1926-01-14

REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Superintendent of Penitentiaries for the year ended March 31, 1925: ordinances of Yukon Territory for 1925; annual report of the Secretary of State for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925; detailed statements of bonds and securities registered in the Department of the Secretary of State since the last return submitted to the parliament of Canada; report of the Department of Railways and Canals for the last fiscal year, and the report of the Commissioner of Highways-Hon. Mr. Lapointe.
Notice to the House of Commons that no orders in council relative to water in the railway belt have been passed in pursuance of the statute of 1913; copies of ordinances of the Northwest Territory for the year ended January 7, 1926-Hon. Mr. Stewart.
Fifty-eighth report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries (Marine branch); also of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the same year (Fisheries branch); statement of leases of wharves for 1925; statement of wharfage revenue for the year 1924-25; fish bounty regulations; statement of international fishery regulations; order in council for the issue of licenses to United States fishing vessels; radiotelegraph regulations- Hon. Mr. Cardin.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, January 13, 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. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette):	Mr. Speaker, when I had the honour of addressing the House yesterday afternoon I noticed that several members of the Progressive party were absent. I am glad to see them in their seats again because I purpose to address my remarks more particularly to them. They have not failed to comprehend the exceptional position in which they are now placed; for by reason of the results of the late general election the fate of this parliament, of the government, and of every hon. member in this House, is in the hands of less than thirty members of the Progressive party. Therefore these hon. gentlemen are now placed in a position of grave responsibility. May I add that I am not at all afraid that they will not rightfully discharge that responsibility?
In what I said last night, Mr. Speaker, and in what I may say this afternoon, I wish to emphasize that I am speaking for myself alone. I hold no brief for the government.
I am prone at times to be outspoken, that is one of my numerous defects, and if I should go too far in what I am about to say I wish it to be clearly understood that I am personally responsible and am not voicing the views of the government.
It seems to me that the situation that has been disclosed by hon. members, particularly by those of the Progressive party, if I am to take into consideration the declarations made by some of them, has been based on error and misunderstanding from the very beginning. I have heard hon. members say that if they vote against this amendment, necessarily they vote confidence in the government. On my own responsibility I say that, in so far as I understand the situation, hon. members do not vote confidence in the government should they vote against this amendment.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: My hon. friends
may laugh as they like, but they are here to answer my argument, and I shall be glad to hear them refute it. Certainly they do not possess unto themselves the quality of infallibility.
13$

Government's Wight to Office
What is the proposition before the House? Let us be practical; let us be logical. The proposition before the House is presented by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), as representing the government, who says in plain language: I move that the Speech from the Throne be considered by this House. What does that mean? It means that hon. gentlemen are asked purely and simply to pass judgment on the Speech from the Throne, and nothing else. The motion does not ask hon. members to vote for the Speech from the Throne. It asks the 245 members of this House simply to discuss and pass judgment upon the Speech from the Throne. It simply asks that the Speech from the Throne come before this House for discussion, and when it does come up for discussion, then any hon. member may vote for or against it just as he pleases. That is the meaning of the proposition, that and nothing else.
What is the meaning of the proposition of the leader of the opposition? What is its purport? I do not intend to analyse his amendment now, because that has been done several times already, but what is its object? Its object is to stop the government right here and now, to say to the government: You shall not go any further; the Speech from the Throne shall not be discussed in this House, and shall not be submitted to a vote of this House. That is the purport and the effect of his amendment, and if his amendment carries the Speech from the Throne will never be submitted to this House. Some Speech from the Throne will no doubt be submitted, but the Speech from the Throne that was read at the beginning of this session will never be submitted to this House. Therefore, I say that if the amendment is rejected, that will not mean that parliament has voted non-confidence in the government because hon. member's, may, if they choose, vote against the amendment, thereby ensuring that the Speech from the Throne will be submitted to a vote of this House, and then, when it is so submitted, hon. members who have voted against the amendment may turn and vote against the Speech from the Throne if it does not suit them, and there will be no contradiction in that at all. That is the reason why I say that the amendment of the leader of the opposition at this juncture is premature. It is premature in so far as it seems inequitable that the Speech from the Throne should not be submitted to this House, and more particularly does it seem inequitable to the Progressive party, because if the .amendment carried it would prevent the Speech from being even discussed by the House. The amendment is not premature so far as the
IMr. J. J. Denis.]
Conservative party is concerned, because it is their avowed purpose to defeat the government on the first opportunity. Irrespective of their programme, irrespective of the Speech from the Throne, irrespective of any other consideration, they are here to defeat the government. I do not blame them for trying to do so, but so far as the Progressive party is concerned, a party which is supposed to occupy an independent position between the two great parties, and which I am sure is independent, and which is not committed to the defeat of the government but is committed to the interests of the country at large, and the interests of their own constituencies in particular, I say that for that party the amendment is premature, because, if carried, it precludes consideration of the Speech from the Throne, which is a very worthy document from the Progressive point of view.


Mr. BELL (West Hamilton):: If it was the purpose and desire of the government that the Speech from the Throne should first be considered, why did the government introduce a motion of confidence in this House?


Mr. DENIS (Joliettc):: The situation we have at the present time is not the government's making; it was made by the leader of the opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. OHAPLIN (Lincoln):: The electors of Canada made it.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Had the leader oi the government been permitted to discuss his own motion, he would have given the House
his reasons and his motives. I can understand his motives.


Leslie Gordon Bell: May I ask further, how would that have been a discussion of the Address?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I will answer that, but I would ask my hon. friend not to interrupt me when I am answering, because otherwise no understanding will be possible. I was saying that if the Minister of Justice had been permitted to discuss his motion, he would have given his reasons for presenting it. I believe his reasons fundamentally were that he wanted the House to decide whether or not this government should remain in power, but this I have no authority to declare, because I do not know. Further, I believe that this motion of confidence was introduced by the Minister of Justice to stem the flow of imprecations and declarations by the opposition against the government which has been going on throughout the country for two months, to the effect that the government were usurping power.

Government's Right to Office


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Did not the acting leader of the government say that my amendment was the exact opposite of his motion? If so, why could he not discuss anything on my amendment that he could discuss on his motion?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I think it was ruled out of order by the Speaker.


Arthur Meighen: That does not affect it.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am not disposed at this juncture to let myself be distracted by these objections, worthy as they might be. This subject is a very large one, so wide in its scope that if I began answering the questions of all hon. gentlemen opposite I should never get through with my short speech.
I was saying that so far as the Progressive party was concerned this amendment, was premature because their interest is different from the interest of the Conservative party. They are here to serve their constituencies, this province and their country at (large. Were their group numerous enough, they would be here ready to take the reins of office if the opportunity should come, but at the present time everyone agrees that only one of the two larger parties in this House can hold the reins of office, and therefore the Progressive party, being prechided from the possibility of office, arc here to decide between the two old parties, and to adopt or reject the policy of one or the other. Now how can they adopt or reject the Speech from the Throne if it is never submitted! to the House? How can hon. members belonging to the Progressive party go back to their constituencies and say to their people: "We did not get from the government the justice we demanded," when they themselves might be the obstacle to preventing the government from passing these very measures mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and which are designed to a large extent, at least, to meet the wishes of the Progressive party? I am not here to give lessons to my hon. friends. It is enough for me to try and follow my own little way, but I would feel I was in an extremely embarrassing position were I a member of the Progressive party elected to try and secure rural credits, the Hudson Bay railway, and the several other matters which are mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, if I put myself in the position at the very outset before the Speech from the Throne is submitted to the House of saying: I have not enough sympathy with this government and their actions in the past to allow them to continue in power, and therefore I shall
vote for the amendment, and thereby preclude absolutely the government from submitting the Speech from the Throne outlining all these measures in which I am interested to the House, thereby making the Speech from the Throne a dead letter entirely. Such is the position of the Progressive party, a position entirely different from that of the Conservative party. These are facts which cannot be denied, facts which the members of the Progressive party know just as well as I do and if they do not they should learn them. The facts to which I allude are these: Whenever the present government gave the Progressive party a scrap of their demand* they were opposed each time by the Conservative party. Is that true or is it not? The Progressive party for the last four years have been clamouring and clamouring for legislation. The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael)-whom I am glad to See in his seat at the present time-said that what they got from the Liberal party in four years' time could be contained in a small suit case. Admitting that to be true the suit case would have been empty but for the fight which we on this side waged against the Conservative party.
An lion. MEMBER: Fifty members.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Brave fighters 1 Three to one.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I suppose it is not extravagant to say that the Speech from the Throne gives the Progressive party two or three full suit cases, perhaps more. Now if the Conservative party objected to our giving the Progressive party one suit case full of concessions, what will they do if we are turned out of power? If that happens and the Progressive party place their faith in the Conservatives what will they get from that party?


An hon. MEMBER:: Fair play.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The policies of
the Conservative party must be changed very considerably if the Progressives are to get from them one-half or even one-quarter of what they are offered in the Speech from the Throne. It has occurred to me, Mr. Speaker, speaking very seriously and with all consciousness of the gravity of the situation, that the Progressives now have the greatest opportunity which was ever offered to any party in this Dominion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I shall not be deterred in expressing my opinions by the mani-

Government's Right to Office
Testations of hon. gentlemen opposite. The opportunity-


An hon. MEMBER:: For what?


Jean-Joseph Denis: To receive what the Progressives claim to be their rights.


Mr. LADNER:: If the hon. gentleman is
quite serious why did he not meet the wishes of the Progressives during the last four years?


Jean-Joseph Denis: That is another proposition altogether.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Joseph Denis: During the last
four years this government has been in power With a majority ranging from as low as six up to ten or twelve.


An hon. MEMBER:: Dp to one hundred and forty.


Jean-Joseph Denis: They were not able to bring down all the legislation they would have brought down had they had what we call a working majority. If this government is turned out of power the leader of the opposition, with all his talents and the means at his disposal, will soon find out what a worry it is to be in power without a majority.
Now, returning to the question of "opportunity," may I be permitted to read, for the benefit of my hon. friends who are scholars, some extracts as to the meaning of the word. First of all, Johnson says:
To improve the golden moment of opportunity, and catch the good that is within our reach, is the great art of life.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I have never been greeted with so much applause by hon. gentlemen opposite before. Shakespeare says:
Take all the swift advantage of the hour.
Goethe says:
Vet he who grasps the moment's gift, he is the proper man.
Finally the Earl of Beaconsfield says:
Opportunity is more powerful even than conquerors and prophets.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Give us some more.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I shall endeavour to meet my hon. friend's wishes at the end of my speech. Of course hon. gentlemen opposite are free to take these quotations in a jocular spirit if they choose to do so. As I said when beginning my remarks I alone am responsible for anything I have said. Having offered these quotations perhaps I may be allowed to submit another. It is in Latin and after I

read it in the vernacular I will give the English translation. It is not in the same sense as the others I have quoted, but it is an old saying: Quos Deus vult perdere dementat prius. The English translation is:	Those
whom God has a mind to ruin He first deprives of their senses.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hoar.


