matter involved is a more or less technical one. Nevertheless everyone who listened to the speech we heard this afternoon from that hon. member will realize that he is fully seized of the situation, and that what promised to be a complex and difficult question of law has, after the exposition made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), been clearly understood. I, for one could not fail to be impressed by the observations of the hon. member for North Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) when he inquired as to why we should follow British precedents. I am sure that we were all convinced, impressed with his sincerity and earnestness, but had he taken the trouble to look-and he is a very studious gentleman-he would have observed that the very preamble of our written constitution, the British North America Act, provides that the people of Canada were desirous of being federally united into one dominion, under the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. Hence it is that we appeal to the precedents of Great Britain and to the Mother of Parliaments rather than those of continental Europe for the purpose of determining our constitutional and parliamentary practice and procedure. I was struck also with his observations with respect to Lord Bryce s Modern Democracies. Now had my hon. friend taken the trouble to have turned over a few pages he would have observed these words:
Parties are inevitable. No free large country has been -without them. No one has shown how repre-.sentative government could be worked without them... Where there are small groups eaoh becomes a focus of intrigue, in which personal ambitions have scope. The -groups make bargains with one another and by their combinations, perhaps secretly and suddenly formed, successive ministries may be overturned, with injury to the progress of legislation and to the continuity of national policy. Since there must be parties, the -fewer and stronger they are the better.
These are the observations of Lord Bryce in the very volume to which my hon. friend
referred. While we were impressed with the earnestness of my hon. friend's observations we could not fail to realize that he in his suggestion that we should form a parliamentary 'Committee of this House, overlooked the historic fact connected with the Long Parliament when the Long Parliament, in days now forgotten, was organized into committees. That those committees were the prelude of the end of the Long Parliament is now a matter of history. Surely my hon. friend would not reproduce in Canada the Long Parliament's history with its committees. My hon. friend must also have forgotten that parliament does not consist merely of the popular House. It consists of something more than that, for in section 17 of the British North America Act these words appear:
There shall be one parliament for Canada, consisting of the queen, an upper house styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.
These triune factors constitute the parliament of this Dominion. It is not composed of this Commons House of parliament, nor yet of the Senate nor yet of the sovereign, because, thanks to the long development that has taken place in the years that have passed, the struggles of successive parliaments against the aggression of the sovereign, the struggle of the Commons against the Lords, the parliament of Canada now consists of the king, the Senate, the House of Commons. These three factors together constitute this parliament. And when it is suggested, as it has been, that a committee of this House should function as the government, it overlooks the essential fact that you have these three factors that make and constitute our parliament. I should like that essential fact to be borne in mind because it is at the bottom of our constitutional practice and procedure. We might answer the question, as to why we cling to British traditions and British precedents. In the language of Mr. Gladstone in his article " Kin Beyond the Seas ":
But there is no parallel in all the record of the world to the case of that prolific British Mother, who has sent forth her innumerable children over all the earth to be the founders of half dozen empires. She, with her progeny, may almost claim to constitute a kind of Universal Church in politics.
It is for these reasons that we adhere to British precedents andl to British authority; and when the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa)-whose elegant language, no less than the manner of its delivery impressed the House-referred to the desirability of our independent action I was reminded of the statement of Burke that an independent member of parliament is usually a member not to be

Government's Right to Office
depended upon. I commend those words to the consideration of parliament because Burke was worthy of example by the members of other parliaments in matters of that kind.
Now, the fact is, Sir, that this parliament has met under circumstances that are without precedent in the British Empire, without precedent in the long history of constitutional government and practice that has come down to us. For never, Sir, in the history of parliamentary institutions has parliament met under those circumstances without the Prime Minister being in either one House or the other. My hon. friend said that he would produce precedents to show that the practice that has been followed was the correct practice. I shall deal in some detail with those matters, for if there is a precedent I shall be glad to know of it, and 1 will give it my support at once. If there is any precedent by which the Prime Minister, the head of the administration, the head of the government-without which indeed there can be no government, without which there may be ministers but no ministry, no government, no cabinete-if there is any precedent that my hon. friend can produce, be he layman or lawyer, I shall indeed be glad, because this act, properly termed usurpation on the part of my hon. friends opposite, is not one on which any constitutional lawyer can look lightly or regard without profound regret.
Parliamentary law consists not of statutes alone. I read a moment ago a section from the British North America Act; that is the lex scripts, the written law. But there are customs, there are usages and there are traditions. A long series of precedents bound in the journals of the Houses of Parliament have come down to us through the ages, and they govern us quite as much as does the ,written law. Hence it was the late Sir William Anson wrote of the Law and Custom of the Constitution, not of the law of the constitution as something written, the lex scripta, but the law in custom, the lex par-liamenti, not written in the sense that it is crystallized in the form of law, but embodied,
I say, in the usages, customs, traditions and precedents which have come down to us through the ages, representing the struggle of free peoples against the sovereign on the one hand and the lords on the other, in order that a free parliament might function.
I have besidte me a number of authorities which I doubt not many members of this House have recently been reading. I intended to refer to some of them, but I will not trespass upon the time of the chamber beyond saying that you have Todd's great book as an 
authority; and it is a matter of pride with every Canadian to think that that book has been accepted as a great authority in every part of the world where representative institutions have been in vogue. We have many other great books. We have Dicey on the constitution, we have Anson on the Law and Custom of the constitution and many others. We have the journals and precedents of Speakers. We have all those things before us, and we have constitutional usages.
There is one other book to which I shall presently refer, and it is written foy a very eminent man, a man of great learning. He was a foreigner. I refer to ORedlich's book, The Procedure of the House of Commons. It is a book which will charm any reader, whether layman or lawyer. We have also the book written by Sir Erskine May, who was formerly Clerk of the House of Commons in England.
Custom and precedents have crystallized into law-not written law but the law of custom. So that at the present day we have a cabinet. In the days of King Charles we had a cabal. In days long prior to that they had a system of placemen; a number of placemen advised the sovereign, but the idea of a cabinet, a ministiy, a government, have been evolved from the necessities of the case. In the early days it was a committee of the king's privy council. Hon. members will recall that in our British North America Act there is a provision for the appointment of privy councillors-the King's Privy Councillors for Canada. In England and in Great Britain we had committees of the privy council. In time that became known as the cabinet, and later it became known as the ministry or the government of the day. I shall refer to some authorities with respect to that matter, because it seems to me to be of the utmost importance that this House should have a clear appreciation and understanding of what is involved in cabinet and cabinet responsibilities. I am sure if my learned and hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Macdonald, Antigonish-Guys-borough) had as carefully studied the precedents to which I shall refer before the meeting of parfiament as he did afterwards he would not have made the observations which he has just made. Parliamentary responsibility is really, so far as we are concerned, cabinet responsibility. Cabinet responsibility did not come easily. In the first instance, what had we? The king had favourites. Those of us who read Bingham's book on the Prime Ministers of England will recollect that the first volume deals with the chief ministers from' 920 to 1720; the second volume deals with the prime ministers from 1721 to 1921. He

Government's Right to Office
commences with Walpole in 1721 and deals with the prime ministers down to 1921, and points out how, under the development of the system of cabinet responsibility, the cabinet is a committee of parliament. It does not follow that all the members of the cabinet belong to the House of Commons, and indeed when I look at t'he composition of the present alleged government I find that two of them have been compelled to find their domicile and resting place-not only two but three- in the Senate. So that the cabinet is not entirely the creation of the Commons. It is not entirely composed of members of the Commons. It is composed1 of members of the Commons and the Lords. In the early days the monarch was able to govern for himself. George III tried to govern the country by himself. In the introduction to this book these words appear:
In England prime ministers are a comparatively modern institution. In the days of the Norman and Plantagenet monarchs the king himself directed and carried on the government of the country by the advice of his council. This he did through his own officer's and largely from his own revenues. Usually he chose these officers himself, though at times they were forced upon him. For the most part they were priests, the medieval ecclesiastics possessing considerable advantages over laymen in the way of education and of freedom from family ties. They often rose to great power and rivalled the King himself. Such were Flambart, Becket, Beaufort and Wolsey. Soldiers like de Montfort and Warwick were rarer and less permanent, while courtiers of the Gavcston or Despencer type had the least success. Most of these ministers, except occasionally the prelates, belonged to the nobility.
But after the Wars of the Roses nearly all the old families had disappeared. When Henry VII came to the throne the lay peers only totalled twenty-nine, one-third of what their numbers had been a hundred and fifty years earlier. The influence of the chureh was also diminishing, whilst two new classes, the landed gentry and the city merchants, were rapidly becoming literate and acquiring importance. The names of Howard, Seymour, Cecil, Cavendish and Russell now first rise into prominence, and the House of Commons is really beginning to count. After the commencement of Queen Elizabeth's reign there are only two instances of a bishop being Lord Chancellor or Lord Treasurer, while the Secretaries of State have ceased to be clerks. Nevertheless the sovereign is still paramount, presiding himself at his council and personally selecting his ministers.
Then we have further:
In 1688 another advance was made. The arbitrary power of the crown was definitely checked. Parliament became almost supreme, and a certain responsibility was compelled from the administration. King William, who acted largely as his own minister, took an active and constant .part in the government, but Queen Anne devolved more and more of her duties upon her councillors. Then came a fresh development. A foreign prince succeeded to the throne. Entirely dependent on the goodwill of a parliamentary majority, and speaking hardly any English, he could not effectively control that committee of the council which was gradually growing into a cabinet. He was averse to
political business and became attached to a single minister. The minister, who led the House of Commons, was also the leader of the Whigs and was supported by the great families of the Revolution.
Then I pass his discussion of the Prime Minister and how he came into being, but he continues :
The Prime Minister, besides being the leader of the government and of that house of the legislature in which he sits, is almost invariably the leader of one of the chief political .parties, or of a section of one.
There is no doubt that the sovereign no longer selects his ministers. That day is past. He selects his chief minister and his chief minister submits for approval to the sovereign or his representative the names of the members of his cabinet. As my learned and hon. friend says, they may be out of parliament for the moment. They are entrusted with the responsibility of taking action collectively or individually with the cabinet in council. The last case I know of a ministry resigning with one member, ^ an appointee of the sovereign, not resigning, was before confederation in Nova Scotia when a motion was earned by twenty-nine to twenty-two against the government and the premier resigned. All his colleagues went out of office except one, and that one, the selection of the representative of the sovereign, he had himself to dismiss. Hon. members will recall that in this House when t'he Minister of Railways resigned in 1907, he directed! his letter of resignation not to the representative of the sovereign, but to the Prime Minister for the time being, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. So it is that those who hold office under the crown no longer are the servants of the crown in the sense in which that term was used in the days of the Georges, but are now dominated, to use the language of the books, by the Prime Minister. He is the dominant member of the Cabinet. He must, from necessity, be a member of the cabinet. He must, from necessity, be a member of the Privy Council. But tlie other members that comprise and constitute that Privy Council are subordinate to him. The position is shortly put in these words in a book which was published l-ate last year:
The essential characteristic of the Prime Minister's position is his right to choose the other ministers, as the essence of his power is the indispensability conferred upon him by the turn of party politics.
Then the writer proceeds and I commend this to the consideration and attention of the House:
As in this latter respect, so in the former also, Pitt's career was of decisive importance. George Ill's efforts to control the composition of cabinets had won a great success in Pitt's accession to power; even at their least successful they had always been effective