Mr. STEVENS:: My hon. friend is close to ruin.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I do not apply this quotation to hon. gentlemen opposite who have indulged in applause. It is for the benefit of the members of the Progressive party. I spoke for the benefit of the members of the Progressive party. In the face of this situation, if they prevent this House from considering the Speech from the Throne, they will not be doing justice either to their constituents or themselves, because the Speech from the Throne embodies their desires. I have not heard a single member of the Progressive parly so far state that he was displeased with the Speech from the Throne. Perhaps my hon. friends to my left do not like this remark, but if members of the Progressive party are satisfied, as I think they are, with the Speech from the Throne, they should not prevent its consideration if they do not want to place themselves in direct contradiction to their principles and their polities. A different proposition will be submitted when the time comes to vote on the Speech from the Throne; but at the present time the Speech is deserving of the attention of this House, and of the attention of the Progressive party, irrespective of the conduct, good or bad, of the Liberal party for the past four years, and irrespective of the confidence or the non-confidence of hon. members in that group in the ability of. the government to conduct the affaire of the government for the future. The Speech is a working document and should be submitted to the House. That is my proposition and hon. members will be doing a greater injury to themselves than to anyone else in the House if they object to the consideration of the Speech from the Throne, and will be accountable to their constituents. It has been said by the highest authority that those whom the gods wish to ruin they first deprive of their senses.
The hon. member for Kindersley has advanced arguments which to my mind seem to be lacking in logic and in justice, and I think that they show inability to grasp the situation. Whether these gentlemen are satisfied or not with what they have received

Government's Right to Office
in the past is not the question. If they are not satisfied, is that a reason why they should now prevent the government from putting into effect the provisions contained in the Speech from the Throne, if those provisions are agreeable to them? I should prefer to have them say "We are not pleased with the Speech from the Throne" than to take the ground that some of them have taken. If they are not satisfied with the Speech, they might as well kill it on a vote of want of confidence as to let the House discuss it for three weeks and kill it afterwards. But if they are satisfied with the Speech from the Throne, party considerations should not prevent them from considering it and voting on it. The hon. member for Kindersley said in effect "Let us judge their future from their past. 'In the past they did not implement their promises; therefore they will not implement them in the future". The answer to that is that the government is only one party in the House and1 cannot carry on the business of the country without the help of some other party, and the Progressive party can, at any time in the future, defeat a government that does not implement its promises as contained in the Speech from the Throne. Why should they prejudice the situation and say that they will not do this, or they will not do that, when the Speech from the Throne has not even been discussed? Let us discuss it and consider it if we can; then it will be the duty of the government to implement the Speech from the Throne, and if they do not carry out its provisions the Progressive party may logically say, "We have given you full opportunity to implement your promises and you have not done so. We have no more confidence in you, and therefore we will withdraw our support". That would be logical and would be worthy of any party and1 I for one would not rise from my seat in the House to criticize such a proposition.
I have endeavoured to point out the illogical situation which would be created if this amendment were adopted. If the amendment carries the government cannot remain longer in office; if the government with their Speech from the Throne are thrown out of power and the Conservative party come into power, then the Progressives will have to accept what they will receive from the Conservative party, whether they like it or not, or else go to the polls and have another general election. Is it expedient that we should have another general election? I do not think it is. I do not think the people want it. If the people want the business of the country carried on they do not want another general election.
To use a famous word, the people of this country want tranquillity. Now that the business of the country is increasing rapidly andi confidence is being restored, all classes want tranquility.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington):: Did the hon. member say tranquillity or stability?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I will say both.
I am speaking of tranquillity now-tranquillity first and stability afterwards, or both together if you want it. Tranquillity was a famous word in England when Bonar Law a few years ago ran an election and defeated Lloyd George and Asquith with that slogan "tranquillity." The English people wanted peace. They wanted progress and tranquillity. They thought they would get it under Bonar Law and voted for him. We want tranquillity, and therefore we do not want any general election, but not on account of such petty considerations as that some members of parliament might not be returned or might lose their indemnity. Members of parliament are much too high and lofty to have such ideas, and I deprecate any such consideration. We do not want any general election because the people do not want it. That is the chief reason, and besides it would be contrary to the interests of the country. Should the government be thrown out of power the only alternatives are to support the Conservative government, good or bad, or to have a general election.
The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) the other day said-not in so many words, but I take it this was his meaning:
' Well! let us turn out this government."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I hope I am not misinterpreting what he said. Let me put it in this way: "Supposing we turn out this government and support the Conservative party, and supposing the Conservative party, numbering, as they do, only 116 members, do not give us of the Progressive party the tariff policy, for instance, that we want, can we not defeat them at any moment, almost as easily as we could defeat the Liberal party?" To my hon. friend I say this and I want to warn him: We want tranquillity; we do not want an election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Joseph Denis: My hon. friends
on your left, Sir, may take this as they like. It is not, perhaps, so much against them as they may think. We want tranquillity and not a general election. Ontario wants tran-

Government's Right to Office
quillity; Quebec wants tranquillity, and Quebec and Ontario combined represent 147 members. The other members of this House also want tranquillity. Even were I not a supporter of the Liberal party, just because of this desire for tranquillity I would express this opinion: that the Liberal party should be left in power until such time as, by reason of their specific actions, the parliament of Canada lose confidence in them. The fact that they have returned here with only 101 members is no reason for an election. A party numbering 101 members is no better and no worse than a party numbering 116, because neither of the two parties can govern with the support only of their own followers. The Liberal party can command the support of only 101 members and the Conservative party can command the support of but 116 members. They have to make-call it what you like-alliances, adhesions, but they must get support from somebody else. That is the reason why I say we want tranquillity, not because I am a partisan, but using my judgment to the best of my ability. I have always thought and I still believe the Progressive party will give their support to the Liberal party, because the Liberal party is nearer to the Progressives than the Conservatives are. Perhaps I shall be accused of speaking as a partisan, but I am not; any man who knows political policies in this country must admit that the Progressives are nearer to the Liberals than the Conservatives are. Shall I give an illustration? I should not like to be discourteous to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), but we all know what he said one day in this House, and I am quoting this only to establish my position. At the time to which I refer, my hon. friends were called the Farmers' party, and the right hon. gentleman said that the Farmers' party w'as only a dilapidated annex of the Liberal party.
I am not saying this with any view of inflicting undue criticism. I bring it forth as a declaration from the leader of the opposition himself that he recognized that the Liberal party and the Progressive party were very much nearer to each other than the Progressive party and the Tory party. This everybody knows, and that is why I say I have always thought and still believe, not because I am a supporter of the Liberal party but basing my conclusion on logic and nothing else, that the Progressive party will give their support to the Liberal party. They have done that more or less for the last four years.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Before the hon. member sits down, may I ask him which he would [Mr. J. J. Denis.l
prefer-a "dilapidated annex" or a "holier than thou"?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I see that my hon. friend has entirely failed to grasp my object. I did not make the quotation for that purpose, much less for the purpose of attacking the leader of the opposition. That is past. If hon. members of the Progressive party want to go back one, two, three or four years, and claim to have a grievance against the Liberal government because it did not during that period give this, that or the other thing, that is past history. The expression was not pleasing to the Progressive party, I know, and I am not responsible for it. But I quoted it simply as being the judgment of the leader of the opposition himself to the effect that the Progressive party is nearer to the Liberal party than to his own.


Mr. WILSON (Wentworth):: Because it is dilapidated?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I do not think my hon. friend will want me to repeat that now. If I said it once, I regret very much that I had to say it.
I will now resume my seat. I had something else to say; but I have just looked at the clock and I see that I have occupied a good deal of .the time of the House, last night and this afternoon, in presenting my view on the motion now being considered. I hope I have hurt no one. I have simplv expressed my ideas on the situation as I see it. Hon. members of the Progressive party know me as I know them. They know my aims, my objects. They know I am not so blindly influenced by party considerations that I cannot see outside of my own party. That I have proved before, but if I have again to make the proof I can do so now. I have a witness in the presence of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss MacPhail). Is it not true that last May or June the hon. member for Southeast Grey, on the estimates of the Department of National Defence, moved an amendment to reduce a certain item by *399,000? I was in this House; I supported her and I voted with her against my own party. Three of us did so-Mr. Andrew McMaster, who is not here now; the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Lanc-tot) and myself. I am not boasting of this. It may be that I was wrong. Perhaps I was; but I was faithful to my convictions when I supported her and voted for her amendment because I believed She was right. I quote this incident in passing simply to give a lesson to some of my hon. friends opposite who always laugh if an hon. member rises in this House and says he has some independ-

Government's Right to Office
ence apart from his party. They cannot understand that. It is beyond their comprehension. Whenever an hon. member makes that statement, half a dozen gentlemen laugh. Well, let them laugh. I did not do it because it pleased me, but, I assure my hon. friends, solely because I have a certain independence in politics. And when a man is independent in politics and states his view frankly and earnestly, as I now do to the Progressive party, hon. gentlemen who do not take a similar attitude should at least listen to what he has to say.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When I say at once that the general tone of this debate has been of a very high order I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that I shall carry with me not only your judgment but, as well, the judgment of hon. members in all parts of the House. We have discussed this question from a highly technical, legal and constitutional point of view; it has been discussed most ably and, indeed, brilliantly by some of the leading lawyers in this House, gentlemen who have attained a very high place in legal circles not only in this country but, I may add, in other parts of the empire as well. Commencing with my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen), who opened the debate, followed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), the debate has resulted in perhaps as fine an exposition of the technical and constitutional aspects of the question under consideration as one could very well wish to hear. We have had as well some very clear cut views from what I might term the layman's standpoint. The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) led off this phase of the debate with an address which I am sure from the point of view of the sincerity of the hon. gentleman's opinions must have impressed every member of the House, while his capacity as a layman to weigh the problem and place it fairly before the House was undoubtedly marked. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) made also a notable contribution to the debate, as did the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), from the layman's point of view. We were all delighted with the magnificent oration delivered by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) who, returning after so many years' absence, must have cheered your heart, Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt that the older members of the House without exception, who remember the hon. gentleman's style of years
ago, were pleased to listen again to such a brilliant speech as he gave us the other day.
Let me pay my respects to the hon. member
who has just preceded me (Mr. Denis, Joli-ette). Whenever the hon. member rises to address this House-and I say this with the utmost sincerity-he always impresses us, at least those of us who have known him for so many years, with the candor of his views, a quality to which emphasis was given in the closing remarks of his speech. I will not attempt to compete with the hon. member in holding out attractive offers. He suggested that our friends to my left should hasten to grasp the offer he made them, and when he made that suggestion it occurred to me that there is a certain weed which, if you grasp it firmly, will not poison you, but which, if you touch it gently or caressingly is capable of inflicting a sharp pain. Let me tell my hon. friends that even if they grasp quickly and firmly this weed which the hon. member for Joliette is holding out to them, it is still a weed and still carries poison with it.
My hon. friend toward the close of his remarks said that we ought to discuss the Speech from the Throne. Well, I would remind him that his temporary leader in this House who is assuming to represent the government (Mr. Lapointe) has already expressed the opinion that wTe should not discuss the Speech from the Throne until he and his colleagues
4 p.m. and an absentee prime minister have received a vote of confidence.
I shall deal with that suggestion at the proper time. The hon. member for Joliette took very good care to say to-day that he spoke for himself and himself alone. I rather imagine, however-and I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, knowing as you do something of the intricacies of party control-that since six o'clock yesterday evening, when my hon. friend made certain statements without that qualification, he must have had several interviews with some of his leaders and been cautioned not to commit the party to anything. They must have said to him. "If you make these suggestions again to-morrow be careful that you indicate that you are speaking for yourself alone." But I wTould ask the hon. member, for whom I have the greatest respect, what is there behind the offer of a policy when it comes from an individual member speaking in his private capacity? I would follow the hon. gentleman a step further in his somewhat extraordinary views and his strained logic.


Jean-Joseph Denis: If my hon. friend will pardon the interruption, I am glad to be able to assure him unhesitatingly that I have not spoken

Government's Right to Office
to any of my party leaders since last night. I had in my notes while I was speaking on that occasion a similar statement to that which I made this afternoon, but, as it happened, I overlooked it at the time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quite prepared to
accept unreservedly my hon. friend's word in this regard, but we still have his assurance that he has been speaking for himself. And that is the point I am making; he confirms my own judgment upon it. The hon. member declared not only last night but to-day as well that the amendment of my right hon. leader- which I shall not refer to in any detail, seeing that we all have a fairly accurate idea of it- is a motion of want of confidence in the government. We agree; the whole House, I think, is agreed on that point: it is a motion of want of confidence in the government. But the hon. member goes on to say that if we vote against that motion, the vote thus registered will not constitute an expression of confidence in the government. For the life of me I am unable-it may be because I have merely a layman's mind, although I have had an experience in parliament of over fifteen years-to follow the hon. gentleman in this. With all the study I have been able to give to the subject as a layman I cannot understand how it is possible to vote upon a motion one way and imiply a certain conviction and to vote upon it the contrary way and not imply the opposite. The hon. member says that if you vote upon it one way it means one thing, but if you vote upon it the opposite way it is utterly meaningless. I call to my assistance the judgment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth), whose eloquence cannot be denied and who generally speaking is logical, although personally 1 seldom agree with the subject matter of his speeches. That hon. member, speaking in this House a year ago, declared that there were only two ways of voting on a given question-yes or no. 1 submit that one of the fundamental principles of parliamentary procedure is this inevitable obligation on the part of members to vote yes or no. It is impossible for one to vote partly yes and partly no; one cannot shade one's opinion in a vote. We must all have the courage to Stand in our places and declare ourselves upon the measure before us.
Mr. Speaker, as I proceed with my observations this afternoon I address myself to every member of this House. I address myself to hon. gentlemen to your right, to hon. gentlemen immediately to your left, and to others who claim the position of being independent of these two parties. I address my-

self to members of this House generally, and I want that fact clearly understood throughout the course of my remarks. I would that I could persuade the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay) for instance, or the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) and others to accept the views I shall put forward. I have not much hope of doing so, but I think I shall carry their judgment if I do not carry their vote in the matter.
Let us examine briefly the amendment containing as it does the subject matter of this discussion. It embraces five divisions, and on the first four I think the House is agreed. I will just run over them hastily without quoting them at length: that government candidates were defeated in large numbers; that nine ministers, including the Prime Minister, were defeated; that the Conservatives have the largest representation in the House and received the largest number of popular votes of any party. In these things we all agree, so we may eliminate them from discussion as far as this motion is concerned. The disputed point is this: whether or not those who now assume to advise His Excellency, are competent to do so under the constitution. It is of supreme importance-and I shall deal with that more fully in a moment-whether or not they are competent to act as a committee of parliament. That is the particular point I want to bring to the attention of the House- whether or not a group of gentlemen, three of whose principals are not in this House at all-and I wall name them, Mr. Mackenzie King, Mr. Marler and Mr. Massey-


Mr. MANION:: And Mr. Graham.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Graham may be among them, but I understand he has declared his intention of resigning. May I interpolate here that we are all exceedingly sorry to learn of this, because he was a very popular and gracious figure in this House. But those three men who were the directing and most influential spirits in the Liberal party are not in the House. Not only are they not in the House, but they have been rejected at the polls. The people said: We do not want you as the king's advisers. The resolution asks us to declare that this group of individuals, including the three gentlemen to whom I have referred, are not competent to act as a committee of this House commonly known as a government. I do not see, Mr. Speaker, how any hon. member can vote against that declaration. It is simple and clear. We hold that under the constitution they cannot do so. Then we follow with the further declaration that the attempt of this group of individuals to assume the role of advisers of the crown

Government's Right to Office
'is a violation of constitutional practice. That is the gist of the amendment and what it is intended to decide; that and nothing else is what we are considering and what we are voting on. It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that the efforts to resist this amendment, the pleas made against it upon one ground or another, exhibit but the dying gasp of a moribund government. It appears to me that if we face this question frankly there can be but one decision.
'Now I want to bring before the House the utterances of ministers of the crown in order to demonstrate that the position I am taking is the correct one. I have here the, Hansard incorporating the observations of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who assumes to be the leader of the government. I shall quote briefly, but I think the quotations are of importance in view of the change, the somewhat subtle change, which has occurred in the interpretation of the position of hon. gentlemen opposite within the last twenty-four hours. The Minister of Justice, when this amendment was first moved-but let me go further back. When the Minister of Justice made his own motion of confidence, this is what he said:
I should not like anybody to be taken by surprise, and if it is the wish of the House that the consideration of this motion should be postponed till Monday I am quite content to agree, provided the motion is disposed of before we take up any other business.
That was the proviso, that the motion of confidence be disposed of before taking up any other business. That is the first official declaration of him who assumes to lead the government in this House-not on our amendment, but on his own motion. It may be argued, Mr. Speaker, that I am speaking beside the point because that motion is not before us. That may be true. Then let us see what he says in regard to this amendment. On page 25 of Hansard I find these words:
I say that this government does not want to remain in office one day or one hour, unless the parliament of Canada approves of it. As I said, we took the first occasion open to us to acquaint the House with the question before us.
That is, the amendment.
We are discussing the same issue on the amendment of my right hon. friend, and it is just as agreeable to
me.
In other words, the Minister of Justice said: "The other day I presented a motion of confidence and asked the House to vote on that motion before we proceeded with any other business." When this amendment intervened he said: "This amendment is just the same to me as the motion which I then proposed," and he asked the House to decide 14011-10
the question before any other business was taken up. Further he says:
It is important that the issue should be settled-
When?
-at once. Public Offices must be filled-
I ask the House to note this:
-and the ordinary measures of administration must be taken, and parliament being now in session, there is no reason why the normal functions of government should not be resumed and discharged immediately.
I pause to ask this: Have the normal functions of government been suspended? If they have been suspended, then what is the reason for that suspension? Because the government, and more particularly the Prime Minister, admit that they have not the confidence of the people of this country, nor have they the confidence of this House. That is the reason it is suspended. Then my hon. friend the Minister of Justice proceeded:
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 international, that lie before it.
He concludes with these words:
By the verdict and the decision of my colleagues in this House of Commons I state that the government is willing to stand and will abide.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I leave the Minister of Justice and proceed to the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), the second most important legal adviser of this House. The Solicitor General, at page 01 of Hansard, has this to say:
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.
He continues:
In matters of this kind parliament is supreme and its decision will be binding. This is very plain language.
Then, towards the end of his speech, he says:
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.
The Solicitor General tells this House, following the utterances of the Minister of Justice, that this matter must be decided first, that parliament has been called primarily not for the ordinary despatch of business, but for what? To decide whether or not the government shall be continued in office. Further he says:
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.
Now I call to witness a third minister, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), and



Government's Right to Office
I am done with my quotations. The Minister of the Interior, the third representative of this moribund government that we 'have in the House of Commons, says this:
The question we are to ask ourselves now is whether or not this government did the proper thing in remaining in office and in calling parliament. We have acted conscientiously within the limit of the law, and we are prepared to stand or fall by the decision which will be recorded in this House when the vote is taken.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what I ask is this: In the face of these utterances by three responsible ministers of the crown, how can my hon. friends opposite now, late in the debate, stand in their places as they have been doing, and as I understand the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) is about to do when I get through-he has been priming himself for it for the last twenty-four hours, and I see he has a good accumulation of documents on his desk-how can other members of the government and members of the government party now face the House and say, contrary to all logic, contrary to all the known precedents in the matter: if you vote against the government by supporting the amendment, you vote lack of confidence, but if you vote for the government and against the amendment, you do not express confidence in the government. Mr. Speaker, the thirg is ludicrous, it i3 absurd, and without any reason in it. It is a definite vote of confidence that the government is asking.
I ask the government now, assuming that this resolution is defeated, how are they going to stand? As they are to-day, as they have been doing, without power to function as a government? I am quoting the very words of the Minister of Justice, who declares that the government has not' been functioning in the ordinary affairs of administration; he tells the House that the government could not function until it is given a vote of confidence by the House, and now they say a vote for the government's motion is not a vote of confidence. I ask them, how are they going to function? Are they going to bring up large questions, such as the Minister of Justice referred to, and in reference to which he said the government were unable to proceed at present, or are they going to let these questions remain in abeyance? Are they going to come before this House and stand on their two feeit, or are they going to come here cringing on their knees? This is the question the House has to decide. Is this country to have a government that can hold up its head and face the people and say: We are going to administer affairs with a clear-cut mandate from the people? Or are we to have a government that will simply slip around the lobbies trying to cling to office by any

chicanery or seductive inducements they may be able to hold out here and there to members of the House, independent of all principles?
If this vote is carried in favour of the government, if the amendment is defeated, just look at the press of this country to-morrow morning. Look at the Toronto Star, look at the Montreal Herald, look at other Liberal papers throughout the country, and what will you see? Glaring headlines-Government Sustained in a Vital Vote-Liberal Government Vindicated-A New Lease of Life for the Liberal Party-and so forth. That is the kind of headings you will see in to-morrow morning's paper if the amendment is defeated. The Citizen, published in this city, will have a two-inch headline across the top of its page-


An hon. MEMBER:: Three inch.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -perhaps three inch, declaring that parliament has again expressed confidence in the government. And yet my hon. friends opposite, in order to evade or circumvent what is a legtimate conscientious doubt in the minds of some, come before parliament and suggest that a vote against the amendment is not a vote of confidence in the government!
Now let me address myself directly, and briefly, to the constitutional point. In doing this I want to make an assertion which I do not think will be disputed. The Conservative party, of which I am a member and have been for many years, the party led in this House by my right hon. friend the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meaghen), stands four-square, unflinchingly, without apology, upon the British constitutional practice. We believe, Mr. Speaker, in the institutions that have grown up under and through our constitutional growth; we believe in the sanctity of contracts, not only for the government but for the people; we believe in the inviolability of the courts of the country; we believe that parliament should function as it has functioned for so many years, as a representative body; we believe further, that a government should be a responsible government, responsible to the parliament of Canada and to the people at large. These are some of the cherished views of the Conservative party, and so I approach the constitutional question with some confidence so far as we are concerned.
I look upon the constitution as for the nation, and not the nation for the constitution. We have heard a good deal about precedent. I think, Mr. Speaker, we should be more interested in established principles growing out of

Government's Right to Office
and developed from precedent to precedent than we are in individual precedents; that is, it is by growth or the evolution from precedent to precedent that the principles of our constitution have been established'. What I want to impress upon the minds of hon. gentlemen to-day is this: that what we are discussing is that a violation of constitutional practice may become an established principle. We are not dealing with a precedent that may be lightly tossed aside, but with a vital principle of our constitution.
I want to say something further, and it is this: Principles become the rights of the people, and while this parliament may be supreme in power, while it may have the power to change this or that, there are certain things it has no light to do, and one of them is this: It has no right, even though it may have the power, to jeopardize the rights of the people in this parliament. Now I submit that this House is the trustee of those principles, and we cannot lightly or carelessly discard them. These rights, Mr Speaker, have been obtained after centuries of struggle and sacrifice; these principles have been established only after a great struggle.
Now let me ask a question: What has been this great struggle? It has, in a word, been the struggle of the rights of parliament against the encroachments of a monarch, a struggle that lasted for centuries and found its culmination about the beginning of the last century- about 1867, as a matter of fact. The encroachment of aggression of the sovereign has become obsolete; it is something we need not now fear. But while there is no fear of encroachment by the sovereign upon the rights of parliament, something else has taken the place of that encroachment, and what is it? About 1867 we finally established the principle that in the Prime Minister and his executive rested the full power of government, subject, of course, to parliament. In the Prime Minister and his executive rested the fullest measure of government which at one time rested wholly in the monarch, but which through long centuries of struggle was gradually wrested from him and placed in the hands of the Prime Minister. So to-day we have this: The Prime Minister and his executive have become the governing power in this country, as in all other countries with a constitution like ours. The power to govern, the power to determine governmental matters, rests in that body. I want the House to follow me, if I can possibly make myself clear on this point. I say again, there is no danger of aggression from the crown. The last real 14011-101
effort of aggression on the .part, of the crown was in the days of George III, when he sought to be his own Prime Minister, and one of the final acts in that drama was the bill introduced by Edmund Burke depriving George III and the crown forever of the appointment of placemen and patronage therefrom. But I am not going to indulge in any of that fine argument. What I want to say is this:	Having established, as I think I have,
that the power of government rests now with the Prime Minister and his executive, I want to point out to hon. gentlemen the danger that is there. What is the danger that threatens the people's rights to-day? Not the aggression of a monarch, but the danger of the invisible power of party organization behind the government, influencing that government in a manner detrimental to the interests of the public at large. I pause then to say this, in order to make myself perfectly clear: It makes no difference whether that party organization is Liberal, Conservative, Progressive or Labour-the point is that there rests behind the government-I care not what government it may be-an invisible, an irresponsible power which has a great influence upon the government. Now I come to the point. What is the check that the people and the people's representatives have against an unfair exercise of that pow-er by a government influenced by an invisible organization such as I have mentioned? There is one check, Mr. Speaker, and one check only. I want this point particularly to sink into the minds of hon. gentlemen in this House who look upon this question as academic and trivial. I repeat that there is one safeguard and one safeguard1 only. It is that the Prime Minister and his ministers shall meet the people's representatives in parliament.
Now let me elucidate the point. Those of us who have sat in government, or have been in party caucuses where men speak very frankly on these things, know that some measure may come up which is of peculiar interest to the group who at the time have the government under their control. What is the consideration which Sometimes prevents the bringing of Such a measure before parliament? It is the question whether or not the government, or the party, it may be, in opposition, can carry the judgment of the House and, what is of far greater importance, carry the judgment of the people-because this forum is public, not secret. That is the deterring element; that is the safeguard of a people in a free country. If you remove, that safeguard; if you interfere with it in any way, if you encroach upon it in the slightest degree,