Government's Right to Office
enough to secure the admission to the cabinet of at least one royal nominee, habitually to hold the Chancellorship, the most dignified of all offices, with a special relation to the king's person and a special need for more than party qualifications. The possession of these qualifications, combined with an unscrupulous subservience to the crown, had made Lord Thurlow a continual Chancellor, a blessing to his royal master and a curse to his political colleagues. In 1792 Pitt, determined to be cursed with him no longer, gave George the alternative of authorizing the dismissal of the Chancellor or accepting the resignation of the Premier. It was Thurlow who went, and though the crown's preferences have no doubt influenced the composition of later cabinets, yet since that time no monarch has made a minister.
That is the position with respect t-o ministerial! appointments. At chapter 5 the author proceeds:
In reliance on Bagehot, Morley, and Low I have taken the distinguishing marks of the cabinet to be these: responsibility collective as well as individual; dependence immediately on the House of Commons, and ultimately on the electors; political homogeneity, that is, selection from one party; subordination to a prime minister; secrecy; the function of effecting and controlling co-operation between executive and legislature.
Hon. gentlemen will observe these words: "subordination to a prime minister," and "dependence immediately on the House of Commons." For while the House of Lords in England may pass a vote of no confidence in the ministry, no vote of lack of confidence in the administration passed by the House of Lords is sufficient to divest that administration of authority, and so no adverse vote in the Senate house of parliament in this country can divest a government of its position as such. But you will observe, Sir, that it is propounded by all the books and authorities- by Mr. Gladstone in his Gleanings, to which reference might be made in his stately phrases, that while it is not essential in the inception that ministers should be members of parliament when they are called to be such, nevertheless, they must within a reasonable time find that position. When my learned and hon. friend referred, as he did, to the case of Mr. Gladstone in Newark in 18'45 and 1846, he overlooked the fact that Mr. Gladstone in his later years looked back upon that instance and believed it would not be possible now under our modem system of government. As regards the case to which my hon. friend refers, it was Mr. Masterman, not Mr. Montagu he had in mind, in Mr. Lloyd George's government. He was defeated twice, but he did not resign his portfolio because at the moment the nation was at war, and as has been said by constitutional writers whether in new editions of old works or new works themselves, you can draw no inferences worthy of authority from instances that happened during 
the war. That is the position with respect to these matters.
Let us see, for the moment, what we have in common. First we have emerged from the twilight-the cabinet a committee of parliament. Then we have its responsibility to parliament, and thus it is that every department that we have in our public service provides for a minister. I was looking up the chapters of our revised statutes which provide, for instance, for a minister of railways, a minister of justice, a minister of trade and commerce, and each statute provides that the department shall ibe presided over by a minister and that minister shall be known and designated as the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Railways or Minister of Justice. These need not be, and indeed in many instances they are not, members of the House of Commons. They may be members of the Senate house of parliament. But we have this distinct and clear principle established, that in Canada responsibility, so far as the life of an administration is concerned, is to the House of Commons, and, secondly, that a Prime Minister must be a member of either one house or the other.
Let us content ourselves with those two principles for the moment and see if we can find any authority or precedent that will warrant our concluding that when the Prime Minister took the course he did of meeting parliament rather than resigning, he was breaking with parliamentary practice and procedure established in parliament for nearly a century. Until this House met the other day without the Prime Minister his course was, in my judgment, legally sound. I have no hesitation in saying that the language employed by my learned and hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) as to the right of a Prime Minister to meet parliament rather than to resign is absolutely legally correct. My reading of history is that in 1868 Mr. Disraeli for the first time established the principle that after defeat in a general election he would not wait to meet parliament, but would resign, and so when parliament met a few days later after the return to the last writ had been made, Mr. Disraeli was in his seat as an ordinary member of parliament and the treasury benches were empty because Mr. Gladstone had not been able to complete his administration. Up to that point, then, Mr. Disraeli, according to all writers on constitutional and parliamentary practice, had established a new precedent. It did not follow that that course would always be pursued, although it has been pursued in Canada without question until the

Government's Right to Office
present time. Sir Charles Tupper and Sir Wilfrid Laurier both resigned office as, indeed, did the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). These are the precedents that mark the situation in Canada. I do not, however, question at all the legal right of Mr. King if he so desired to advise His Excellency to meet parliament. And he has done so. But who was to meet parliament? That is the question. Who is it that should have met parliament? Mr. King ought to have met parliament. His advice to the sovereign's representative was that he would meet parliament, because without a head there is no committee of the House of Commons responsible to parliament. I shall go a step further and read from Gladstone, on this point, an opinion which will commend itself to the approval of every hon. member of this House. But let us see first how the present situation stands. Mr. King's death would dissolve his administration, as indeed the administration of Mr. Perceval was dissolved when he was assassinated on coming into the lobby of the House of Commons. And a government is dissolved also upon its resignation. But more still does the failure of a prime minister to find a place in either house of parliament, when he meets the people's representatives, dissolve his administration. And why? Simply because the essence of parliamentary government is responsibility both to the crown and to the people; and the only medium of communication between the houses of parliament and the sovereign is the Prime Minister. That principle is established by the very authorities to whom my learned and hon. friend referred. The Prime Minister and the Prime Minister alone is the medium of communication between the sovereign and this House and yonder House, The fact is so clearly understood that I do not think it need be discussed. Although it is the right of every minister, if he so desires, to see the representative of the sovereign and to discuss with him his personal attitude towards any policy, he must in so doing assume the responsibility of being possibly sometimes unconsciously disloyal to his colleagues. In such a situation he can speak only for himself. But the constitutional responsibility devolves upon the first minister of being the sole medium of communication between this parliament of Canada and the representative of the sovereign; upon no one else does that responsibility rest. It is true that we have a great deal of "acting'' in this House: we have acting ministers of trade and commerce, acting ministers of immigration and acting ministers of railways. There are all sorts of acting ministers. But there can be no acting prime minister within the constitution 14011-4	.
in this House. If Mr. King had found a place in the Senate on the day parliament met, then indeed the requirements of the constitution would have been met, for undoubtedly it was necessary that he should have a seat in one of the houses. But he found no place in this House, nor did he obtain a seat in the Senate. And why is it essential that as Prime Minister he should be here? Mr. Gladstone makes that point so clear that it need only be stated to be immediately perceived. The Prime Minister should sit here as head of the cabinet or the committee or council of parliament to be answerable to the House for the acts of his government. He is answerable to parliament; the responsibility is his. He it was who appointed the ministers of the crown, approved by the Governor General; he it was who asked these gentlemen to join him in the administration of the government, and he should therefore be here to answer for the conduct of the government which he led. The individual ministers, it is true, are here to speak for themselves, but the Prime Minister should be in his place in parliament to answer for the collective action of his government, to defend the policies of his administration, and to bear the responsibility of his office. The Prime Minister should be here to be questioned in order that the representatives of the people in the House of Commons or the members of the Senate might be able to obtain from him when necessary some explanation of the conduct of his government touching public matters. That is why the law, not the written law but the law of parliamentary practice and procedure of over half a century, has always contemplated the presence of the Prime Minister in one or other of the houses of parliament.
An important case which ought to be cited was entirely overlooked by my hon. friend, the case of Gladstone in 1874. I shall cite it for the information of the House; for the great name of Gladstone, when it comes to any question of the assertion of the rights of parliament, is still supreme. The name of Gladstone has long been associated purely with the (Liberal party, but in relation to the development of our parliamentary institutions that name is the common heritage of every man, Liberal or Conservative. Let me quote from the Memorials Personal and Political of Rounded, first Earl of Selborne, who was Lord Chancellor under Gladstone. His character and position were such that any observations made by him are entitled to the greatest possible consideration. He was perhaps Gladstone's closest friend, and so strong were his convictions that he refused

[DOT] 50

Government's Right to Office
the great office of Lord Chancellor for conscience' sake on one occasion, although he later succeeded to it. I now read from his persona] and political memorials, volume 1. page 326. While it may be a little tedious for the House to listen, I do crave its indulgence during my reading of the record of a transaction that more nearly touches the present situation than any other that I know of.
Late in January 1874, after parliament had been summoned to meet for business on the 5th of February, Gladstone resolved upon an immediate dissolution. I believe that the motive for then taking that step was the difficulty in which he found himself about his seat for Greenwich.
After the prorogation in August, some changes had been made in the distribution of government offices; one of which was the removal of Lowe from the Exchequer to the Home Office, and Gladstone's assumption of the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, in conjunction with that which he already held of First Lord of the Treasury. Strange to say, this was done without considering at the time whether it would vacate his seat (by no means a safe one) or not. The law upon the subject was contained in two statutes, one of Queen Anne's reign, the other Mr. Disraeli's Reform Act of 1867. The earlier Act made the election of any member of the House of Commons void on his acceptance of any office of profit from the crown, and directed a new writ to issue as if he were dead, enabling him to be re-elected. The Chancellorship of the Exchequer was certainly an office of profit under the crown; and Mr. Gladstone drew half of its salary, in addition to that of First Lord of the Treasury. The later act enumerated in a schedule certain offices,- among them, those of Commissioner of the Treasury, and Chancellor of the Exchequer;- enacting that, when a person had been returned to parliament after the acceptance of any one of those offices, his subsequent acceptance from the crow'n of any other office or offices described in the same schedule, "in lieu of and in immediate succession the one to the other'', should not vacate his seat. Gladstone received the seals of Chancellor of the Exchequer early in August, and neither then nor ofterwards ceased to be First Lord of the Treasury; though, as usual in such cases, a new patent was issued, reconstituting the Treasury Board, with the omission of Lowe's name, and including Gladstone as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My own impression was that the seat for Greenwich was vacated: I could not see how, continuing for every practical purpose to hold his former office, and now adding to it a new office (for which he also received pay), it could be said that the one was "in lieu of'', or "in succession to'', the other. I told him so, before I knew what any one else thought, on the 20th of August, when he was at Balmoral. In reply, he sent me a copy of a letter which he had written to the Speaker; by which it appeared that Sir George Jessel thought differently; and it was intended to obtain further adv;ce. His own view (which he supposed to be Jessel's also) was, that when the new patent, reconstituting the Treasury Board, was issued, there was an end of the office of First Lord, which he held under the patent superseded by it; and that "in lieu of", and "in succession to" it, he took a new commissionersihip, brought into existence by the new patent, in respect of which he again became First Lord; and that the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer was "attached by usage" to one of the Com-missionerships of the Treasury-so that the conditions of the statute of 1867 were satisfied. He was under

the impression that both Lowe and the attorney general (Coleridge) concurred in Sir George Jessel's opinion: and, later in the same month, he sent me a memorandum, drawn up by a permanent officer of the treasury, in support of the same view.
I am sorry, Sir, to be so tedious in reading this, but it is the one case that so nearly touches this that I think the House should have the benefit of it at any rate.
In the meantime the matter was undergoing public discussion: and I found that Lowe, who visited me during that autumn at Blackmoor, was far from being of Gladstone's mind; and that Coleridge also must have been misunderstood. Coleridge wrote to me on November 6, just after his nomination to be Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, that he regarded the question as "very serious," and suggested that he should meet myself, Sir Henry James, and Mr. Bowen, to consider it. And Lord Young, a most able jawyer, recently Gladstone's Lord-Advocate for Scotland, wrote anxiously from Edinburgh, expressing his opinion that the case could not be brought within the exceptions introduced by the Act of 1867 to the general rule: he thought the question "serious and alarming," and understood that it would certainly be raised when parliament met.
Now comes^ Mr. Speaker, what I conceive to be tlie most important -part of this matter:
I told Gladstone of these communications: it was for him to decide whether a meeting of myself and the law officers, as was suggested by Coleridge, should be held or not: he did not seem unwilling; but the matter never came to that point. It wras allowed to stand over until the time for the meeting of parliament drew near. It was at least sufficiently grave to require deliberate consideration from the House of Commons, and there was the risk of formidable penalties, if he sat and voted in the House when, in ,point of law, his seat was vacant. What was to be done? He was sensible of the difficulty (as he put it in writing to myself on September	19),	of either	taking his seat	inthe usual manner at	the	opening	of the session,	orletting the Address be voted, an amendment (perhaps vital to the government) disposed of, and the necessary arrangements for business in the House of Commons made in the Prime Minister's absence. A dissolution was the only escape:	and	I have never doubted thatthis was the determining	cause of	the dissolution	of
January 1874.
Mr. Gladstone, with his parliamentary majority behind him, felt that he could not permit parliament to meet and an Address ta be voted unless he was present in either house of parliament.
Now the late Lord Macnaghten once observed that in his time no man was more meticulously careful in his statements of fact than Lord Selborne, or Roundell Palmer, as he was known. We find Mr. Morley, in his Life of Mr. Gladstone, adverting to and referring to this circumstance. It is to Lord Morley that I now aippeal, because Lord Morley was clearly of the opinion that Mr. Gladstone could not possibly say that he had met parliament unless he was present as Prime Minister in either one house or the other. Mr. Morley puts it:

Government's Right to Office
Everybody knew that in case of an election Mr. Gladstone's seat was not safe, though when the time came he was in fact elected. The final state and the outlook could not be better described than in a letter from Lord Halifax to Mr. Gladstone (Dec. 9):-
. . . . Up to the meeting of parliament you clearly must act as if there was no doubt. If you do not, you almost admit being wrong. You must assume yourself to be right, that you are justified in the course which you have taken, and act consistently on that view. When parliament meets, I think the proper course would be for the Speaker to say that he had received a certificate of vacancy from two members, but not the notice from the member himself, and having doubts he referred the matter to the House, according to the act. This ensures the priority of the question, and calls on you to explain your not having sent the notice. You state the facts as above, place yourself in the hands of the House, and withdraw.
Now I put to the House, Sir, this position, that Mr. Morley was clearly of the opinion that it could not be said that the .ministry of Gladstone had met- parliament unless Gladstone himself was there. He himself felt that was so. And so in this case, Sir, it cannot be said under any circumstances that parliament has been met by the ministry, unless the Prime Minister-the alleged Prime Minister-is in his place in or a member of either house of parliament.
Now let us read a moment what Mr. Gladstone says himself as to the desirability of a member of the government finding a seat in one house of parliament or the other; I again quote him:
Soon after the session of 1816 began, it became known that the protectionist .petition against the Peelite or Libera! sitting member for Wigan was likely to succeed in unseating him, proposals were made to me to succeed .him, which were held to be eligible, I even wrote my address; on a certain day I was going down by the mail train. But it was an object for our opponents to keep a secretary of state out of parliament during the corn law crisis, and their petition was suddenly withdrawn. The consequence was that I remained until the resignation of the government in July, a minister of the crown without a seat in parliament. This was a state of things not agreeable to the spirit of .parliamentary government.
This is Mr. Gladstone:
And some Objection was taken, but rather slightly, in the House of Commons. Sir R. Peel stood fire.
Now proceeds Mr. Morley:
There can be little doubt that in our own day a cabinet minister without a seat in either house of parliament would be regarded, in Mr. Gladstone's words, as a public inconvenience and a political anomaly too dark to be tolerated.
The language of Mr. Morley is, "too dark", and he emphasizes the word "dark"

"too dark to be tolerated". That is exactly the position to which I am coming.
I have alluded to 1846 because my learned and hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald, Antigonish-Guysborough) seemed to attach some im-
14011-4i
portance to it, and I venture to point out to him that in his later years it is recorded that when Mr. Gladstone saw fit to refer to the incident he deprecated it, and Morley said that it would be "too dark to be tolerated." What was too dark for Morley to tolerate is not too dark for King to sanction. That is the position you must take.
Let us go a step further. An Address from His Excellency has been presented to parliament. Whose is it? It is certain that this parliament in the light of the observations made by Mr. Gladstone himself and by the Earl of Selborne, had a right to say that the Prime Minister should be at least in one house of parliament or the other in respect to that Address. The Address is supposed to be the emanation of the mind and brain of the Prime Minister. His colleagues assist, it is said, but he is responsible for the writing of it. I took the trouble this morning to look at the Canadian Almanac to ascertain who constitute the government of this country, and I find that op November 19 a record was sent to that publication that the government consisted of a number of gentlemen, some of whom are now opposite me, some of whom are in the Senate, but some of whom have a seat neither in the Senate nor the Commons. I refer to Mr Marler and Mr. Vincent Massey, who never were departmental heads. Are these ministers of His Excellency? Are they responsible for this speech? "My .ministers advise me", so and so. Are these the men who are responsible? To whom? To this House? To yonder House? Whom are these men responsible to who have no seat in either House? We are told that the former Minister of Railways, Mr. Graham, has no intention of remaining. We are told of the speech made by Mr. Marler to the Reform Club of Montreal on New Year's Day, in which he indicated the legislative programme of the present alleged administration. But who are these men? To the law they are strangers, in this House they are strangers. We have had placed before us a list of the members of the House of Commons and of the Senate. You look in vain for the name of King; you look in vain for .the name of Marler; you look in vain for the name of Massey; you look in vain for the name of Graham; you look in vain for the name of Low. And yet, Sir, I am told-I only know it from hearsay-that these men are the advisers of the sovereign.
Could anything be more disastrous to parliamentary institutions? .Never has parliament been flouted in this manner before-in Canada at any rate. What did Sir John A Macdonald do? Defeated in Kingston as he was

Government's Right to Office
not able to take his seat for Marquette, he went out to Victoria and ran in order that he might, as Prime Minister, meet the new parliament. Never has the authority of this parliament, never has the authority of the Commons or of the Senate been flouted as on this occasion. I, Sir, again defy any gentleman in this House or out of it to point to a single instance in the long centuries of British parliamentary history where there has been a meeting of parliament by a discredited and decimated administration asking confidence from the Commons, without the presence of a prime minister in either house.
The other day His Excellency opened parliament. He was met at the door of the Senate chamber by a member of the Imperial Privy Council. When his Speech from the Throne was read, at his right there was a right hon. member of that Privy Council. But, Sir, there was no Prime Minister. He who had been was simply a witness, as the judges and military officers were, of a great pageant. What is more, Sir, a few dlays ago I happened to observe that in London certain Radical members of the English House of Commons, desiring to clear the gallery and thereby, as they thought, retard business or prevent it being carried1 on, said, " I spy strangers." The cry was repeated, " I spy strangers," and the Speaker cleared the galleries, and if a privy councillor who met his Excellency the other day, and who stood on his right as a witness in the Senate house of parliament were in these galleries and strangers were spied, the galleries would be cleared and he could1 not remain within the precincts of this House. And yet, Sir, we are told that that is responsible government! We are (told that that is an observance of parliamentary practice and procedure. I know there are no men in all this parliament who care more for precedent and have greater regard for tradition than my hon. friend the Minister of Justice and those associated with him from the province of Quebec. Why? Because upon a true andl lasting regard for these things are built their rights and privileges and their very parliamentary life, I appeal to them, ad the custodians for the time being, of all that great body of tradition and parliamentary law that is unwritten to say whether or not they believe that under these circumstances parliament is properly functioning, when you have an Address and a Speech from the Throne without a government being properly constituted. Are we to create a precedent to bind posterity by asserting that parliament has been properly summoned
[Mr Bennett.]
under existing circumstances with no Prime Minister in either Chamber?
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the House rose
at six o'clock I was inviting my hon. friends from Quebec to consider this matter from the standpoint of the effect upon our constitutional system of a disregard of conventions and customs. May I now ask them what they think the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier would have thought under similar circumstances? May I ask them what they think he would have done? I recall the circumstances-they are as fresh in my memory as if the incident had occurred yesterday-under which one Miller was brought to the bar of the House for the purpose of being sentenced for violation of the rights of the House in declining to answer a question that was asked him. I remember the casual if not flippant manner in which the subject was being treated by the members of his own party, especially by one of the most distinguished and resourceful members of the opposition. I recall that the leader of the opposition rose in his place-those of you who were members of parliament at that time and are here to-day will recall the circumstance- and spoke of the great traditions of parliament and how they must be observed. I recollect also speaking to Sir Wilfrid Laurier afterwards as to the effect which had been made upon my mind by one who had had his experience of parliamentary institutions stating that these great traditions must be observed and preserved. I feel quite certain, Sir, that if he had been leading his party now, if they had had the 'benefit of his sage counsel and advice, the situation would not have arisen that has developed here to-day.
I desire to repeat to you, Sir, and to the members of this House that what we complain of is not a violation of the law but a violation of those customs, conventions and practices under which our parliamentary institutions have been created. In that regard I will venture to trespass once more upon the time of the House by quoting from Redlich:
The history of -the rise of parliamentary ministry in England accounts for the further remarkable facts that to the present day the fundamental principle of its existence, the necessity that each of "His Majesty's servants" should be a member of one of the Houses of Parliament, has never been explicitly laid down, and that the "Cabinet" and "Prime Minister" are not juristic ideas incorporated in any positive statement of English constitutional law. In all these cases wTe are dealing with what Freeman has called the "Con-

Government's Right to Office
ven toons of Parliament," the fundamental principles and arrangements which parliament, after attaining a position of political sovereignty, lias worked out in the course of two centuries, and maintained by the unaided force of its practice. By custom alone, without any legislative regulation, they have been kept intact, and have become the veiy essence of the living constitutional law of England.
I commend those words to this House. It is because of violation of these conventions, customs, and traditions that we are presenting this amendment to the motion. May I illustrate the matter in this way? The British North America. Act is a statute of the Imperial parliament at Westminster. It is legally competent for that parliament to repeal that statute to-morrow. Only three weeks ago in an argument before the Privy Council, Lord Dunedin in discussing this same matter said "I suppose it would foe Competent for the parliament at Westminster to repeal the British North America Act?" And counsel had to answer at once:	"Certainly."
But there is no chance of it ever being done. It would be a violation of all those constitutional rights that we have achieved; our constitution itself would then be abrogated. May I cite another illustration? In 1920, when the British government requisitioned this government with respect to ships, the Canadian government took the position that although it possibly might be legal for them so to do, yet by custom, by tradition, and by convention it would not be constitutionally sound to take such a course, and the imperial authorities yielded the point. I could illustrate it in other ways. That is what I meant this afternoon when I said to the House 'that the course taken by Mr. King was correct-meaning that he had the sanction trf law but not of that great body of custom, usage and practice that we call the custom of the constitution. It is the violation of this practice that we complain of and not the violation of law. That is the position I desire to make plain to the House?
I might go further in showing the value Of what these customs and practices have secured to us by reading from Todd's Government of the British Colonies a [reference to the fact that in 'the commissions issued to governors in the early days they were instructed that their ministers must have seats in parliament. For these reasons I ask the House to pause and consider fully what is meant by observing customs and traditions. I know, Sir, that the late revered leader of the great party that now sits to the right of the Speaker was one of the most profound students of our constitutional system and our parliamentary practice that ever occupied a, seat on the
floor of the House of Commons. I also know that the slightest disregard of that system and practice was by him looked upon as bad judgment never to be repeated or tolerated. I do, therefore, submit to my hon. friends who come from the province of Quebec that they should pause, examine, analyse, and consider carefully what is here involved. If they do this I am sure they will find that there has been a violation of British parliamentary custom, and practice as settled under the development of our institutions.
Now, Sir, may I place one other quotation before the House? I know how weaiy hon. members are of hearing these quotations, but I make this citation in answer to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) who said this afternoon, that there is no legal usage of this country which requires ministers of the crown to hold seats in either house of this parliament. That is true, but it is an incomplete statement of the situation. Gladstone, in his Gleanings of Past Years, said:
There as no statute or legal usage of this country which requires that the ministers of the crown should hold seats in the one or the other house of parliament. It is perhaps upon this account that, while most of any countrymen would, as I suppose, declare it to be a becoming and convenient custom, yet comparatively few are aware how near the seat of life the observance lies, how closely it is connected with the equipoise and unity of the social forces. It is rarely departed from, even in an individual case; never, as far as rny knowledge goes, on a wider scale. From accidentail circumstances it happened that I was a secretary of state between December 1845 and July 1846, without a seat in the House of Commons. This (which did not pass wholly without challenge) is, I believe, by much the most notable instance for the last fifty years; and it is only within the last fifty years that our constitutional system has completely settled down. Before the reform of parliament, it was always easy to find a place for a minister excluded from his seat; as Sir Robert Peel, for example, ejected from Oxford University, at once found refuge and repose at Tamwonth. I desire to fix attention on the identification, in this country, of the minister with the member of a house of parliament.
It is, as to the House of Commons especially, an inseparable and vital part of our system. The association of the ministers with the parliament, and through the House of Commons with the .people, is the counterpart of their association as ministers with the crown and the prerogative. The decisions that they take are taken under the competing pressure of a bias this way and a bias that way, and strictly represent what is termed in mechanics the composition of forces. Upon them, thus placed, it devolves to provide that the houses of parliament shah loyally counsel and serve the crown, and that, the crown shall act strictly in accordance with its obligations to the nation. I will not presume to say whether the adoption of the rule in America would or would not lay the foundation of a great change in the federal constitution; but I am quite sure that the abrogation of it in England would either alter the form of government, or bring about a crisis.
Alas, Gladstone has been dead many years. Had he lived he could have seen a Canadian