Government's Right to Ofice
to that extent, Sir, you threaten the rights of the people; you jeopardize the interest of the public and the rights of the members of parliament as representatives of the people.
Now I go a step further. We have no Prime Minister in this House. We know that two of his ministers, Mr. Marler and Mr. Massey, though without seats in this House, are exceedingly active in the councils of the party and the government. We know that they had a hand in the drafting of the Speech from the Throne. We know that hon. gentlemen whom I see on the treasury benches today were very wrathful when they learned that Mr. Marler and Mr. Massey had1 something to do with the Speech from the Throne before they were consulted'. Where are we coming to? We have a Speech from the Throne prepared by Mr. Marler, Mr. Massey, and Mr. Mackenzie King, none of whom has a seat in the House, none of whom is before us, and we are asked to consider that Speech from the Throne with these gentlemen absent. Now I come back to where I was a moment ago.	It is not that the whole fabric of
confederation is going to be wrecked on that account. That is not the point. The point is that you are opening the door to an abuse. You are opening the door, Mr. Speaker, to an attempt to undermine the most fundamental principle of parliamentary government and the greatest safeguard of the people's rights in this country.
Mention has been made of the Baldwin-Lafontaine government. Those who are better read will correct me if I am wrong, but the last case in Canada of interference by the crown in the rights of government-I am indebted to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) for this and it is a case more to the point than any occurring in 1688 and later-was that of the Baldwin-Lafontaine administration, and as a result of that interference that government resigned and appealed to the people. It was their return that gave to the parliament of Canada the final control of its affairs and settled forever any question of encroachment by the crown upon the rights of parliament. And in this vote, which will be recorded to-night as I understand it, we the members of this House are declaring whether or not we shall open the door to a violation of that principle and to the establishment of a system which will certainly not be in the interest of the public at large. If we now vote confidence in a government whose Prime Minister and other ministers are not in the House, what is to hinder a strong party that may hereafter secure control of the popular chamber from voting "that it is un-

necessary for the Prime Minister to have a seat in the House." The Prime Minister need only say: "Oh, we have the precedent." It will be argued that in 1926 parliament functioned; the question was there debated for a week and it was decided that it w as not necessary for the Prime Minister to be in the House. It may be argued, and argued rightly, that I am drawing a fine line; but I want to point out that no nation ever lost its liberty in a night. That is not the way the rights of a people are taken from them. The liberties of this great nation of which we are so proud and which we call the Dominion of Canada are the outgrowth of centuries. Brick by brick, precedent by precedent, the fabric has been built up, and out of these precedents have come the principles of government. And I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that it will not be by some catastrophe, some overwhelming event, that this governmental institution, this parliament and all that is allied to it, will be wiped out. No, but just as we have built our constitution as it were line by line, precept by precept, here a little and there a little, just in the same manner, by taking a little away to-day and a little to-morrow, by establishing a precedent here or a precedent there, we could undermine the structure as we now have it.
I think there has been some confusion on the question of power and right. I have already made some slight reference to it, and I shall not be more than a moment in carrying my point along. I, Mr. Speaker, as an individual have the power to light a fire in this chamber, but I have no right to do it. I haye the power, the physical power, to abuse or slap one of the pages, but I have not the right to do it. This government has the power-not this government, I am wrong; it has no power; I mean a government would have with a majority of seventy such as we had in 1917. Such a government has power to barter or traffic in the liberties of the people of this country. They could do some very serious damage but they have not the right to do it. Their accession to power and the fact that they have a large majority does not establish the right to do a given thing. That is what I want to impress upon this House. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) the other day stressed the point that parliament was supreme. He is quite correct, but is it always wise, simply because we are supreme, to deal lightly with questions which may at times be obscure, but which are nevertheless of vital importance to the future? That is what I want the House to consider at this time. I will leave that phase of the subject with one further

Government's Right to Office
observation, that when we make a decision to-day we are making a decision on a clear-cut constitutional principle-not a precedent but a principle that has been established, a principle that is in itself the only real safeguard of the people. When we vote on this question, I say, we are deciding whether or not we shall depart from that principle in this case and possibly in future cases as well.
There has been introduced into this debate, I think first by the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), an argument which I shall deal with. I hesitate, Mr. Speaker, to approach this argument, because I do not think it should ever have been obtruded into this discussion. I desire to say to my hon. friend, although some differ with me in this, that I thought he made as good an argument on his side of the case as perhaps could be made. He is a clear thinker and a forceful debater, and I congratulate him on his speech. The hon. gentleman said that the defeat of the government would place in office my right hon. friend as Prime Minister with 116 members behind him. Then, addressing himself, as the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) did, to the Progressive party and the Independents, he said that if such a thing happened we would have in office a party who stood for high tai'iff. Now that argument, that suggestion, that insinuation is not germane to the subject under discussion, but since it has been obtruded into the debate I am going to deal with it very briefly.
I think it may be stated that the Liberal party and the Progressive party are low tariff men. Anyway they are against protection; I will put it that way. On the other hand it is argued that the Conservative party are opposed by both Progressives and Liberals. We are deeply indebted to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) for some very clear-cut statements in this matter and for a good deal of help. I am not bound to argue therefore, from my own point of view only; I can enlist his assistance because he clearly stated that in the province of Quebec there were a large number who were distinctly protectionists. I could call the roll, but this is not the time to do it; I am now answering an argument. I could challenge thirty-five members on the other side of the House, yes forty-five, and not one of them would dare say that he was opposed to the general tariff policy declarations of the party to which I belong.
The point I want to bring out is that the tariff question does not constitute the whole of the policy of this party and is not the only issue. The hon. members on this side of the House, one hundred and sixteen strong, stand
without equivocation, without apology, at all times, out of the House and in the House, frankly for a reasonable protective tariff. We do not disguise our position. We do not say to any group: Well, we will meet you here, there or elsewhere on this question. The country knows where we stand. My hon. friends to my left know where we stand, and we offer no apology for our position. But when my hon. friends are asked to vote against a vital constitutional principle on the ground, forsooth, that we have a certain tariff policy, do not forget that the ranks into which you are asked to enter, that spider's web into which you are invited to enmesh yourselves, contains forty or fifty members whose tariff policy is not one whit different from ours; the only difference is that they have not the courage to stand up and say so.
Then the Solicitor General said: "The party to the left of you, Mr. Speaker, is divided; the members from Nova Scotia entered this House on a Maritime rights programme." All right, let us see whether they did or not. I hold in my hand the Sydney Post of date November 17. I will not read it at length, but I wish to quote something which will not perhaps be very acceptable to some hon. gentlemen opposite. The Sydney Post in an editorial says this:
Everyone in Nova Scotia knows that the tariff was not only the dominant issue, but that it was the sole question of serious importance discussed in this province during the recent campaign.
That is answer No. 1 to my hon. friend.


Mr. CANNON:: Would the hon. member go further and tell us which way it was discussed, and how Mr. McCurdy discussed it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is my intention.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. McCurdy did not. get a seat.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the Solicitor General will contain himself for a moment I will tell him how it was discussed. The editorial continues :
In Cape Breton island, where 90 per cent of the people are convinced protectionists, the Liberal candidates made no serious attempt to meet the Conservative arguments for a fairer tariff, but represented themselves as being quite as sturdy champions of increased protection to coal and steel as their opponents. In Cape Breton South, Mr. Currie, the Liberal candidate, professed earnestly that he stood for stiff tariff protection to local industry. In Cape Breton North and Victoria Mr. Kelly-
Mr. Kelly was the hon. member for that district in this House for four years. He was defeated by a Conservative. The editoriV continues:
Government'a Right to Office

Mr. Kelly, the King government's standard-bearer, not only claimed to be favourable to all the protection that could be procured for coal and steel, but even went so far as to criticize Mr. Meighen for not pledging himself with sufficient definiteness to an increase of the import duties on those commodities. In his nomination day speech at Port Hood, Dr. A. W. Chisholm, Liberal candidate for Inverness-
Dr. A. W. Chisholm was a member of this House for about twenty years, I think-a sturdy Liberal and protectionist.
-made much of the increased duty imposed on slack coal at the last session of parliament, and pointed to it as alleged evidence that the King government's position with respect to protection was sound. In Richmond-West Cape Breton, Mr. George W. Kyte-
Who is he? He was chief Liberal whip of the party at the time he was speaking, now a voice that is silent.
Mr. George W. Kyte sought to break the force of the Conservative protectionist campaign by affirming and reiterating, in district after district, on the platform and in his private canvass, that Mr. Meighen's vote against last year's budget was impliedly a vote against the increased duty on slack coal announced in that budget.
There are a lot of others which I will not read. The reason I interject this is to point out to hon. members the suggestions, the innuendoes, the arguments-shall I grace them with that term?-of my hon. friends opposite, to the effect that to trust a government headed by my right hon. leader would be to challenge the rights of hon. gentlemen who hold views slightly different from his.
Let me repeat what has been said already: We are not here offering policy for policy; we are not offering a quid pro quo for something offered on the other side. We stand by our principles and our policies; we stand where we have always stood-as constitutionalists, and as in favour of a reasonable tariff, but we say to the House at this time:	This
is a question that cannot be made a subject of barter. This is a question on which you cannot bid for support here or there on matters not pertaining to the question itself. We are deciding a point which is vital to the constitution and to the interests of the country. Before leaving that point, let me remind hon. members that the popular vote should rule; that the majority opinion of the people must be respected in this House. That is what we say. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and some hon. gentlemen in other sections of the House have time and again stressed the point that respect should be had for majority opinion. We entirely agree with that view. If we argue with some vigour now, if we state our views as emphatically as we can and press our arguments as strongly as we can, it
(Mr. Stevens.]
is not because we want to deprive others of a similar privilege; it is simply that we feel confident in our cause and desire to explain it to the House. What for? To get the majority opinion of this House. If the majority opinion of the country, as represented by 116 members in one part of the House and 40 or 50 in another, is that there should be a reasonable tariff, reasonable protection for agriculture and for industry, then we say that it is the right of hon. members of the House to express that opinion. That is our position in regard to the matter.
Let me say a few words as to the future. Hon. gentlemen opposite have said to us: If this amendment carries and the Conservatives are called upon to take over the affairs of the country, what are you going to do? I will say very clearly-and in this regard I know I shall carry with me the judgment of all the members who sit around me-we will religiously and rigidly follow established constitutional practice. We will respect the constitution and those principles to which I have already alluded. Shall we carry on? The question, will you carry on? has been bandied from one side of the House to the other. Let me point out that whether the government is sustained, or is defeated and a new government is called upon to take office, the constitutional duty of the administration, whichever it may be, is to carry on the affairs of the country so long as it can command a majority of the House of Commons. There is but one proviso-and it is obvious without my stating it-namely that in the case of some emergency, some great problem arising which this parliament has no mandate to deal with, unquestionably there would have to be an appeal to the people for a mandate. But on all other matters, on all questions affecting merely the carrying on of the duties of a government, this party or that party must, as a matter of duty to the people of Canada, carry on as long as it can command the support of a majority in the House of Commons.
Before I conclude, let me put this question briefly. I have asked myself for a week: Why is it that this government persists in clinging to office in face of public opinion and contrary, I know, to the advice of many of their leaders? What invisible influence is it that forces them to cling to office? I am precluded by the rules of the House from saying very much in that regard, but I will say this: It is the consciousness of this government thjjt the moment they relinquish office, the moment they surrender their seals, the moment others have access to the files and secret information of the departments, there will be revealed a

Government's Right to Office
condition which they, if they can cling to office, would fain hide.