Government's Right to Office
government violating on a wider scale a principle which in his lifetime he said had never except rarely been departed from. Then he refers to his own case that my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald, Antigonish-Guysboroughl mentioned this afternoon. He mentions how wrong the action then taken was, and says:
I desire to fix attention on the identification, in this country, of the minister with the member of a House of Parliament.
It is, as to - the House of Commons especially, an inseparable and vital part of our system.
Then comparing the American system he said:
I will not presume to say whether the adoption of the rule in America would or would not lay the foundation of a great change in the federal constitution; but I am quite sure that the abrogation of it in England would either alter the form of government, or bring about a crisis.
So if, Sir, we on this side of the House direct attention to the crisis in the nation's affairs, we are directing attention to a most vital matter. Gladstone in 1878, when writing to his kinsmen beyond the seas, said a departure from that rule would involve a change in the government in the British Isles or bring about a crisis. That is the reason we are so insistent in this matter and venture to reiterate it, because there is something more than t'he mere life of the government, more than the question of who should sit on the treasury benches. There is the making of a precedent which will be important for many years to come. We have the statement of Gladstone, which I have read, made in 1878 with all the wealth of his experience and vast knowledge of the working of the parliamentary system; and how can we lightly depart from the precepts and counsels that he has left behind him as landmarks to guide our steps in the making of our constitution? It is on this that I appeal to you. Far be it from me in any personal spirit to direct attention to these matters. I agree that we need not approach the matter in any bitterness of spirit. All we have to do is to lay before this parliament the precedents, usages, traditions and rules that have governed our institutions, and ask that they be considered in their bearing on the future of our country.
Gladstone went one step further-and I cannot resist the reading of this, because it is so important in determining the exact attitude we should adopt towards this question. He said:
Every one of its members acts in no less than three capacities: as administrator of a department of state; as member of a legislative chamber; and as a confidential adviser of the crown. Two at least of them add to those three characters a fourth; for in each Rouse of Parliament it is indispensable that one of the principal ministers should ibe what is termed its leader.
[Mr Bennett.]
He reports to the sovereign its proceedings, and he also has many audiences of the august occupant of the throne. He is bound, in these reports and audiences, not to counterwork the cabinet; not do divide it; not to undermine the position of any of his colleagues in the royal favour.
Then he points out this:
More it must be admitted, than any other, it leaves open doors which lead into blind alleys; for it presumes, more boldly than any other, the good sense and good faith of those who work it. If, unhappily, these personages meet together, on the great arena of a nation's fortunes, as jockeys meet upon a racecourse, each to urge to the uttermost, as against the others, the power of the animal he rides, or as counsel in a court, each to procure the victory of his client, without respect to any other interest or right; then this boasted constitution of ours is neither more nor less than a heap of absurdities.
Those are the words of that great Liberal statesman, and, Sir, may I venture to point out that good faith in the working of the constitution is the basis of its successful operation. Let us observe What has token place, and ask this question:	can it be said for a moment
that if Mr. King can thus defy precedent and custom for four months he may not be able to do it for a year? What assurance have we in this House that this violation of constitutional custom may not continue for any term you will? What does it mean? My hon. friends yonder have not, it seems to me, grasped this, and I put it to them with deference, because it is a complicated, difficult matter. I do not say I can do it clearly, but I should like to have hon. members consider the question seriously. This House is asked, by the amendment which has been moved, to say before we enter upon any conduct of public business: "Mr. King, you have violated tlhe constitutional customs of the country;" and to declare, for these reasons, that he should not be permitted to grasp power and endeavour to rule this country by a. tritk. He Should not in bad faith be able to set at naught the constitutional precedents and the customs by which our institutions have 'been created. But what do those who sit to the right of the Speaker wish to d;o? They wish to substitute for the past the hope of the future. They, Sir, in the words of Gladstone, are like the jockey. They say, "Behold not what we have done in the pad. but look only to what we are going to do in t'he future. Give us a vote, not on what we have done in our violation of the constitution and departure from custom, but upon what we are going to do." It is as dear as noon-day. Try if you will to separate the past from the present and to see them only as those who sit in high places ready to dispense largesse. Instead of giving serious, calm and dispassionate

Government's Right to Office
consideration to a constitutional problem, they desire to substitute the promises of a railway and rural credit. They desire, instead of the mind of the House being directed to the violation of the constitution to practice and custom, to give attention to future tariffs. Instead of directing attention to the violation of all these conventions which we have secured through centuries of effort, they say "Behold not these things, think not upon them; let the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) look not on these things but think only of the fleshpots of Egypt of to-morrow."
Sir, there is a fundamental difference which divides us to-night. On the one hand the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), realizing, appreciating, understanding his duties, his obligations, his responsibilities to this parliament and the parliaments that are to come, is not content to be thought a bidder for power at an auction sale. He has no king's speech; he has not usurped power; he does not come down, at the instance of a rump of a former Cabinet, to ask members to give their allegiance to him for the future. No, Sir, we are not content to do that. We direct the attention of ithis parliament to what has been done in the name of law. We direct attention to the violations of the constitution, to the departure from custom, to the violation of precedent, and we have no bids to make.
One step further. I said this afternoon what I desire, with your permission, Sir, to make more clear to the House this evening. The Prime Minister, at the expiratibn of the election, should resign or meet parliament. Who could resign? No one but the Prime Minister. Who could meet parliament? He only who could resign, namely, the Prime Minister. Let me make that clear. Under our constitution no one but Mr. Mackenzie King could resign. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) could not resign for him, but the Prime Minister could resign for my hon. friend. There is the difference with respect to that, and the alternatives are of equal value-resign or meet parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is what we are doing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, you have confused
the point. You could not resign. Only the Prime Minister could resign, and as the Prime Minister only could resign, he only could meet parliament; the one who is capable of doing the resigning must be the one who accepts the other alternative, namely meets parliament. I want to make that clear, because. it seems to me, that is the basis of all
our constitutional position. That is the basis of what Lord Selborne referred to, the basis of the observations of Lord Morley and Gladstone.
The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) this afternoon struck, it appears to me, a high note. Any man who is a member of this House must have been profoundly affected by his speech. In fair, dispassionate language he attributed blame to the one party and blame to the other. I am not at all conceding that I agree with his affixing blame or credit to either party. He impressed upon the members of his own group and, indeed, all the members of the House, the seriousness of the position that was occupied by the members of that group. Let me analyse the figures for a moment, and they are amazing when you look at them. My hon. friend did not half state them. My right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) the other day did not give them in their entirety to the House. In my own province of Alberta, in the constituency of Acadia, 6,843 votes were cast against this administration and only 1,552 for it. In Battle River 6,701 votes were cast against the Liberal government and only 1,690 for it. In Bow River 6,690 men and women voted against King's administration and only 2,917 for it. In Camrose 5,611 men and women voted against the Liberal government and only 1,885 for it. In Macleod the enormous number of 9,182 voted against the administration and only 1,941 for it. In Red Deer we have 5,880 votes against the administration with only 2,462 for it, while in Yegreville, where there was a contest between a Progressive and a Liberal only, you find that the present hon. member for that constituency had 5,103 votes and the Liberal candidate 2,643. In Saskatchewan . in four constituencies the same tale may be told. In Manitoba in three constituencies the same is the record. With respect to Independents in Quebec and in Ontario the situation is very similar. In the light of those figures how could anyone fail to be impressed with the moving logic of the hon. member for Kindersley? How could he, representing in a democracy the will of a free people, come into this parliament and say: "I vote for King's administration?" After all it is love of democracy that influences the actions, conduct and practice of the Progressive party in this and in other parliaments and in local legislatures. How could one do other than the hon. member for Kindersley did to-day? How could one with selfrespect, voicing the sentiments and thoughts of his thousands of constituents, rise in his place in parliament and say: "I vote for Mr. COMMONS
Government's Right to Office
King who is not here?" How could that be done? Let each of us ask himself if he would do it. I appreciate the situation fully and I understand his difficulty as he unfolded it to the House. I am sure there is not a member of this House who did not appreciate and understand the situation as it was put before him.
There is another phase of the position of affairs to which I will refer. I remember in the city of Calgary, one portion of which I have the honour to represent, hearing one who is the titular Prime Minister of this country make a speech in which he referred to my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) then Prime Minister of Canada, as a usurper of power in 1921. He said that his continuing to carry on government was a usurpation of power. It is common 'ground that the government of that day had a large majority in this House. It was functioning, carrying on government; it had a substantial and powerful majority without assistance from another group behind it. Yet the then leader of the opposition in that city, as he did on other platforms, charged the government of the day with usurpation of power and authority. It must be remembered that my hon. and learned friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) also made speeches in the same sense. I find that in Hansard of 1921, volume I at page 461, he uses these words:
This government is no longer in harmony with public opinion and has utterly lost the confidence of the country. Indeed, it has not only lost the country's confidence; it has earned its contempt.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr BENNETT:: I am glad to hear my hon. friends say "hear, hear," for I realize they now appreciate the applicability of this to themselves. (My learned1 and hon. friend continues :
No government has the moral right-
Now we are on the high ground of morality.
-to pass legislation under such circumstances.
Does he think so now?


Ernest Lapointe: Surely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then resign. He goes on:
The result of the by-elections cannot be misread; they are bold, definite and unequivocal.
Unfortunately they do not permit us to have any at this juncture.
The Canadian people have made it clear that they want a new government.
Could anything foe clearer than that that is the case now? Not in an isolated byelection in any particular province, but in a

general election over the whole country the Canadian people, by a couple of hundred thousand plurality, have made it clear that they want a new government. These are the words of my hon. and learned friend in 1921. Again he said:
The electors of those various constituencies have clearly expiessed the determination of the people of Canada to restore true responsible government and to be ruled by men who are elected by the people in a normal and constitutional way.
Then he concludes.
Yet the Prime Minister states that he will not yield to this public intimation.
Why, it is clear that my hon. friend had a vision. He was speaking not of the then condition, but of that condition which was one day to arrive and in which he finds himself now. Then he proceeds further:
When it is obvious that a government does not command the support of a majority of the people, its decisions carry no influence it has no more authority.
Mark you, "a majority of the people."
It reduces the House of Commons to the level of a mock parliament, and patriotic statesmen have no right to inflict that on a great country. It does not make either for independence or freedom of action.
And now this mock parliament, which the hon. gentleman foresaw at that time, has come into being and he himself is championing in su!ch a parliament the actions of his mock government. But he did nob stop there; he went on to say:
I do not hesitate to say that the votes cast by many hon. gentlemen when a division comes will not mean confidence in the government so much as confidence in themselves' to retain a little longer seats which are already moving away from under them.
But he foresaw something more; he had a vision of a great future. Speaking with the inspiration of a John on Patmos, he had this to say:
Cabinet reorganization cannot be undertaken, the best men in the party cannot be called to the council table lest the dangerous adventure of by-elections conduces to a still greater reduction of that majority.
Then he strikes a higher note, as he often does. He asks:
Is it in the interests of the good administration of this country that a government should be so weak and impotent ?
Now I would venture to quote to hon. gentlemen from the great province of Quebec one more observation from their great leader the Minister of Justice-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad that the suggestion -meets with approval because I always like to see merit recognized.


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you.

Government's Right to Office


Richard Bedford Bennett: These are the words
which my hon. friend used with reference to the spirit and the traditions of parliament:
It-
That is, the retention of office by my right hon. friend now leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen).
It is in direct violation of the spirit and traditions of the British constitution that a parliament should continue its existence when it is clear that it no longer represents, carries the support, or enjoys the confidence of the people.
Aipiply those words to the present situation and see whether they are not absolutely pertinent. After listening to the observations this afternoon of the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael), it is clear that although there are a large number of members in this House who do not belong to the party with which I am associated they belong to a group which was opposed to the present government and it is clear further that the government no longer "represents, carries the support or enjoys the confidence of the people," and that its continuance in office is a violation of the spirit and the traditions of the British Constitution. But there were others besides the Minister of Justice who made observations of somewhat the same startling character. Their vision was not so wide nor were they so dispassionate in what they said; but their remarks were largely to the same effect. The gentleman who recently was Prime Minister in this country concluded a speech, as reported in Hansard of the year 1921, in -these words:
They find in office to-day only office seekers, and office holders, those who love the loaves and the fishes, who make broad their phylacteries, who enlarge the border of their garments, who love the uppermost rooms aft feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, who make clean the outside of the cup and the pdatiter, but within are full of extortion and excess. Confidence in government, Mr. Speaker, will never be restored till the people regain the control over parti ament and the executive which they have lost.
Who would have thought that in four or five short years these words would be so applicable to his own party? There is the story of the feast and of the chief seats in the synagogues, besides the greetings in the market places-I do not think he meant markets but market places. These, Sir, were the words of hon. gentlemen at the moment when they sought office and looked) for power; and now having obtained office and achieved power they say, "Let our past be forgotten and take us upon trust". Surely the observations of the hon. member for Kindersley this afternoon sufficiently indicate why there should be some difficulty about taking the
government upon trust. I was glad that my hon. friend this afternoon also referred to the remarks which had been made by someone with reference to the indemnity, because I remembered that Mr. King during the recent campaign visited the province of Alberta and, in the presence of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, West Edmonton) in the city of Edmonton, made a speech in the course of which he referred to his majority of one in the last parliament. These were his words on that occasion as reported by the Canadian press:
The Prime Minister spoke of his majority of one in the last parliament.
"Why," he said, "if I went out for dinner, my majority was gone." When he formed his administration however, he had felt that he would get sufficient assistance from the other side of the House to enable him to carry on. ''There is an indemnity of $4,000" he had thought, "and they will think twice before voting us out."


An hon. MEMBER:: It is the origin of the thought.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would seem to be the origin of that part, if you call it thought, of the utterance to which the hon. member for Kindersley -referred this afternoon.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my hon. friend tell me what paper he is quoting from?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I have read appears in -the Winnipeg Tribune of October 6, 1924, and it is a Canadian Press despatch.


Charles A. Stewart: I
thought so, for I had very grave doubts about its authenticity.
,Mr. BENNETT: I assure my hon. friend that it is a report of the Canadian press and not of a newspaper. I will ask the page to hand it to the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: We have frequently heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), whose position in the matter I can well understand, denying statements quoted in the press. I was present at this meeting and I have no recollection whatever of the Prime Minister having made any such statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Could anything more delightfully illustrate the violation of parliamentary custom and tradition than the scene we now witness? There is one man above all others who by parliamentary law should be present to confirm or deny a statement attributed t-o him, and the denial must come from someone else.

Government's Right to Office


Mr. CAHILL:: Is that the hon. member's reason for attacking the Prime Minister- because he is absent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason for my attacking him is simply this, that under our parliamentary institutions the actions of the king's ministers must always be subject to criticism by parliament. I wonder whether my hon. friend has forgotten for a single moment that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Has he forgotten that? Unless this House studies, criticizes, analyses and, where proper, condemns the actions of a Prime Minister who is absent, it is recreant to its trust, and has sunk back into the state of a debating society such as the Minister of Justice spoke of, and is but a memory of the dark ages. The question asked me carries its own refutation. Nothing could be better for parliament than that such a question should be asked, for we must criticize where criticism is necessary. I am now told that because I venture to look into the public] actions of one who ought to be present in the House, one who is supposed to be here, I am guilty of some wrong. What is to become of all the sacrifices of past generations if criticism is not to be allowed under such circumstances? They are futile. And the chivalry of the Prime Minister's supporters would save him from attack! Let us conclude.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, all I-invite is more interruptions and I shall not conclude so soon. Now, let us proceed.


Mr. RINFRET:: You are very arrogant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not at all. I assure my
friend I have a great sense of humility, because this moment in which I speak I regard as fraught with greater disaster to the achievement of centuries than any other moment in the life of the House. If by any chance my manner should seem arrogant, I offer my apologies to my friend, for I have no desire that it should so seem. I desire rather in a sense of great humility to present to this House some of the reasons which influence me in my course. Now, Sir. one step further. I have endeavoured to make plain to this House that there is a clear distinction between law and custom. I have endeavoured to indicate by citations from many authorities what I conceive that distinction to be. Perhaps I have not succeeded as I should like, because I am more accustomed to other tribunals, but I trust to grow more accustomed to this Chamber. I have endeavoured to indicate to this House that the line of distinction between 
law and custom is clear and well defined, that there may be matters that are legal, considered from the standpoint of pure law, such as the possible repeal of the British North America Act itself by the Imperial parliament; there are matters which may be regarded as wholly and truly legal, and yet by custom and tradition, by usage and by practice, they are not possible of being effected. That applies to the great body of law that we call the law of parliament-the custom of the constitution. These things may not lightly be disregarded. They are indeed, as has been pointed out by the most eminent commentators and those who have investigated most closely-jurists, men of letters and others, Morley, Redlich, Anson, Dicey, May, Todd,-all these great investigators and writers have indicated that the great reforms which have been achieved and are now recorded upon the journals of our history are there by reason of custom and usage and not by strict letter of the law. You may search the statute books in vain for them. It is because of the violation of these customs that we appeal to this parliament with this amendment. We say, Sir, that this government should not and must not, so far as we are concerned, function as such in this House of Commons unless and until this House has passed judgment upon this usurpation of power, this violation of custom, this breach of tradition and authority. That is the position which we take.
May I offer one further observation to my hon. friends who sit to my left. Sir, this House is not concerned only with the affairs of to-diay. We are indeed the trustees of all that has been achieved in the past; all the glories, all the parliamentary reforms, all the great achievements that have been wrought by sacrifice and sometimes by loss of life, have come to us as a sacred trust. We are not here to-night nicely calculating just what the policy of one party or the other will be; we are here to-night to weigh in the balances the constitutional conduct and the parliamentary procedure of that party which calls itself the government-a party without a Prime Minister; a party whose cabinet has been decimated, whose ranks have been riddled with shot and shell of the enemy until they are no longer fit and able within themselves to function with respect to the many departments of government which are provided for by the statutes of this country.
And, Mr. Speaker, I do say there are considerations greater than material things. I have lived long enough, Sir, to realize that the measure of a country's greatness is not found in its accumulations of wealth. There are other things that are greater. Disraeli, half a

* Government's Right to Office
century ago, in the great mother of parliaments, pointed out that there were matters which men might well ponder far transcending purely material considerations. Your mercantile marine might sail on every sea; your commerce might expand; your imports and your exports might be so great as to command the admiration of all the nations of the world. But not in these things lie the greatness of a nation. The greatness of a nation lies in the character of its people, and that character is to be measured by their regard for the sacrifices of the past and by the spirit in which they approach the duties and the obligations and the responsibilities of high citizenship; how they hold in trust for posterity the great powers that have come to them, the great customs, usages and traditions of which they are legatees. In the discharge of our duties we must measure these things not by material balances, not by bids for this measure or that, for this concession or that, but ralther by determining whether or not we have been true to a great past and are worthy trustees for posterity of a great future, maintaining and handing down intact the customs, the practices, the usages, the *privileges of this parliament, as the daughter of the great mother of parliaments at Westminster.


Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to my learned and bon. friend who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Bennett) I may say that his performance to-day reminded me of the old saying to the effect that history repeats itself, and that long ago Joshua captured Jericho with noise. In the opening part of his speech my hon. friend quoted the highest constitutional principles which should guide the House in reaching a true decision; and later, to my great surprise, the same member brought down the level of this House to an auction place. I do not wish, Sir, to follow the hon. gentlemen in the second1 section of his speech, for I have no desire to have this House compared in any way to an auction place. We are here to discuss one of the most momentous problems ever submitted to the parliament of Canada, and I have no doubt that every member of this House, be he a Progressive, a Liberal or a Conservative, will reach his decision in the best interests of our country, guided by the sound principles of constitutional law and constitutional precedent.
My hon. friend has given us a very interesting lecture on constitutional law. He has quoted to a considerable extent constitutional authors. As a lawyer, I may say that I admire his great knowledge, and I may say
also that most of the principles which were laid down by the hon. member are absolutely elementary and are familiar to every lawyer the first year he attends his university course. The question before this House is one that does not call for speeches as to the constitution of parliament, as to the authority of the king, or as to the creation of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The question before us is a very simple one. It is whether this government had the right, first of all, to meet parliament; secondly, whether the government was justified in asking the members of the House of Commons to decide as to whether this government should remain in power or as to whether another administration should be formed. The question, I say, is a simple one, and I intend discussing it from that angle solely. I shall discuss it as a lawyer ought to do, with ad little animosity as possible.
Before I enter into the question, I would call the attention of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) to the fact that his speech would have carried more weight by far if he had) eliminated from it all animosity andi violence. It was said long ago by an orator who could certainly serve as an example even to my right hon. friend-I am referring to Cicero-argumen-tum. non est contumelia, abuse is no argument.
I do not wish, Sir, to discuss the details of the motion introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), or of the amendment introduced by the leader of the opposition. Every member of the House knows exactly the nature of both the motion and the amendment. But What is the real meaning of the procedure which is now before the House? The true meaning of that procedure is that should a vote be given in favour of the amendment, that vote will be equivalent to a vote of non-confidence, and then the present government will be out of power. What would be the immediate consequence of such a vote? The immediate consequence would naturally be the withdrawal of the present administration, and the temporary formation of another administration, followed immediately, and it is to this immediate consequence that I wish to call the attention of hon. members of the House, by another election.
Mr. MfANION: No chance.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not at all.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is
on the $4,000 argument now.

Government's Right to Office


Lucien Cannon: Mjy right hon. friendl is always prone to restrict an argument even when that argument is brought by someone other than himself, but my views are much broader. I had no idea that he could be thinking of his1 sessional indemnity.
In the remarks which I shall offer to the House I wish to develop as briefly as possible two arguments. The first is the argument that, in law, the amendment is unfounded; the second argument is to the effect that the amendment is in fact a mis-statement, and that its adoption would bring political chaos in Canada. The gentlemen who have addressed the House from the other side have spoken about the British constitution. They have said that it is from the British constitution that we are to derive the guidance which will enable us to reach a true solution. As to the British constitution, I wish to state, as a preliminary to my argument on the merits of the amendment that the British constitution has three special characteristics which are not to be forgotten. First of all, contrary to the American constitution, the British constitution is not a written document. It is not contained in any one single statute or in many statutes. The British constitution is altogether unwritten save for a few statutes or a few documents. Secondly, the British constitution, by reason of its being unwritten, is flexible, pliable.


William Findlay Maclean: And the Canadian constitution is not.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly it is.
Mr. MACLEAN (York). No, it is not flexible.


Lucien Cannon: This being a question of
law I say with all respect to my hon. friend that if he should state anything like that in his newspaper I fehr some of his readers would not continue their subscriptions. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the British constitution being unwritten is for that reason pliable, flexible; it is an institution of so flexible a nature that it can meet any new emergency. Thirdly, I say that the constitution in itself, as we have it to-day, is simply the sum and substance of decisions reached by the members of parliament in England, or by the members) of parliament in Canada, when they have had to face new problems which have demanded new solutions!. I think that every member of this House, if he will bear in mind, first, that the British constitution is not written, secondly, that it is flexible, thirdly, that it is made up of precedents, will be in a (Mr. Meighen.]
better position to view the question as put before the House to-day in its true light.
To show that what I have contended is true, I shall in a very few words illustrate my thought with some examples taken from the history of England. In 1688 William III was called to the throne of England. James II had fled to France, and parliament had to be summoned in order that the accession of William III should be made legal, and in order also that very important legislation should be enacted. Who might call parliament? The king was in exile, the king was in France. This was a new situation; it was an emergency. Did parliament declare itself powerless? Did the members at that time declare that they could not do anything because the situation was new? No, they continued to expand the scope and operations of the constitution by adopting new means; and then some high officials of the government took upon themselves to form a sort of council. Writs of summons were issued, and members wrere called to London. Parliament met, first under the name of a convention and afterwards under the name of parliament; and it is that parliament which has passed and enacted the most important law in England, the law of succession. This is one example. In those days if-like my hon. friend from 'Calgary (Mr. Bennett)-a member had got up and said "This is something new, you cannot do anything," what would have become of England, what would have been the result? Where would William III have been after his landing at Torbay?


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask the member for Frontenac.


Lucien Cannon: I am quite sure the member for Frontenac would have felt sad if William III had not landed in England.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington):: I certainly would. And you should have been too.