Mr. ROBB:: My hon. friend has said either too much or not enough. It seems to me he should proceed a little further.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In order to allay the alarm which the Minister of Finance has exhibited,
I hasten to say that I have not in mind at the moment the Minister of Finance or his department. At the earliest opportunity that is afforded, we will say more. For four years Mr. Mackenzie King-now absent from this House but still claiming the support and confidence of the House in his absence-carried on an administration that spelled failure. No one disputes that. He himself admits it. He told his electors-yes, he told all the people of Canada in his official address-that he had had for four years failed to cope with many important questions that were before the country. He declared that he had lost confidence in himself. He sought to restore that confidence by an appeal to the people and the people denied him that restoration of confidence. Now, through a petitioner, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) he comes to this House and to you, Sir, and he says: Mr. Speaker, Madam and gentlemen, if you please I have lost confidence in myself. I have sought it in the country in vain. Now, by my trusty friend, the Minister of Justice, I ask you: Tell me please, tell me, have you not that confidence in me which I have lost in myself and which the country has also lost in me?
Tile essential question, the very marrow of the problem before us, is this: The Prime Minister's presence in this House is the only evidence we can have of his submission to the constitution of this country and the authority of parliament. No Prime Minister, standing outside of the precincts of this House, refusing to face his opposition, his questioners, his critics, can claim to have submitted himself to the House. So I say that the essential thing is his presence here. Specious declarations by his henchmen and followers inside the House or outside of it will not do. He has not attempted to secure a seat in this House. Had the Prime Minister been running for a seat there might have been some force in their arguments, but up to this moment he has flouted the demands of the people and disregarded their rights. He has not even evidenced a desire to get a seat in order to be present in this House and to meet parliament. Stripped of all confusing side issues or palliatives or inducements that have been held out, the question is: Does this government properly and correctly represent the views of the majority of the people of Canada? Have they from the people such a mandate as would warrant their assuming the role of advisers of His Excellency? We say emphatically: no. We challenge that right; we challenge their action. We demand their removal; we demand the restoration of parliamentary practice and the recognition of that sacred principle to which I have alluded. We ask that we be given, by the recognition of that principle, the right and privilege of forming a ministry clothed with authority and constitutionally established.
Hon. G. II. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise):	I desire, Mr. Speaker, thatmy first words uttered in this House as a member of the government be words of congratulation not to you, Sir, but to the House of Commons upon your re-election to the position which you now occupy. Canada, since confederation, has had a long line of distinguished Speakers belonging to both parties of the House of Commons, and I think I can truthfully say that every one of them has graced the position and that every one has had his special qualities. I can safely say, however, that not one of that long line has brought to the position more tact, more patience, more urbanity and more dignity than your honourable self. If I may be allowed to speak for one moment, not as a member of the government but as the representative of the county of Shefford and also in my personal capacity, I should like to congratulate the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) upon the victory which he achieved in Portage la Prairie. I am glad to see him back in the House, and my constituents in Shefford have a special interest in his personal welfare. It is true that Shefford does not give him a very large majority, that Shefford does not support his party; but I know that he has received from the county of Shefford something that he cherishes far more than the greatest majority that could be given him in any election.
I should like to follow the usual custom and congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, but unfortunately there has yet been no mover nor has there been any seconder; and if the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition is carried there never will be a mover and seconder so far as this Address is concerned. The Address in such an event could not possibly be debated; a new government would be obliged to take office and, in the words of the leader of the opposition himself, the Speech could not be considered.
Government's Right to Office

In order that there may be no misunderstanding on this point let me read the right hon. gentleman's words:
A speech from the Throne has been read, and one of them moves in this House that this Speech from the Throne be taken into consideration on a fixed date. That is a government motion. Now I contend that this House cannot, that this House certainly ought not-and I use both phrases without qualification-take into account any Speech from the Throne which comes from an alleged government through the mouth of His Excellency when that alleged government has not a prime minister in this House or in the other House answerable to parliament.
The Prime Minister writes the Speech from the Throne. I stop not to quote the authorities now; they are numerous; the Speech from the Throne is written by him or under his direction. The Speech from the Throne comes from him to this House through the mouth of His Excellency.
That is an admission that if the amendment is carried the policies which have been expounded to this country by the leader of the opposition, notably the high tariff policy which he has preached throughout Canada, will have to be embodied in a Speech from the Throne. These policies he has advocated in all parts of the country with the exception of the province of Quebec, where during the election campaign he either did not dare put in an appearance, or perhaps was prevented from so doing by those who were 5 p.m. representing themselves to bo candidates of the Conservative party under the direction of Mr. Patenaude. His high tariff policy, I say, if the present motion were defeated, would have to be embodied in a Speech from the Throne which would be put into the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General by the right hon. gentleman himself. [DOT] If the amendment now before us is carried by this House, not only must this House of Commons adjourn but it must be prorogued in order that a new session may be called; and at that new session the Governor General will have to read the Speech from the Throne submitted to him by our hon. friends opposite.


Arthur Meighen: Will my hon. friend be
good enough to compare his words in that respect with the words of his colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon)?


Mr. BOIVIN:: I regret to say that owing
to the somewhat onerous task that has been placed upon my shoulders of administering, I will not say one of the most important but perhaps one of the heaviest departments of government, I was not in the House during the entire debate and therefore did not hear the words used by my good friend the Solicitor General.
[Mr Boivin]


Lucien Cannon: And I never discussed
that aspect of the question.


Georges Henri Boivin: At any rate I did not hear the hon. gentleman's words. I maintain, however, that unless the leader of the opposition is willing to swallow his policy and his principles and to change his opinions and ask the House to accept the Speech that has already been read to us he must prepare another Speech and place it in the hands of His Excellency and have it read to parliament, in the event of the government being defeated.


Mr. BURY:: Suppose the resolution proposed 'by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) were defeated, no amendment having been moved, would the same result not follow?


Georges Henri Boivin: I think the result would be
the same, and the duty of this government in such a case would be to resign and allow the leader of the opposition to carry on the affairs of the country as he might see fit. That is my contention. If the motion proposed by the Minister of Justice is defeated through the adoption of the amendment, there is nothing that this government can do but resign and allow the Governor General to call upon someone else to form a government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does my hon. friend recall, or has he noted, what occurred in Great Britain when Mr. Baldwin was defeated and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald took over office? He was defeated on the amendment to the Address and1 the Address was 'then carried although the government had been defeated.


Georges Henri Boivin: Precisely what should have
happened in this House on the present occasion. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition should have propounded his policy in .the form of an amendment to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne as was done in England.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Speech from the Throne was adopted by parliament with an amendment to the effect that His Majesty's advisers did not have the confidence of parliament. The time to have made that amendment, if parliament were to be conducted in an orderly way, was after the motion had been made to present an Address to His Excellency in reply to the Speech from the Throne.


Robert James Manion: May I ask my hon. friend what was the intention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in moving the amendment which my hon. friend says would have had the same effect?

Government's Right to Office
Mr. B01VIN:	I will come to that immediately, and I a-m very glad my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) should be the one to ask that question, because I want to reply to the allegations made by the hon. member when he referred last night to the rumour that a statement would be made by one of the members of the government to the effect that if the amendment we are now discussing is defeated, the government will not accept that as a vote of confidence. I ask every one in the House to listen to the few words I have to say, and if the hon. member for Fort William desires a statement I am quite prepared to make one. The government regards the amendment moved iby the right hon. leader of the opposition as a challenge to its right to ask parliament to consider the Speech of His Excellency, a challenge to its right to continue in office without violating the principle and practice of British constitutional government. If the amendment is adopted by this House, the duty of the government will be to resign, and the Prime Minister will advise Ilfs Excellency to call upon some other .person to form a government. If the amendment is defeated, the government will consider that the House, reserving ;to itself the right subsequently to take whatever course it may desire, does not at the present moment desire to have His Excellency .advised to call upon the right hon. leader of the opposition to form a government, but that it prefers to have the .present government continue to function until such time as it is defeated, either upon a motion to present an Address to His Excellency in reply to the Speech from the Throne, or upon some important measure which may be submitted to this House and to which the members of the House, by a majority vote, refuse to give their approval.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If that is a correct statement of the position of the government, why did the Minister of Justice-the leader of the party opposite and my hon. friend's leader- declare, as it appears on page 25 of Hansard, that he considered this amendment as of equivalent force, and accepted it as being the same as his own motion. He says further:
-and it is as agreeable to me.


Georges Henri Boivin: For the purpose of determining whether or not the Prime Minister was right in summoning parliament and allowing parliament to decide the question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend permit me again-


Mr. SPEAKER:: To presenve the decorum of the House, this cross-examination should
cease. The hon. member who has the floor should not be interrupted without permission These interruptions do not further the debate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker. I certainly on all occasions bow to your ruling, but in justice to myself will you bear in mind that I rose and asked the member, as I always do, if he would give me his permission.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not object to that. The conduct of the hon. gentleman in this House has always been exemplary in following the rules, but I notice in this debate the interruptions are frequent. I do not- ooject to an interruption now and again, but they must not be frequent or the debate cannot go on.


Georges Henri Boivin: I had not completed my
statement. I want to add that the government will not consider a vote upon this motion to be an approval of all or any of its past po!:-cies, nor a mandate from the House to enact all the legislation contained in the Speech from the Throne. In other words, no member voting against the amendment will be considered as approving the legislation introduced during the past four years, nor will he be considered as giving any blanket authorization to this government to carry on for any indefinite period.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to ask a question? Does he consider it as a vote of confidence, or does he not?


Georges Henri Boivin: I consider it a vote of confidence in this sense-and I will turn aside from my argument to reply once more to my right hon. friend-that if this House beiieves as lie does, that this government did wrong in summoning parliament, in placing a Speech in the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General, which is the accusation made against us in the amendment-


Arthur Meighen: That is not the question I asked.


Georges Henri Boivin: In order that the right hon leader of the opposition may not shake his head for nothing, I am going to read
That those who now assume to be His Excellency's advisers have among them no prime minister with a seat in either house of parliament, and under such circumstances are not competent to act as, or to become, the committee of parliament, commonly known as the government, or to address parliament through His Excellency, and their attempted continuance in office is a violation of the principles and practice of British constitutional government.
The right hon. leader of the opposition asks the House to decide that, and nothing more. We say that if we have done wrong in sum-
Government's Right to Office

moning the representatives of the people here, where my right hon. friend has no majority, and knows he has no majority; if we have done wrong in summoning these representatives here to decide the question which he would like to have had decided by some one else in his own personal favour, then we are willing to resign and allow him to carry on the affairs of the country.


Arthur Meighen: Unless the hon. gentleman objects, I would like to ask this: Whatever may be opinions as to the right of the government in awaiting parliament, that question is not raised in the amendment at all. The amendment declares that the government has no right to retain office. Now I ask my hon. friend again-and will he answer me, yes or no?-Does the government consider an adverse vote on the amendment a vote of confidence?


Georges Henri Boivin: I was proceeding to answer that question. It is a vote of confidence to this extent, that it is limited to all the contents of that amendment, and if the House of Commons is not content with what we did and what we are reproached with doing in that amendment, we are willing to resign.


Arthur Meighen: You are evading the
question.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It is the whole question.


Arthur Meighen: You are evading the question.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am quite willing to have the right hon. gentleman say that I am evading the question. He has evaded questions himself so many times that he thinks no one else can speak without evasion. Let me complete my statement, and if hon. members on the other side then desire to interrupt further I have no objection. I wanted to add that no member voting against the amendment will be considered by the government as approving the legislation introduced during the past four years, nor will he be considered as giving a blanket authorization to the government to carry on for any indefinite period. Those who vote against this amendment will be only proclaiming to their constituents and to the people generally that they consider that the Prime Minister did the proper thing in refraining from advising His Excellency to call upon the right hon. leader of the opposition to form a government; that he did right in remaining in office and in advising His Excellency to summon parliament at the earliest practicable moment in order that parliament itself might determine, after an intelligent discussion of the policies set
I Mr Boivin]
forth in the Speech from the Throne, and the policies which might be submitted by the hon. leader of the opposition in the form of an amendment, which party or group of members in this House should be charged with the duty of initiating legislation and submitting it to this parliament for its approval or rejection. No man who supports the government upon this vote is binding himself by that vote to support the government upon any other issue. In the words of the motion submitted by the hon. Minister of Justice, who is now leading this House, the government, if it is supported, will only have the right to carry on and function as a government until and unless it is defeated by a vote of this House equivalent to a vote of want of confidence.
My right hon. friend asks if this is a vote of confidence or not. On this particular issue, on the matter before the House, it is a vote of want of confidence.


Arthur Meighen: Where do you find that issue in the amendment?


Georges Henri Boivin: Must I read it again?


Arthur Meighen: Sure.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am quite willing to repeat once more the words of the amendment. I want my hon. friends opposite, every one of them, to realize that what I say is absolutely true, that there is an issue before parliament to be decided at the present time, and that issue is: Did we do right in assembling parliament and allowing parliament to decide the issue, or, on the other hand, should we, because, forsooth we had a few members less returned than the right hon. leader of the opposition, have gone to His Excellency the Governor General and asked him to call on the right hon. leader of the opposition to form a government?


Arthur Meighen: Where do you find it in the amendment?


Georges Henri Boivin: Right here: (reading):
That those who now assume to be His Excellency's advisers have among them no Prime Minister with a seat in either house of parliament, and under such circumstances are not competent to act as, or to become, the committee of parliament, commonly known as the government, or to address parliament through His Excellency, and their attempted continuance in office is a violation of the principles and practice of British constitutional government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is true that hon. members on the other side of the House are always glad to cheer those words. Let me remind them, Mr. Speaker, that noise is no argument. Let me inquire, if I may, from the right hon. leader of the opposition how the present government

Government's Right to Office
could have summoned parliament and brought the members representing the different constituencies of Canada here together without addressing parliament through His Excellency?


Arthur Meighen: Most undoubtedly they
could# summon parliament without it. I contend they should not have summoned parliament, but that question I did not raise in the amendment. But if they wished to summon parliament, they could have done so without a Speech from the Throne, or if they wanted a Speech from the Throne they should have had the Prime Minister here.


Georges Henri Boivin: I have the admission I
wanted from my right hon. friend. His amendment is limited to certain specific things, and it is on these things parliament will decide.


Arthur Meighen: That is right; stick to
those things.


Georges Henri Boivin: Did we do right in summoning parliament?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: The right hon. leader of
the opposition says he did not raise that issue, but that we certainly did not do right. I ask, what else could we have done?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Resign.


Georges Henri Boivin: Resign in favour of whom?


Robert James Manion: In favour of the biggest
group.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Take your licking.


Georges Henri Boivin: Resign in favour of the
biggest group? Who has the right to say which is the biggest group in this House?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Justice
has admitted it.


Ernest Lapointe: Never.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will look up his words.


Georges Henri Boivin: If the Minister of Justice
admitted it, and I know he did not, he had no right to make that admission. There is no newspaper in Oanada that has the right to make that admission: there is no leader of any political party in Canada that has the right to make that admission. That question can only be decided by a vote of the highest tribunal in this land, by a vote of the Canadian parliament. We might have resigned in favour of my right hon. friend, and what would have happened? He would have been called upon to form a government. He would have had certain by-elections throughout the country. He would have come to Ottawa after his by-elections were completed, would have prepared a Speech from the Throne, and summoned parliament, and if he had placed in that Speech from the Throne the policy and the programme which he advocated during the last election-and I have sufficient confidence in him and sufficient respect for him to believe that that is what he would have done-he would have been defeated in this House by a vote of the rest of the House outside of his own 116 followers. You will say: What right have you to say that? How do you know they would have voted against his policy? Because we have here the members of the Labour group, and I have heard them in this House for the past four years advocating social legislation and saying, directly and implicitly, that they are more Liberal than the Liberals; we have also in this House those members of the Progressive party who during the last session were termed perhaps by themselves and by the press of this country, perhaps unjustly, Tbs Ginger group, claiming that they were more Liberal than the other members of the Progressive party, and wc have also heard the leaders of the Pro-gicssive party themselves state time and time a mi in in this House that they were more Liberal than the members of the old Liberal party. So I ask my right hon. friend, where would he have got the support to carry out the Tory policies which he would have been obliged to place in the Speech from the Throne?


Arthur Meighen: The member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) indicated yesterday where we might have got it.


Georges Henri Boivin: My right hon. friend has
tried before to get support from that source, but he has never succeeded. That is one of the reasons why I claim we did perfectly right in summoning parliament to meet and decide the issue. What else could we have done? I think I have already answered the question, and if that is the case, I ask my friends of the Progressive party: Shall they condemn us for doing what we have done, shall they condemn us for having given them an opportunity to vote on the question of determining who shall rule in this country?
I do not pretend for a moment that the Liberal party of Canada constituted as it is at the present time, can carry on and rule for the next four years in this country. The Liberal party in parliament is a minority party, there is no doubt about that. We can only rule with the help and the co-operation of those who have declared on many occasions
Government's Right to Office

that they are more Liberal than we ourselves. If they are willing to co-operate with us, if they are willing to give us an opportunity, at least, of expounding our policy, if they are willing to give the members of this parliament an opportunity of discussing the merits and the demerits of the policy contained in the Speech from the Throne; if they are willing to give my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition an opportunity to propound his policy in the form of an amendment, and if they desire to compare the two, they certainly must vote against the amendment and allow us to continue with the work of the session. I have told them before it is not our intention to bind them for the future. Even if it was our intention we could not bind them. Every man in this parliament is a free agent. Every man in this parliament has the right to vote upon every measure which comes before the House; and everyone knows that, following the British constitutional practice my right hon. friend is so proud of, no party in this country could exist five minutes in opposition to the popular will, if on any important measure introduced by it, it did' not control a majority of the votes in this House. I ask, shall we have co-operation? I want, in this connection, to read for the benefit of all those within the sound of my voice, an extract from an editorial published' in the Winnipeg Free Press yesterday. It embodies my opinion-and I say this as a member of the government-as to what should be done:
The only government that has any business trying to hold office under existing conditions is one that is broadened out. to represent elements that together make up a majority. If this broadening out is impracticable for reasons good or bad, real or bogus, this parliament is a blank; and the sooner it is sent to the barn the better for the country.
We do not believe that this country wants to see Mr. Meighen in office applying his pet nostrums. A majority in parliament is certainly opposed to his policies. If this majority can unite upon a basis of reasonable compromise it can, we think, bring into being a government which will command the support both of parliament and the country.
But if this majority cannot emerge from this present confusion the country will look elsewhere for leadership. If the Liberals and the Progressives choose to look for things about which they can quarrel instead of issues upon which they can agree; if they prefer cherishing grudges to establishing friendships; if they persist in the attitude of reciprocal exclusiveness and superiority, their fate will be upon them both in a few short weeks.
With all that I most certainly agree.


Arthur Meighen: Read it all.


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes I will be very glad to do so:
There will be another general election; and it will turn not upon programmes but upon the simple issue of government. The country will be offered resolute [Mr Boivin]
leadership by a vigorous party which knows its own mind. Whether there will be any practicable alternative to this offer is very doubtful.
The circumstances have a plain message for both Progressives and Liberals at Ottawa. It is, get together or get out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Before the hon. gentleman leaves that very interesting editorial would he inform the House who the owner of that newspaper is?
M!r. MEIGHEN:	Hear, hear.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Winnipeg Free Press? Winnipeg is very far from the county of Shef-ford and I am not in a position to say positively who the owner is. I do know that the Winnipeg Free Press has been regarded for a long time as voicing, to a certain extent at least, the programme and the policies of the Progressive party.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is owned by Sir Clifford Sifton.


Georges Henri Boivin: It may be owned by Sir
Clifford Sifton, but it certainly is not a crime to own a newspaper and it is much less a crime to give to this House the sane and sound advice that is found in the editorial. The adoption of the amendment means another general election. It is true that my good friend the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Gutlhrie) said the night before last: Do not be afraid boys, there will be no general election. Vote for us. You will have just as much power if we are there as you would have if you maintain the present government in office. We intend to carry on from session to Session so long as we have-[DOT] and he used language for which I commend him-parliamentary support. In other words he was telling the gentlemen of the Progressive party so long as they were willing to swallow Tory doctrine and vote for Tory policies, the government will carry on. But when they refuse to do so-turn up the pages of Hansard and you will find the statement- they have the remedy in their own hands. And what is the remedy they have in their own hands. It is a general election. I do not pretend for a moment the members of the Progressive party are afraid of a general election any more than the members of the Liberal or Conservative parties are, but I do say that the Dominion to-day does not want a general election, and I repeat that without a general election it will not be possible for my right hon. friend the leader of the oposition to carry on.


Arthur Meighen: Why?


Georges Henri Boivin: My right hon. friend certainly does not wish to insinuate that the

Government's Right to Office
Progressive members who have come here from the western prairies, the only ones to whom he can turn for support, will go back on the principles and policies they have preached all their lives and knuckle down to support a Tory programme and a Tory policyThat is why. That is my reason for saying so.


Arthur Meighen: I could1 say to my hon.
friend that they think they have been doing quite a lot of that.


Georges Henri Boivin: Possibly theyr think they
have, but I can tell them that if they ever find themselves under my right hon. friend's rule they will begin to realize what knuckling down means.
There are a few other matters I wanted to discuss, but the hour is far advanced and everyone desires to reach a vote to-night. However, there is one point I would like to discuss before I take my seat; that is what my right hon. friend considers to be the main reason why this government has not the right to carry on

the absence of the right hon. Prime Minister from his seat in parliament.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: From a seat.


Georges Henri Boivin: From a seat in parliament.
I am willing to be corrected any time my hon. friend's opposite desire to correct me. Now the gist of their argument is this: Because the Prime Minister has not a seat in parliament the government has no right to carry on. I have attended many sessions of parliament where the leader of the government was absent and where some other minister conducted the affairs of the country, led the government and was the link between the government and His Majesty's representative. I am willing to *admit that if this was a permanent state of affairs and that the right hon. leader of the Liberal party had no intention of securing a seat in the House and of coming back to parliament, he would have no right and no mandate to remain as Prime Minister of Canada. And I know the question will be immediately asked; Well, why is he not here? Why did he not come back sooner? Leaving aside the musty volumes of ancient history, leaving aside the precedents and putting away from the chamber the ghosts of Pitt and Gladstone and all the others, let me use the common sense argument upon which after all British traditions and British constitution are built. The Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King was defeated in the constituency of North York in the last general election. A large number of his ministers were also defeated
in the province of Ontario. A government composed of at least eleven ministers was returned by the people, and no party in this House had an absolute majority. My right hon. friend the leader of the government could have done the same thing as the right hon. leader of the opposition did in 1921. He could have appointed someone to a position of emolument under the crown. He could have followed the example of the right hon. leader of the opposition when he appointed the hon. member for Grenville to a position in the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment department. I desire to say that I do not stand here to blame the right hon. leader of the opposition for what he did in 1921. He was defeated in that election, and he was at the head of the smallest group in the House, but he felt that, as the leader of the Conservative party, he was entitled to a seat in parliament. One of his followers was willing to give him that seat. Owing to the intricacies of the rules that hon. member could not resign, and the right hon. member took the roundabout way of opening a constituency by appointing him to a position, to make sure that the right hon. gentleman would be here when the House opened. I am not blaming him for that. I believe that the leadfers of all parties in the country should have seats in the House, and will always advocate that there should be an agreement between the parties in this House to allow their leaders to be elected in their respective seats by acclamation, in order that they may preach the gospel of their parties throughout the length and breadth of Canada, and not be confined to the sordid manipulations which may be involved in the effort to win individual seats for themselves. But my right hon. leader has a different sense, a more refined and exalted sense of honour and propriety than I have myself, and more refined than that held by the right hon. leader of the opposition. I think we agree in approving the action he took in 1921.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, I thought you were
referring to the other matter.


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend has so many changes of heart that I am not surprised to hear him say that he does not agree with the action he took himself.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member will look at his remarks in Hansard he will find that the interpretation I gave to them was
Government's Right to Office

the only interpretation possible, namely, that he had been referring to his own sense of honour and looking at me he said, "I think you will agree that it was right." I did not think he was referring to what occurred in 1921.