Lucien Cannon: I will give another example. Under William Pitt-and no member of this House will deny that he was one of the greatest statesmen in England, one of the greatest exponents of reform, and one of the greatest respecters of parliamentary liberties-King George IH became insane. That was an awful situation. It was something new. Did parliament say " We are powerless, we cannot do anything?" Parliament met and devised means whereby a regency was established. The Prince of Wales became regent of England and every one of his acts was legal and regular. Why should we in Canada, when we are told that our institutions are derived from England, declare our inability to cope with a new situa-

Government's Right to Office
tion? We have parliamentary experience, we have constitutional knowledge. Are we to say to the country that 245 representatives of the people are unable to find the solution to a new problem? Applying the principle which I laid down that in England the constitution is used in such a way that every emergency and every new case is met, I say that in Canada to-day we have a new situation and we have to meet it by new means.
Up to 1921 we had no groups in Canada. Until Union government existed in Canada people were satisfied to follow the two great parties. But the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) will bear me out when I state that Union government was the root of our present trouble. New groups were created, new factions arose. In Canada in 1921, for the first time we had three parties, and in 1925 or 1926, as I will prove later in my remarks, not only have we three parties but in this House we have no less than eight parties. This is, therefore, a new situation. If it is a new situation parliament is the sole master, and parliament has the right to decide. The government are not coming before this House and stating that they should be sustained, but our contention is solely to the effect that the decision with respect to the present political situation in Canada belongs to the representatives of the people. Is there any member here, no matter how reactionary he may be, no matter how Tory in his tendencies, who will deny to parliament, the right to decide this issue? Parliament in this matter must be supreme, and it is in the decision of parliament that we trust and rely. Let parliament decide the issue. If parliament decides that we should continue in office we will accept the mandate. If parliament decides that some other person than the present right hon. Prime Minister should be entrusted with office that decision will become law. In matters of this kind parliament is supreme and its decision will be binding. This is very plain language. I am not quoting from books. Constitutional law in its essence is simply human common sense applied to a political situation.
As far as the law is concerned I do not wish to discuss the question as to whether the Prime Minister, after the election, had the right to summon parliament. I do not think there is one lawyer in this House with any standing who will claim anything different. My hon. friend from Calgary, showing his thorough knowledge of law, admitted that the present government had an absolute right to remain in power until parliament was summoned. Therefore the first contention of the
leader of the opposition, to the effect that our remaining in power was something illegal falls to the ground; it has been demolished by the hon. member for Calgary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. member permit me? I made it quite clear that while they had the legal right they had not the right by custom. I made that perfectly clear.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend, this afternoon, summed up his argument as follows:
Up till the time parliament met, everything done by the government was legal; but I reproach the government with the fact of having met parliament without a prime minister. Was that not my hon. friend's argument? Now, I claim that up to the time parliament met everything done was legal, I think no lawyer with any knowledge of constitutional law will deny that.
I come now to the second point: was it legal, was it constitutional, for this government to meet parliament without its prime minister in the House? After the elections the Prime Minister took the following position: this government will remain in power until parliament meets. In the meantime there are to be no public appointments, no changes in the representation of the people, and parliament will be called at the very earliest moment. If it was legal for the Prime Minister to remain in power will not my hon. friend from Calgary admit that the stand taken by the Prime Minister and the restrictions adopted by him in the exercise of his authority were characterized by complete dignity and manifested his full knowledge of his responsibility towards the people?
Now the Prime Minister had to face a novel situation as I have tried to prove, and not only a novel situation, but a difficult situa- [DOT] tion. A man with ordinary conceit might have thought he had enough experience, enough judgment, enough personal perspicacity to advise His Excellency, but the Prime Minister took another stand. He said, "It does not belong to one man in Canada, no matter how exalted his position may be, to decide a situation so novel and so difficult. I will have the greatest, the highest and the most competent tribunal of the land to decide it, and instead of giving my own personal opinion I shall ask the two hundred and forty-five representatives of the people to make the decision". Again, Sir, I ask, was the Prime Minister not only justified in retaining office, but was he not the worthy representative of the people of Canada when he took that stand in conformity with the best traditions of the privileges and powers and dignities of parliament?

Government's Right to Office
Now, Mr. Speaker, the legal part of the amendment is contained in the last paragraph. Every member is familiar with its phraseology, but stripped of all legal expressions, put in ordinary common language that everybody can understand, that paragraph means this: the present government has no right to meet parliament because its head, the Prime Minister, does not sit in either House, and the medium, or the via media, or the connecting link between the government, or the parliament rather, and His Excellency the Governor General, does not exist. That is the argument. This argument as a legal proposition is perfectly sound, if it is applied to a permanent situation. There is no doubt that should the Prime Minister to-day, or should any Prime Minister in any dominion, or even Great Britain, attempt to establish a parliamentary system whereby he would remain the head of administration and nevertheless would not sit in either house of parliament, there is no doubt that the argument would be absolutely sound; but such is not the case. The present situation is not a case of permanency. It is a temporary situation, and to use the expression of the right hon. leader of the opposition in his speech, it is a fortuitous case. This situation will not last long. The Prime Minister will seek a seat in the very near future, if he is elected he will sit in this House, and therefore there is no character of permanency to the present situation. Should the Prime Minister fail in re-election it will be for parliament to deal with the situation then created.


John Wesley Edwards: Until he runs another time.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend puts a
question which contains in itself an argu-[DOT] ment. There is no doubt that if the Prime Minister, in seeking re-election, would delay beyond a reasonable time, parliament would interfere, and serve on the Prime Minister notice that he must be either in the House of Commons or the Senate or quit.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: We are serving the
notice now.


Lucien Cannon: Yes, but there is such a
thing as a notice which is given too soon.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Time will tell.


Lucien Cannon: I	therefore say that the
principle enunciated by all the speakers on the opposite side has not its application in the present case, as it is not a permanent situation. It is simply an accidental and temporary situation which will soon be remedied. I heard every other speaker on the other side saying, "We defy the speakers on

the government side to give us one precedent of a similar situation". I heard the member for West Calgary -(Mr. Bennett) say that if any member on the other side of the House could give an instance where a prime minister remained the head of his government without a seat in the House that he, the hon. member, would support the government on this question. The hon. gentleman was most express in his terms this afternoon. He asked for a precedent. I will give him a precedent which is on all fours with the present situation. In 1792 England: was facing one of the most serious situations that that country has ever faced. Across the channel the French revolution was threatening. Public men in England, after having looked upon the first glow of French liberty with admiration and love, had changed their minds, and thought that the fire which had been lighted in Paris might spread all over Europe and become a menace. Parliament was summoned and during that session of 1793 railways were not discussed- thank God they were not invented. But they discussed the most vital question as to whether England should enter into a conflict with France and w'hether they should open that long series of wars which spread from 1792 to 1815, in the death struggle between the republic of France and continental Europe, helped by England. Was that a serious question? If the contention of the hon. member on the other side of the House is correct, should not the Prime Minister have been present in the House? Where is the via media which is essential, claims the leader of the opposition? At that time the Prime Minister of England, William Pitt, was not in the House.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does my hon. friend refer to the time when Mr. Addington resigned the Speakership?


Lucien Cannon: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend is aware, I take it, that parliament was then in session.


Lucien Cannon: Parliament was called.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But when Pitt was absent parliament was in session.


Lucien Cannon: I will sum up the facts as I understand them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not the book beside me. How many days was he absent? Read the book. *


Lucien Cannon: I have the book here. I will send it over to my hon. friend.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Read it.


Lucien Cannon: This is taken from the Annual Register of 1793, page 4:
Such was the general state of public affairs at the meeting of parliament, which took place on the 13th of December, 1792. This meeting of parliament, therefore, will be distinguished by two extraordinary circumstances. Some of those members of both houses who had been for years the opponents of government, will be seen to support its measures not only with their votes, but their eloquence...
This might happen also this year.
...and the Prime Minister will not possess a seat in it. Mr. Pitt, having accepted the office of Warden of the Cinque Ports, was obliged to await for the forms of re-election; so that the very important debates, of which some account will be immediately given, did not receive the advantage of his superior talents and splendid eloquence.
So much for England. Let us come nearer home. In 1841-it is extraordinary how certain situations resemble one another at this length of time-there was a Bagot. It was Lord Bagot the Governor General.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sir Charles Bagot.


Lucien Cannon: He became Lord Sydenham. The government was overthrown and the administration was entrusted to Lafontaine and Baldwin. What happened? Lafontaine was then elected in Ontario for the constituency of York. York had never been as bad as it is this year. But what happened to his colleague? Hon. members know that in those days there was a dual government, that is a sort of dual partnership. We read in history the designation of the administration of those times as the Lafontaine-Baldwin or the Bald-win-Lafontaine administration. That is, there was a leader for Upper Canada and a leader for Lower Canada. The leader for Lower Canada, Mr. Lafontaine, was elected in York in Upper Canada. The leader for Upper
Canada, when he became a minister-and the session was open and he was Prime Minister -had naturally to seek re-election. He ran first of all in Bastings. I am quoting from the Winning of Popular Government,-a chronicle of the administration of 1841 by Archibald MacMechan. Baldwin first ran in Hastings and he was defeated. The session was on and he was Prime Minister. He then sought refuge in York and he was again defeated. That is, while the session was on, two successive defeats were suffered by the Prime Minister. He could not have been in the House. Finally, Baldwin had to seek refuge in the constituency represented by my gallant soldier friend the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). These are precedents that ought to satisfy the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett).
But there is more than that. I always feel rather sceptical when I find the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) endeavouring to become the defender of constitutional liberties in Canada. It is a new role in which, notwithstanding his numerous rehearsals, he will never shine. It is unnatural, because every member who has been in this House for several years remembers that this champion of constitutional liberty was the author of the War-time Elections Act of 1917. Those gentlemen were not as scrupulous in 1918 and 1919 as they appear to be to-day. They reproach the Prime Minister with not being in the House because he has not a seat in it; but what about the Prime Minister of 1919, the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, who had a seat but who stayed away in Paris or the United States for two whole sessions? Where is the Prime Minister? Where is the via media? Where is the connecting link? Where is the corridor of communication so dear to our hon. friends? So much for the legal argument. Let us come now to my second point.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman tell us in what two sessions Sir Robert Borden was absent from the House?


Lucien Cannon: If my right hon. friend remembers, we had first the regular session of 1919 from March until July, and then we had another session in the fall, when the Peace treaty was ratified. The ratification of that treaty was the supposed purpose of the session but there was tacked on, as he will remember, the Grand Trunk bill which he introduced.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member say that Sir Robert Borden was not in the House during those two sessions?

Government's Right to Office


Lucien Cannon: He certainly was not in the House in the fall session of 1919.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member said that Sir Robert Borden was not in the House during the two sessions.