Georges Henri Boivin: Hansard will speak for itself, and I realize my hon. friend had no intention of saying he was wrong in 1921. I realize that he may change his opinion on a great many policies, and he may change his opinion on the duty of Canada to the empire in time of war, he may change his opinion on the necessity of protection, all depending on whether he speaks in Ontario or back in Portage la Prairie thanking his electors for his election. But I know he will not admit that he made a mistake in 1921, and I am not even contending that he did make a mistake, but I do say that the sense of honour and propriety of the Prime Minister of this government is greater than his and greater than mine. My right hon. leader blamed him in 1921 for what he had done. Did you expect him to do the same thing in 1925? After having voluntarily stated to the Governor General that he would make no appointments until this issue was decided by parliament, could he very well go and appoint someone to a position of emolument under the crown, for the purpose of obtaining a seat? Was that possible, after the remarks addressed to the right hon. leader of the opposition three and one-half years ago? I maintain that it was not, but even though my right hon. leader had not said one word concerning the matter, he would not have tried to obtain a seat in parliament until parliament had decided, and decided constitutionally, whether he would walk into this House by the front door, where he will come in as leader of the government-


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Why did he not run in the constituency of Bagot, where he had an opportunity to come in at the front door?


Georges Henri Boivin: I will tell my hon. friend why he did not run in Bagot-because at that time he had been defeated in North York, and because, instead of pouncing upon the first vacant seat, the way other leaders have done in the past, for the purpose of securing a stronghold on the leadership of the party, he wanted the members elected1 to. parliament to come here at the opening of parliament and tell him whether they had confidence in him or not. His sense of honour and propriety was such that he felt he should not even run in Bagot, and to-day, now that Mr. Speaker has been appointed, why has he not
Mr. Meighen.
accepted one of the offers which he has received from five or six members who are willing to resign their seats for him?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Name them.


Georges Henri Boivin: I could name them with
ease.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then do so.


Georges Henri Boivin: But I do not think it is relevant to the issue. I think my hon. friend will know about it in the very near future, because it makes no difference whether this government is sustained or defeated, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King will have a seat in this House and will come back as leader of the Liberal party, and, whether he sits on the right or left of the Speaker, he will be elected by a handsome majority, and will have behind him the united support of every member of the Liberal party. He may lead the opposition in this parliament, but if he leads the opposition until the next general election he will be able to go to every province of Canada and preach the doctrine of the Liberal party, and will not be obliged to engage anybody else to preach his policy by proxy.
I desire to refer to the absence of my right hon. leader from the House. Everyone knows, reading through all the British precedents, that ministers have often occupied seats in the cabinet of a nation without, for a certain time, being members of parliament. We all know my right hon. leader intends to come back to parliament at the earliest possible moment. We all know it is not owing to the absence of offers of safe seats that he did not return, and for that reason I do not think his absence an argument which would justify even my Progressive friends in voting for the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition. I admire my right hon. leader for the stand he has taken. I admire him not only for not having imposed himself as Prime Minister of this country, but for not even having attempted to impose himself as the leader of the Liberal party. When the members of the Liberal party, coming from every province of this great and' broad Dominion, met here at Ottawa in caucus on the first occasion, their very first act, without hesitation of any kind, was to express unanimously a vote of confidence in the great leader of the Liberal party. It is true that our leader was defeated. It is not the first time that a political leader has suffered defeat. It is not the first time that the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King has suffered defeat. But there are three kinds of leaders. There are those who having been defeated once, have remained defeated

Government's Right to Office
and fallen; there are those who are carried in on the crest of the wave and there are those who are able to suffer defeat and who come back again and win their laurels. That is what the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King has always done and will do. It is true that he was defeated. His defeat, however, was not due to any personal conduct of his own, nor to the fact that he was unworthy of sitting for the constituency of North York. He was defeated on a policy which did not appeal to the majority of the people of Ontario at that particular time. That is why he wrent down to defeat.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: In North York a most important factor in the defeat of the Prime Minister was his broken pledges.


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not know that
any pledges made by the Prime Minister were broken. I do not think my hon. friends on the other side will be able to claim that many of his pledges were broken. If he was not elected, it was because the people of the constituency of North York agreed with the high protective tariff policy preached by my right hon. friend. But I would prefer to follow a leader who has preached throughout the length and breadth of Canada the same programme and the same policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Georges Henri Boivin: There are laughs of derision from my hon. friends on the other side; but I happen to know whereof I speak, because I accompanied the Prime Minister in five provinces of this great Dominion in this last campaign, and I can truthfully say, upon my honour as a member of this House, that in every one of those five provinces he preached -the same policy. He preached the policy of broad Canadianiam. He went to the western prairies and told- the farmers there that undoubtedly they would be obliged to make certain concessions to the industrial centres in the east. Coming east to Ontario and Quebec, where I heard him twice in my own old province, he preached the same doctrine, telling the industrial population -of Quebec that -they must also make concessions to the farmers who had gone out to till the soil in the wrestern prairies. He told them that Quebec was not all Canada; that Ontario was not all Canada; that they must also consider the western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and- Alberta as part of our Dominion, as well as British Columbia and -the Maritime -provinces; -that the policy to be enunciated, promulgated here by the
Liberal party-it would apply to the Progressive party, because I know on many points there is no difference-that the policy to be enunciated here by the government, which must have and which, I am sure, will have the support of the Progressive members of this House, must be a broad Canadian policy containing concessions to every province, respect for the rights of all the provinces, and encouraging the farmer of western Canada and the workman of the province of Quebec -to work hand in band and shoulder to shoulder for the welfare of our great and common country.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. CHARLES H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):	I come to -this House, Mr. Speaker, as a new member. Some thirty-seven or thirty-eight years ago I did belong to the fourth estate and I sat at that time in the press gallery where I listened to and reported the speeches of distinguished statesmen; but apart from that, and some service as leader of the Conservative party in my own native province in the legislature, my political experience in parliament is limited indeed.
My first duty and my great pleasure is, in the most sincere manner possible, to congratulate you, Sir, upon- your re-election to the important office which you now fill. For yourself, Sir, as you well know, I have had for m-any years a warm personal esteem and, I might also say, a persona! affection; and although you and I were opposing candidates in a constituency in a great crisis in the history of Canada, and though we both spoke our minds with the utmost frankness, I th-ink I can say that when the contest ended the mutual personal esteem between you, the victor, and myself, the vanquished, had- been increased by the very conflict in which we had been engaged.
It seems to me, Sir, that this debate has been confused somewhat -by reason of the fact that we have not gone back to elementary principles. What is constitutional practice and what are constitutional precepts? And if they are not to be obeyed and followed, what are -the penalties which parliament and the country suffer by the refusal to follow those precepts? I am going back to the very first page of Todd on Parliamentary Government in England in which it is stated:
The government of England is conducted in conformity with certain traditional maxims, which limit

Government's Right to Office
the exercise of all political powers therein. These maxims are, for the most part, unwritten and conventional. They have never been declared in any formal charter or statute, but have developed, in the course of centuries, side by side with the written law. They embody the matured experience of successive generations of statesmen in the conduct of public affairs, and are known as the precepts of the constitution.
And further, on the following page:
It is the distinguishing feature of parliamentary government that it requires the powers 'belonging to the crown to be exercised through ministers, who are held responsible for the manner in which they are used, who are expected to be members of the two houses of parliament, the proceedings of which they must be able generally to guide, and who are considered entitled to hold their offices only while they possess the confidence of parliament, and more especially of the House of Commons.
These are the precepts embodying the wisdom and experience of the men who have guided the affairs of England through preceding generations, and when we depart from these precepts we invite into the administration of our public affairs evils of a very serious character which imperil the civil liberties of the people.
I have had some experience, Sir, in the republics south of the Rio Grande river where they have adopted, by way of code, what they regard as the precepits of British constitutional practice. The president of the republic usually has, in the exercise of his functions, similar duties and responsibilities to those of the Prime Minister of this country, and in their elections it is alleged that they follow in form the British constitutional practice. But in that practice the men opposing each other and playing what they call the parliamentary game are in honour bound to conduct the contests and abide by their results according to the rules which govern such contests in Great Britain and the British dominions. In the south they occasionally, and perhaps not infrequently, refuse to follow these precedents and precepits, with this result:	I
have Mime and time again seen an election in which the president and his party, having gone to the polls, failed to receive a majority of the votes, and, refusing to abide iby the precepits which would compel him to surrender the administration to the opposing party, the president has endeavoured to continue in office. I have noticed, as you will find if you study the political history of those republics, that there are three means by which he endeavours to avoid compliance with the decision given by the people at the polls. The first is by attempts frequently made to bribe those who have been elected to oppose him, and thus nullify to that extent the public verdict. The second, when bribery fails, is to use intimidation in order to thwart

the public verdict. When that, fails, only one other course is left to him, and frequently he appeals to physical brute force-military force -to keep himself in office. The events of which you read in the newspapers from day to day and from month to month with regard to these various revolutions in the republics south of the Rio Grande river are due to the fact that the administration, defeated at the polls, refuses to abide by the verdict of the people and by those constitutional precepts which have been adopted for the carrying on of the game of political warfare, and uses one of the three means which I have suggested to remain in office. I take the responsibility, although a new member, of suggesting to this House that if the government of to-day or the government of any future day refuse to abide by these precepts governing parliamentary conduct, governing the relations of the parties in a general contest foy public support, there are only three means by which they may be kept in office if the verdict is against them. That is, by bribery of those elected to oppose them, or by intimidation if bribery does not succeed-and when those two means fail we are on the eve of a revolution. Those are the evils which are induced by a refusal to abide by the precepts which govern these contests.
Following the recent election we have this result: The Prime Minister stated deliberately to the people of the whole country, speaking at Richmond Hill, that although his parliamentary term had not expired he found it absolutely impossible to carry on an efficient administration; he found it absolutely impossible to solve the economic, fiscal and financial problems which beset this country, and in order that he might have a majority sufficient to solve those problems and to give stable government, he declared that he was appealing to the people to give him a majority in excess of that majority of one which he then held over Conservatives and Progressives combined. If I understand what he said, he intimated that if he did not secure more than a majority of one over those elected as Conservatives, those elected as Progressives. _ those elected as representing Labour, and those elected as Independents, from his experience of the last four years it would be impossible for him to carry on an efficient administration. I heard the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) who spoke before me, refer again and again to the Jfine sense of honour and propriety of the late Prime Minister of this country. I ask, Mr. Speaker, even the Liberals who sit opposite me, whether in view of that pledge the Prime Minister can be commended upon his fine

Government's Right to Office
sense of honour and propriety in refusing to abide by the decision of the electors which he himself invited.
I am not going into the authorities, although I have taken the trouble, with such measure of strength as I have, to examine those authorities cited on both sides. My hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), whose legal acumen and industry in research I have often admired-and I may say I do admire him except for the few eccentricities which he shows on the public platform at election time-has searched out every precedent which could be cited on the government side, and both those precedents simply apply to the case where, during a session of parliament, a minister has accepted office under the crown and has gone to seek immediate election-as he, is bound to do-in order that he might have the approval and confirmation of his constituency, to enable him to hold that office. But apart from that it is not, I am sure, in accordance with the recognized customs, precepts, practice and procedure of parliamentary government, or with the spirit which pervades our parliamentary institutions, that parliament should convene after a general election for the despatch of public business without having the Prime Minister of the country sitting in his seat to announce his policy, and to act as the sole intermediary between this parliament and the Governor General representing the crown. This is especially true in view of the fact that eight of his ministers have been defeated at the polls, not one of whom has since sought or obtained the confidence of the electors of a constituency, and that the Prime Minister has come to parliament with an Address from the crown, placed-and I use the word with great deference-upon the lips of His Excellency the Governor General by a defeated leader and prepared, as has been practically announced, by two ministers, with the Prime Minister, who have not been able to obtain the confidence of their constituents in their recent appeal in the general election.
There are matters in that Speech which, if I were called upon to identify them with as much precision as one could identify the handwriting of a friend, I think I could point out as having been provided by my recent opponent in St. Lawrence-St. George. It is indeed, as Mr. Morley has said, a political anomaly which should not be tolerated, that after a general appeal to the constituents there should be submitted to parliament a political programme prepared by a former Prime Minister and former ministers of his appointment who are no longer members of or personally 14011-it
responsible to parliament for the due performance of their duties as part of the executive. Particularly is this the case when there is presented to parliament a programme differing in almost every essential from that on which hon. gentlemen made their recent appeal to the electors of this country. There can be no doubt, I think, as to the soundness of my contention, and if I had the strength and the time I would like to go through precedent after precedent and authority after authority in support of my proposition. There can be no doubt, I think, that, in the words of the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition, their attempted continuance in office is a violation of the principles and practice of British constitutional government. It is not only a violation of the principles and precepts and practice of British constitutional government; it is more than that. It is a moral delinquency in that, as admitted by speaker after speaker, and especially by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) who spoke this afternoon, the Speech was prepared and intended, as a South American autocrat might so prepare and so intend it, to induce, if I am at liberty in the house of parliament ,to say so, the members of the Progressive group, by corrupt inducements-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I must ask the
hon. member to please withdraw the expression. To say that corruption has been resorted to in order to induce members to vote a certain way is unparliamentary.