Lucien Cannon: In 1919 the then Prime Minister appeared at the very end of the regular session for two or three days but he did not appear at all during the fall. Now I come to the second point, namely, that the amendment of the leader of the opposition is a misstatement of fact and that its adoption would lead to political chaos in this country. Before going into a discussion of the merits of that point I wish to make a preliminary statement which will help hon. members to follow me more easily. As I have said, the Prime Minister substituted for his own personal judgment the wider and more general judgment of the whole House. Now, what are the duties of the House in such a contingency? The House in that case becomes the adviser of His Excellency; we are now in the position of advisers to the head of our government. It is for us to convey through an expression of sentiment, by vote or otherwise, the advice which we think should be followed. That is the constitutional principle which we must not ignore. Our duty therefore is twofold. We can well advise, if we think fit, that the_ present government should be dismissed. That is the first course we may take; it is the right of the House, a right that can be exercised to-night or to-morrow or at any other time. But that right must be followed by the performance of another duty just as important. We have to designate another government, not an ordinary administration, but, to use the legal expression, a viable government, a government capable of sustaining itself. In support of my contention, let me quote from Hearn's book on Government of England, at page 240. This author sums up exactly the dual duty which must be discharged by a government in such a situation as that in which we find ourselves at the present time. And apart altogether from the duty of the House at large, we must bear in mind the serious responsibility of the party leader who seeks to overthrow the government.
There can be no doubt of the right of the House of Commons to express its partial disapproval of the administration, or its general dissatisfaction with its formation or with its policy. But there can be, also, no doubt that this right is one which ought to be exercised sparingly, and only on important occasions. It is a great power placed in the hands of the Commons, not for mere party purposes-

I commend this to my right hon. friend.
-but for the public benefit. Its misapplication only serves to blunt it when it is applied to its proper use. Besides, the House of Commons acts in this matter as the adviser of the crown. It may disapprove of the existing administration or any of its acts, but it eight not to be so hard to please as to render all government impossible. Those persons who overthrow any administration may expect to be required by the King to assist him in the room of those officers whom in consequence of their proceedings, he had displaced. Nor is a statesman who is so summoned at liberty to refuse. He has taken upon himself the responsibility of obstructing the government of the country. If he desire to save himself from the imputation uf mere faction, he must endeavour to set up in its place a better government.
This is the constitutional principle which must guide us. The question for every hon. member of this House to ask himself is this: Should) Mr. King be displaced as Prime Minister, whom will the House designate as his successor? In order to form a government which will be capable of functioning, which will be viable, we must face this duty and adequately discharge it. I have said before, and I repeat it, that our duty in the present situation is twofold. Should we displace this government we have to designate another government which will be in a position to carry on the administration of public affairs in Canada. In my opinion the adoption of the amendment, by reason of the obligation which it would involve of forming another administration to replace the retiring government, would bring about political chaos in this country; and I will attempt to substantiate that contention. The man who would probably become Prime Minister of Canada in such a contingency would be the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). Now, let me preface my remarks in this connection by stating that nothing which I may now say is said in a spirit of personal animosity towards my right hon. friend. The arguments which I shall advance are inspired Wholly by political considerations and have no reference whatever to personal dislike. This being said, let us suppose the Jeader of the opposition was called upon to form a government. Where would he find a sustaining majority in this House? That is the most important question for this House to consider; it is the question which will be asked the people's representatives in the House of Commons in the event of their overthrowing the present government and thus conveying to His Excellency their desire to have a new government formed. The question will be, who will be Prime Minister? The only Prime Minister possible under the present circumstances would seem to be the leader of the opposition; but for the reasons which I

Government's Right to Office
shall expound I think I shall convince the House that his prime ministership would not last a week. First of all, Sir, would the leader of the opposition find any support from our Progressive friends? This is what the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forks) stated after the elections. I take this declaration from the Ottawa Journal of November 4, 1925. My hon. friend is asked:
Would the Governor General be justified in calling on Mr. Meighen to form a cabinet?
The hon. member said:
That is for him to decide,-
My hon. friend is always very cautious.
-but the Progressives were elected on a low tariff platform.
Then the other question put to him was:
The situation is very complex. What do you think will happen?
The hon. member answered:
The issue is very clear; it was one of high versus low tariff.
The answer given by the hon. member for Brandon, the leader of the Progressive party, contains in itself the assurance that it would be impossible for his party to support a high tariff government.


Mr. FORKE:: Mr. Speaker, might I ask my hon. friend where that appears?


Lucien Cannon: It appears in the Ottawa Journal.


Robert Forke: Where did the Ottawa Journal get it? I do not know where it came from.


Lucien Cannon: The two answers given were so wise that I was quite sure they came from the lips of my hon. friend. But assuming that my hon. friend is not responsible, I find a declaration by the right hon. leader of the opposition himself which shows that it would be absolutely impossible for his government, should it be formed, to receive any permanent or prolonged support from the followers of the hon. member for Brandon. This is what the right hon. gentleman stated in his speech, and it will be found at page 18 of Hansard:
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 parliament by representing to them that my principles were identical with theirs, praising the common purposes that they all had.
Here is a declaration from the leader of the opposition that there are vital differences between the two groups. How could this House expect that the Progressives would support a
government whose policy is vitally different from the views held by the Progressive party?
The second question I think every member of this House should ask himself is:	If the
new government could not find any support from the Progressive party on account of these vital differences, could any support be found among the members from the province of Quebec? I have listened with great attention and also with considerable surprise to the passionately eloquent appeal of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Bennett) to our good sense and our good judgment. I may say to him that his tidal wave of eloquence has not swept away our good judgment. Not only will no Liberal member from the province of Quebec support such an administration, on account of the basic and fundamental differences, political and otherwise, separating him from the right hon. leader of the opposition, but I claim that no member elected from Quebec, not even the seconder of the amendment, can support him. The declarations during the election made by the candidates opposed to the government in the province of Quebec were either sincere or they were not. If they were sincere, not a member elected from Quebec,
[DOT] except perhaps the hon. member for Argen-teuil (Sir George Perley)-his sin was not as grievous-could support the right hon. leader of the opposition; and if those members were not sincere, popular indignation will see that they disappear from parliament in quick time, as they deserve.
What were those declarations? Mr. Pate-naude, the leader of that group, the leader of the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) who spoke this afternoon-this is where I add one new group to the House, the Paitenaude group-what did Mr. Patenaude say? On October 26, 1925, at a huge meeting held at the Mount Royal arena in Montreal, he declared:
Mr. Meighen was chosen chief of the Conservative party by the members of parliament. I wras not there. Mr. Oahan, the Conservative candidate in St. Lawrence-St. George, was not there either; and neither Mr. Cahan nor myself have chosen Mr. Meighen. I am free and independent, and to-day I can say that if I do not approve of Mackenzie King and his Americanism, I do not any more have any proclivity or tendency to accept the imperialistic ideas of Mr. Meighen.
Therefore here is a group, the Patenaude group, excluded from the administration, if they are sincere. Mr. Speaker, no doubt you heard with surprise this afternoon the new member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) seconding this amendment, an amendment which would have as its direct effect the formation of a government under the present
REVISED edition

Government's Right to Office
leader of the opposition. The member for Mount Royal is the father, the owner, the editor-in-chief of the Montreal Gazette. The Gazette is his mouthpiece; he writes the editorials, or the editorials are under his control and supervision. What did the Gazette write about my right hon friend? I am sorry to read it. My right hon. friend has all my sympathy, but I have a duty to perform:
But what is still more serious-
Prints the Gazette on its editorial page:
-Mr. Meighen is not always happy in his judgment of men, and probably because of that fact by no means a gifted organizer of victory. If personal effort of logic and oratory alone could carry him into power, there would be no one to dispute his way. At the risk of being accused of disloyalty or of subservience to anonymous interests, we submit that it is the duty of conscientious Conservatives-that it is the duty of Mr. Meighen himself-to seek for some new leadership.
And, Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure you will be astounded when I state that this was written and printed in the Gazette, under the control and supervision of the hon. gentleman who seconds the amendment of my right hon. friend.
What about the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Cahan)? I am sorry the hon. member is not in his seat; he was here this afternoon. This is what Mr. Cahan said while he was running in Montreal:
We must break away from all party alliances, and we must take energetic means to remain, solvent.
1 wonder if he did after the election was over. He continues:
I never followed the tenets of the National Liberal-Conservative party, the party which was defeated in 1921. I never supported the choice of Meighen as leader of that party. I take no responsibility in the administration of his party.
So here is another group excluded from the administration. Now let us take the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell). He was chosen as secretary of the Patenaude organization about a week ago. He also cannot follow my right hon. friend.


Mr.   BELT@St. Antoine: I can give my
Jion. friend a very direct answer so far as the member for St. Antoine is concerned. Our hon. leader has appeared in the province of Quebec twice as often as the so-called Prime Minister of this country, and he will appear there again. So far as I am concerned there is no question that I shall be very glad to follow the leadership of the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen, either in opposition, or in power.


Lucien Cannon: I notice with pleasure
that the feelings of the hon. member towards his. leader are improving considerably, and I may say, Mr. Speaker, that X am of the

opinion that if the right hon. gentleman had been better treated by his so-called friends he might have had a few votes in Quebec, but they -forced him to run the elec-
10 p.m. tion by proxy, which is always most unfortunate.


Arthur Meighen: Don't try to run the
government that way.


Lucien Cannon: If we should, my right hon. friend would not be our proxy.
There has been a lot of discussion as to the popular vote in the last election, and our hon. friends opposite, with their customary modesty, have claimed a big majority. But what are the facts?


Arthur Meighen: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds, will he allow me to correct him? I have looked up the Hansard for both sessions of 1919, and I find that Sir Robert Borden was present at both.


Lucien Cannon: My right hon. friend,
although getting older, cannot cure himself of certain small weaknesses I would like to see disappear.


Arthur Meighen: I am trying to cure you
now.


Lucien Cannon: My right hon. friend
always says a half truth, and -refuses -to say the whole truth.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Lucien Cannon: It is true my right hon.
friend can state, without infringing in any way on the accuracy of the facts, that the Prime Minister might have been present at both sessions, but he knows perfectly well that Sir Robert Borden was in Paris for over five months during the first session that year, and was also in Paris during the second session.


Arthur Meighen: Oh no.
-Mr. CANNON:	He may have appeared
for a few days in both sessions, but he was absent most of the time.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is not what you
said. Take it back.


Lucien Cannon: I am not going to be
bullied by anyone in this House. Coming now to the -popular vo-te-


Edmond Baird Ryckman: How -about -those -two
sessions?


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend has not understood, I have not time to explain it to him.

GovernmeM's Right to Office
The total popular vote throughout Canada was 3,153,940. What was the total Conservative vote? It was 1,468,814. That is, the Conservative party, assuming that every vote given in Quebec and elsewhere was in favour of the Conservative party, was in a minority of 216,688.


Mr. CLARK:: What was the minority of
the Liberal party?


Lucien Cannon: I have found out your
[DOT]minority. You might be charitable enough to find out ours. Now if my contention is [DOT]right that the right hon. leader of the opposition had no votes in Quebec, except maybe the vote given in Argenteuil, we have to subtract from the total Conservative vote the votes given Patenaude candidates, who were against the present leader of the opposition, and if we perform that small operation, we arrive at this conclusion, that my right hon. friend's minority in Canada was not 200,000 odd but 489,000.


John Wesley Edwards: Will my hon. friend now subtract from the total Liberal vote the votes obtained by those Liberals who ran as Protectionist-Liberals?


Lucien Cannon: There were none.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh yes.


Lucien Cannon: Now, Mr. Speaker, let us
go further. There is another group in this House which cannot follow the leader of the opposition, I refer to the "Maritime-righters." The candidates in the Maritime provinces did not run as candidates of the leader of the opposition but they ran as Maritime-righters.


An hon. MEMBER:: They all ran as
supporters of Hon. Mr. Meighen. The hon. member is absolutely incorrect in his statement.


Lucien Cannon: In the Halifax Herald of
28th October, on the ninth page, is to be found the following declaration:
We stand for justice for Nova Scotia and Maritime rights in confederation.
And also:
A solid fourteen for Nova Scotia first.
There is no mention of Mr. Meighen's name and that manifesto is signed by every candidate in the province of Nova Scotia. Therefore I say these gentlemen never ran in that province as supporters of the present leader of the opposition, but as Maritime-righters. Consequently I contend the programme of these members is not a Conservative or Tory programme; it means a Maritime rights programme and nothing else.
14011-5J


Arthur Meighen: On whose programme
was the war with Turkey?


Lucien Cannon: The programme of the
war with Turkey evidently existed in the imagination of my right hon. friend. I would advise him to restrain his imagination in future as that programme certainly hurt him. However coming to the subject of the war with Turkey it brings us to Ontario and to the last group. Suppose the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition became the Prime Minister?


An hon. MEMBER:: He will.


Lucien Cannon: I would like my hon.
friend to interrupt me intelligently or not at all.


John Wesley Edwards: To whom does my hon. friend refer?


Lucien Cannon: I did not refer to the hon. member for Frontenac.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask hon. gentlemen not to interrupt the speakers.


Lucien Cannon: I ask if any hon. member from Ontario would follow the leader of the opposition on this Turkish issue, especially after the explanatory remarks or marginal references to it contained in his speech in Hamilton. To show how impossible it would be for the leader of the opposition to form a government I will quote from the speech of one of the most Tory members elected in Ontario-I have reference to the hon. member for Centre Toronto.
Meighen's new War Policy Opposed by Thomas L. Church.


Mr. HOCKEN:: He is not the member for Centre Toronto.


Lucien Cannon: I beg the pardon of the
hon. member for Centre Toronto. I should have said the hon. member for Toronto Northwest.
Former Mayor of Toronto condemns his Leader's Proposal to Hold an Election before Sending Canadian Troops Overseas.
This is what the hon. member in question said at a political meeting in Toronto:
"I do not believe in Mr. Meighen's doctrine," stated Mr. Church; "we are part and parcel of the British Empire and not a nation within ourselves. I will oppose Mr. Meighen's attitude on the floor of the House and in caucus. We do not need autonomy. That was Laurier's view, who said that he would not send men to the South African war. When Britain is at war, we are at war. All autonomy did for the Liberal party was to send it to the political graveyard. Had we had this autonomy in 1914 Canada would not have been represented in the Great War. There would have been no 60,000 soldiers in France from Toronto. There are some people in this country

Government's Eight to Office
who would like to do away with British ties. They would abolish the appeal to the Privy Council and amend the British North America Act. I will oppose with all the means in my power anything that will support the Laurier-Borden autonomy regarding the great question of the defence of the empire. I do not believe in Mr. Meighen's doctrine that he espoused in Hamilton.
I will go further and say to the members for Ontario-because my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) took the liberty of addressing the members from my native province-your leader was either sincere when he made his declaration in Hamilton or he was not. If he was sincere, how many will stand up in this House and support him? If he was not sincere do you think for one moment that he should become Prime Minister of Canada? In conclusion, on this point, which was raised by the right hon. leader of the opposition himself, to prove his sincerity I invite him to bring in in concrete and in ordinary legislative form the proposition contained in his Hamilton speech.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman
will permit me: He and his colleagues are in office, and as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) supported that declaration perhaps he will discharge that duty.


Lucien Cannon: Evidently my right hon.
friend is weakening. Now, what would be the consequences of the adoption of the amendment? The Prime Minister would retire, as I have tried to show, and the leader of the opposition would be called upon to form an administration. For the reasons and circumstances which I have detailed, it would be impossible for him to form a government.


An hon. MEMBER:: How do you know?


Lucien Cannon: Oh I know. It is extraordinary how far a Tory will go; and besides, even though the leader of the opposition were supported by every one of the members sitting around him-and some of them, at least, would probably forget the solemn promises given to and the sacred covenants entered into with the electors-he would have only 116 members behind him. That is not a majority.


Mr. MANION:: Closer than 101.


Lucien Cannon: There is no doubt about
that.


John Wesley Edwards: I have followed the line of reasoning of the hon. member, which is to the effect that the leader of the opposition cannot hope to have support from many of his own members because of late differences. Following up that reasoning with my hon. friend, will he tell me how his party can

possibly get any support from the Progressives, or the members of other parties, who did not run as supporters of Mr. King?


Lucien Cannon: It is exactly for the purpose of getting an answer from the Progressives as to whether they are willing to support this government or whether they are not that parliament has been called. They are absolutely free to express whatever views they think best. If they decide to support the government, we remain; if they decide not to support it, we go. We are in their hands. We will not force them, nor will we force parliament. This is not, as the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) said, an auction sale or a market place. This is a place where 245 free men have met, and it is by the free decision of their free minds, enlightened as much as possible by study, by experience and by wisdom, that a solution is to be found of this unprecedented situation.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: It is with a
great deal of diffidence that I rise after having listened to the forensic eloquence of the last two speakers. We on this side of the House have been reminded that we are face to face with a proposition that is inherently difficult for us to decide upon. The amendment which is the question before the House is largely a technical matter. I agree that a moral argument enters into it, but it is very largely a technical point. However, there is more than a technical decision to be arrived at. Unfortunately we have to judge this question not so much upon its merits as with regard to its consequences. We have been told1 from both sides of the House that in reality it is a vote of want of confidence. Many of us on this side of the House think that parliamentary customs have been disregarded by both sides of the House in bringing in a vote of want of confidence at this period of the session. According to parliamentary custom the debate on the Speech from the Throne is the proper time to question the confidence that is reposed in the government. It is not the technical right of either one of these parties which is in question-not the technical, constitutional right to form a government. It is their worthiness so to do which is in question, and that is the point of view we are determined to take.
As to the technical point at issue, I think many of us on this side of the House are quite willing to confess our inability to enter into the intricacies of constitutional law. I found, Mr. Speaker, on visiting the library that the constitutional experts of this House had appropriated all the constitutional works in that institution. These wonderful speeches

Government's Right to Office
that we have listened to have been made with scissors and paste-every one of them-and they are asking us laymen to decide upon a question which an ordinary court of law would take a couple of months to decide. A purely technical question is brought forward at this time, and is entangled with the important question as to which minority group in this House will form a government. I am not so sure about this question. When this debate started, my head was pretty clear on the point at issue, but after each subsequent speech the thing became more complicated, and the apex of the curve was reached just somewhere about the middle of the speech of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). Counsels have been considerably darkened while the debate has proceeded. It seems the debate is something like the British constitution; it has slowly developed from precedent unto precedent, and I do not know what precedent will be quoted next, or whether it will throw any more light on the question than the other precedents which have been quoted. But the point is, can parliament function without a Prime Minister? I am not going into any constitutional argument, but I feel that deep down below these dead integuments of precedent and custom there must be some live kernel of common sense somewhere. It is a characteristic of the British constitution. It seems to me the question whether this parliament can function without a prime minister is about as sensible as the question, can parliament function without one of the pages? Parliament is something like democracy. The right of the people to rule is inherent. Why you have only to challenge it to know that. It evinces itself, and anybody who challenges the right of parliament to do anything it likes within the British North America Act will speedily find that tire powers of this parliament are very wide indeed. So I think there can be no question about the power of parliament to carry on. I do not want any precedent to be quoted to convince me of that.
What about the numerical argument? What about the argument from the point- of view of the numerical size of the minority groups in this parliament? Has any minority a right as such to form a government? Is mere numerical size any criterion of right to form a government? Counting heads has not much attraction for us here. We want to know what is going on inside the heads before we come to a decision, and we are finding out, as the debate goes along, what is going on inside the heads. Personally I am not going to be deflected from my judgment by any appeal to numbers. It is declared policies alone that will appeal to me. I listened to the argument of the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) to-day and also to the argument of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). I think it is true-I have not investigated, but I will accept the figures-that seventeen of our group defeated Liberals, but it is also true that more than twenty of our group defeated Conservatives. The difference is not worth speaking about. You cannot gain any information along those lines. The fact of the matter is that this group is altogether indifferent to an argument of that kind, because we had opposed to us a strenuous Liberal opposition and a strenuous Conservative opposition. We defeated seventeen Liberals, it is true, but we defeated twenty or more Conservatives, so that the argument from arithmetic does not have any influence on this side of the House.
What about the argument as regards political records? We are asked to look at the record of the Liberal party and at the record of the Conservative party and to form our judgment. You members of the House of Commons and the public can sympathize with us. Standing face to face with the record of those two political parties, we are called upon to say who has to be the government of this country. The choice between tweedledum and tweedledee was distinctly marked in comparison. We know during the last four years the Liberal government bitterly disappointed us, disappointed the country, as is evidenced. But the Conservative party backed them up in everything they disappointed us in. These technical considerations, numerical considerations, historical considerations, do not cut any ice on this side of the House.
They say: What about the election? It la true that Mr. Mackenzie King travelled the west and travestied the Progressive party. That is sadly true. No such egregious error was ever made by a statesman as the attack on principles constituting a party such as ours. It was from such movements as ours that Liberalism sprang, and for a leader of Liberalism to travesty the existence of our party as he did was a great mistake. It i3 also true that the Liberal machine in Saskatchewan rode over our Progressive organization like a Juggernaut car, and some of the finished products are here-bright, polished, machine-made members in place of the poor home-made Progressives w'ho sat here in the last parliament. It is all true; but what did the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) do? He, to his credit, did not attack us, so far as I know, in the west, or our party

Government's Right to Office
organization. But he did attack our party policy, and if there is anything to choose between the two there is not much. Our party policy is more vital than our party organization, because our party policies arose not out of the brains of politicians but out of the felt needs of the producers of the western country. If we have to choose between the two, we would rather sacrifice ourselves, we would rather go into oblivion, than sacrifice our policies.
But there is the situation. Can you ask us to judge these parties on their electioneering records? I do not think ever before an election was fought in Canada where less statesmanship was revealed on the platforms of the country. As far as I could learn, as far as I could read and as far as I could hear -'because I heard most of the speeches- there was nothing in the nature of constructive statesmanship at all, and yet we are asked to judge upon the records of these two parties. We decline to do that. We have a reverence for our constitutional practices. We cannot express our sentiments as eloquently as other people, but we are just as devoted to the traditions of our country. We may be auctioneers as alleged, but there cannot be auctioneers unless there are bidders, and a party that will classify us as auctioneers will thereby classify themselves as bidders. But we have no wares to offer that are our own; we are not asking the parties to outbid each other. What are we asking for? We are asking for a frank, open statesmanlike confession of what your policies are. What are your policies? You have said so in the Speech from the Throne. Have you? We will see whether you have said it or not. This is the tragedy that arises from this small spirit of partisanship that runs away with parliament in its first hours, that has not the decency to wait, that will waste days at the start in order to get party advantage. Without having the Speech from the Throne before us in debate, we are asked to decide which minority group shall exercise authority in this House. We have not yet had an opportunity to debate the policy of either party. This is our position. Somebody said: The Pro-grressives are in a position of great power. Some gentlemen have even said that we are auctioneers. We are in a position of great power, are we? We are not making very much of that at any rate. What we are concerned about is the amount of resistance to our power, for our power does not amount to very much. I do not agree with the member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) that we are in a very important position; we are in no 
more important .position than are any other members of the House. We are not going to blazon abroad any suggestion that we have the key to the situation, nor shall we make any unreasonable demands of any party. The only demands that we are going to make are such as any statesman, if he is a statesman, will be glad to accept on their merits. We ask for nothing more. We are in a minority, just as are the other parties in the House, and we cannot abuse our position by trying to get more than we are entitled to. We do not represent the whole of Canada; neither do the other parties. There is no party in this House that can rule as it likes during this parliament.
It seems to me that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's example is one of great and singular value to the Canadian parliament at the present time. Some time ago we saw in England a party, which had been pledged to bring Great Britain under a socialist regime, returned to office in a minority, and which, putting aside for the time being the dream that had inspired its creation, and forgetting in the general interest its own academic theories, sought to give the country a national government. Ramsay MacDonald, in spite of the limitation of his party in point of numbers, was able to give Great Britain a truly national administration which will go down in history as one of the best national governments that country has ever enjoyed. In a few short months, because parliament for the first time in history was in control, the government found it possible to transform the international relationships of Europe in such a way as to establish an epoch in European affairs.
As I see it, it does not matter whether Conservatives or Liberals come into power at the present time. Here is an opportunity which will not be repeated in the lifetime of any one of us, an opportunity to put aside partisanship and to seek to govern the country along truly national lines. And this is possible because parliament is really in control at last, in control for the first time in Canadian history. Neither this party nor the other is in power, but all parties combined can render the country a satisfactory administration. That is the meaning of this resolution; it is the test of parliament. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Whatever the decision may be it will be the decision of parliament, and in spite of all arguments that may be used before this debate is over, parliament will have evinced its inherent right to control the destinies of the country.
I am not prejudiced in favour of either party. No one can point to anything that

Government's Right to Office
I have said or done that has revealed any bias on my part towards either Conservatives or Liberals. But whatever party may come into power during the next two or three years,
I should like to see it adopt a national policy in the truest sense-not a policy framed in the interests of a privileged few but one that will appeal to the people of Canada from sea to sea and heal as far as possible some of the bitterness that has almost rent this country into sections. I scorn some of the implications that have been made in this discussion, as for instance this talk about the $4,000. The insinuation in reference to the indemnity ought never to have been made, for surely the $4,000 is a consideration that does not weigh for a moment with any one of us. If it does, then we deserve extinction at the earliest possible moment. It is Canada that we have in view, not a part of Canada; we are interested not in the farmers only, nor in the manufacturers nor in the coal miners nor in the fishermen of Canada particularly. Surely we can do something that will satisfy these warring sections of the country; surely we can bring them together by doing something that will carry with it the marks of statesmanship rather than of partisanship.
Let me say in conclusion that my vote on this question, like the votes of a good many on this side, will be confined strictly to the constitutional aspect. I know it is almost futile for me to make the statement, but I make it nevertheless: our confidence in the government or in any party will be shown when they frankly and honestly state what their legislative programme is.


Mr. BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker,
I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


Ernest Lapointe: I suggest, Mr. Speaker,
that the same order prevail to-morrow and that we go on with the debate.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
Tuesday, January 12, 1926