Mr. CAHAN:: I withdraw the remark, Mr. Speaker. I will see if I can put it in parliamentary language. Mr. Speaker, I regard certain paragraphs of that Speech prepared by the leader of the government and his colleagues as an effort to obtain the support of members of the Progressive group, who were elected to oppose him, by offering to them as a group and as a class special inducements which he did not dare offer when the general elections *were on-a time when any such offer or inducements would necessarily be presented not only to the gentlemen who form the Progressive group, but to the electors of the entire country, so that the whole country could pass upon them.
I have been humiliated, as a new member of the House of Commons, to hear this talk of bids, of valises or bags full of bids offered to this special group of the Progressives. Sir. I do not know the Progressive members. I have not had the pleasure of meeting them

Government's Right to Office

and of their acquaintance, but I hope under ithe present circumstances it may not be said that any member of the Conservative party offers to them inducements or gifts, similar to those which have been offered in the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General. More than that, Sir, the very presence in the Speech of His Excellency of those paragraphs is a reflection not only upon the government but upon the parliament to (which they have been submitted.
I have heard from the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) some criticism of the financial interests, the money powers, so-called, of the cities of Montreal and Toronto. 1 represent one of the central districts of the pity and island of Montreal, and I can say this, stating here what I have said elsewhere: that so far as I know the will of my constituents, it is that to the utmost of my intelligence and of my application and assiduity I should apply myself to studying two sets of grievances which are now before this country; one the set of grievances which has been prepared by my native province of Nova Scotia for which I must always have the strongest possible personal affection, and the other that we should examine to the utmost of our power into every legitimate grievance presented by the west, because the city of Montreal which stands at the head of ocean navigation is much interested in the continued and increased prosperity of the three great provinces of the middle west. The prosperity of the island of Montreal depends to a large extent upon their prosperity, and there is every disposition to meet their legitimate view's presented to parliament in the proper manner and deal with them in a manner consistent with the we! being, the general interest and the general prosperity of the whole country.
Public opinion throughout Canada has been directed to the offer made to these gentlemen in the Speech from the Throne. Public opinion will condemn, I have no doubt in due time, the government which has so far departed from the platform which it submitted at the general election as to present inducements of that character to hon. gentlemen of the Progressive group. But I put it to them also that they stand to-day as the Progressive group never stood before, in the clear, concentrated light of the public opinion of this country, and the whole of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific is watching the Progressive group to know whether such inducements as those, presented under such circumstances and conditions find cordial reception from the gentlemen to whom the offer
[Mr. Cahan.l
has been made. And if these gentlemen of the Progressive group, instead of depending upon the cordial good will of the people of the whole country-because we are all Canadians from end to end with a general interest in view-if instead of depending on their own intellectual and oratorical resources in presenting their cause to this House and to the whole country, show that they are prepared to accept an indirect offer of that character, the general estimation of the Progressive group will, I believe, sink to a very low level in the Canadian public mind. That is the issue. The Progressive group do not stand here to-day as judges.


Mr. MILLAR:: As a representative of
Montreal would you be willing to have the rate on the Canadian National from a point north of Fort William to the city of Quebec, which is about double the present prairie rate, reduced?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can frankly, say to my
hon. friend that I do not know enough about the question to give him an answer, but I am prepared to sit down with him, or any other representative in this House who says he has a grievance, and listen to the facts, and if I can assist him in securing the proper solution of his difficulties and his problems I am prepared to do that so long as in doing so I do not have to sacrifice the general interests of the whole country.
I have-I think in parliamentary language since I have been corrected and since I have made due apology-indicated to these hon. gentlemen the result of making ill-considered and hasty departures from the constitutional precepts which the wisdom of statesmen has developed through successive centuries, and I have not only pointed out by analogy what occurred in the neighbouring republic south of the Rio Grande river but I have called attention to the unprecedented condition which now prevails in this country when an offer of that kind is made after a general election and as an afterthought to secure political support. I have shown them, as I think, hon. gentlemen can deduce for themselves, what evils may result and are resulting in this very case from the departure from the constitutional precepts and practice of Great Britain and Canada.
Now, the hon. gentleman who preceded me has declared that if this amendment passes a dissolution of this parliament is necessary and inevitable. Is that expressing the argument too strongly? I say that that statement, made by the hon. Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) is entirely unwarranted, is

Government's Right to Office
entirely without authority, and could be confuted by any two year old student in constitutional practice in any university in this country. What is a Speech from the Throne of which we heard so much this afternoon. A Speech from the Throne, the Address of the Governor General representing His Majesty, is a presentation to the House of the views, dispositions and purposes of the Prime Minister of the day and of his colleagues. In this case it is before the House and recorded upon the records and with respect to it the sole duty, of the Commons in reply, if there is any duty is to note that it has received that Speech. The House might in its reply simply say by a note that it has received the Speech without any comment whatever; but the nature of that reply is entirely in the control and discretion of hon. members and not in the control or in the discretion of the members of the cabinet. Supposing the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition passes to-night. Then you have it stated by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) less clearly stated by the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) stated also by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), and also reiterated in a somewhat equivocal manner by the Minister of Customs and Excise this afternoon that in the event of that amendment passing the Right Hon. Mackenzie King would resign and leave the Governor General free to call upon another, whose selection is always in the discretion of the Governor Generail, so long as he commands or is likely to command a majority in the House to form a new government.	'
Now, let us see what the procedure is, because it is very, very simple indeed, and there is no need for confusion in this matter. The hon. leader of the opposition is called upon to form an administration. He selects from members in the House, or bom those who do not represent constituencies, those who are to compose his ministry, and those selected must find immediately, or a'most immediately, the constituencies which they may contest, where they may secure that confirmation which is necessary to allow a minister of the crown holding a portfolio to continue in office. Now an adjournment is always conceded for that purpose. Take the case which happened in 1924, which I remember well, when Mir. Stanley Baldwin met the House on January 8, 1924. The king's speech was delivered on January 15, 1924. A vote of want of confidence was moved and passed, and on the 22nd January Ramsay MacDonald was called upon to form a government. His first act, which is never refused under Such 14011-111
circumstances, was to ask for an adjournment of three weeks, in order that his new ministers might secure constituencies, and that he might attend to some matters of routine, necessitating the attention of the government especially, in dealing with foreign affairs, but when they met again Ramsay MacDonald did not-and so stated in the House-regard himself as bound by the terms of the Speech which had been presented. He declared that he felt himself perfectly free to carve out of it some of the things of which he approved, to entirely disregard other things of which he did not approve, and to deal with other important measures which he mentioned, which had the approval of the Labour party, and which had been embodied in the Labour platform, and to deal with those without regard to the king's message. I am saying this without the slightest fear of contradiction by any man who has looked into the precedents and the facts. Let us take this case: the right hon. leader of the opposition is called upon to form an administration and does so; he asks for an adjournment, to which he is entitled, for three or four weeks, or the time necessary for his ministers to seek re-election. He comes back to this House with his ministers re-elected, and he simply finds the Speech from the Throne as a matter of unfinished business on the records of this House. The reply of this House to that Speech from the Throne, which has been made the order of business, is entirely within the discretion of the majority of the members of this House. They may disregard entirely in their reply every single paragraph of that Speech, or they may adopt certain paragraphs, and in the Address in reply represent to His Majesty that they no longer agree to nor intend to carry out the policy announced by their predecessors.


Lucien Cannon: How could the House
reply in such an emergency if to-night we decide not to consider the Speech at all?
Mr. OAHAiN:	Suppose we decide to-night
not to proceed with the consideration of the Speech, we -may not proceed1 with it to-night and we may not proceed with it to-morrow, but there is nothing in that resolution which prevents the new government bringing down the form of an Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and then consider that.


Lucien Cannon: Would that not be doing
away with the rule of the House which states that in no one session can one particular subject be discussed twice?

Government's Right to Office


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, and, furthermore, unJess the hon. member or some of his friends wish to provoke a little more trouble and bring a little more confusion, the rules of the House can be suspended in certain contingencies.
Mr. MacLiEAN (Prince):	Will my hon.
friend permit another question?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, I am out of the hospital ten days only, after a long illness; I am very weak and tired to-night, and I do not think it is necessary that I should go into all these irrelevant matters. If any hon. gentleman has any doubt as to how the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne may be presented in one form, and then subjected* to amendment after amendment, until every phase of opinion represented by every two members of the House who can move and second a resolution may be brought before the House for consideration, then I invite him to consider the proceedings in the House of Commons of the 13th and 14th March, 1894. I have them before me and intended to go into them to-night, but I am too fatigued to do it. Hon. members will find* that an Ad-,dress in reply to the Speech from the Throne was presented. Certain amendments were moved by private members of the House. One -was accepted and then another further amendment to the reply as so amended. Other amendments were 'brought in, amendment after amendment, and so on, until the finally revised reply came down for the consideration of the House and1 was dealt with by the House. In dealing with those matters the House of Commons is paramount. Every hon. member of this House who can secure a seconder has a right to place his individual and particular views in the shape of a resolution by way of an amendment before the House for its full consideration. It is puerile and nonsensical to suggest that the mere fact of the passing of this amendment necessitates a dissolution of the House. I have, Mr. Speaker, under my hand a large number of authorities showing that in the colonial governments the dissolution of the House is a matter in the discretion of the Governor General of this Dominion. In respect of such a dissolution he must have the advice and support of his advisers for the time being or the support of the new advisers whom he selects to form a government. I do not intend to go into that. A departure has been attempted from the precepts and practice which we are bound to follow in order to preserve the rights of this parliament, of this House of Commons and

the civil liberties of the subjects of His Majesty throughout the Dominion. We see, from the nature of the discussion which has taken place with respect to certain inducements offered to a special group in this House, the evils which are resulting and will result from a departure from well-established precept and principle. If you go beyond that you come to the point where nothing but bribery or brute force will enable the representatives of a majority to maintain their right to enter upon the administration of the country whenever an autocrat of the type of Mussolini or Pangalos of Greece endeavours to override and subvert parliamentary institutions. The people are beginning to believe that parliamentary institutions, as we here are administering them, are subversive of the very best interests of the country. I make no special appeal to the Progressives. I make no special appeal to any group in this House. We are all Canadians representing Canadian interests and anxious to promote the development and well-being and to safeguard the interests of the whole country, and through you, Sir, I appeal to hon. members of this House, elected by Canadian constituencies, to vote for this amendment in order to crush the head of the autocratic and despotic form of government which my hon. friends opposite are attempting to introduce into the parliamentary institutions of Canada.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we have now for about a week been discussing what I imagine to be one of the greatest and most momentous issues that have ever arisen in this House-an issue in which is bound up the present and the future practice of parliament; an issue which concerns itself and is concerned with the constitutional procedure under which governments may administer the affaire 9 p.m. of the nation; an issue which contains within itself the essence of parliamentary usage. Upon the deciding of that issue will rest the ability of parliament to function as a parliament. Because we are discussing an issue so vast in its import as far to outweigh any considerations of party welfare, any considerations as to whether confidence may well be reposed in one set of men or another set of men, an issue so important that beside it even the immediate policy of this country will fade into pallid insignificance, I propose to deal-and not from any angle of policies or governments or .parties-with the specific case that is before us. I propose to deal with it, as far as possible, without the slightest feeling of partisanship; and I can the more readily do that because I am a

Government's Right to Office
Progressive, a farmer, a member of the United Farmers of Alberta, unconnected with either of the old parties. To me no interest is at stake, no party consideration is involved. I care not at all which party is in power as regards this issue. Dealing as the issue does with constitutional practice, it is perhaps ironical, to say the least, that the final settlement of it, the hand which will write into the pages of our constitutional history a new precedent, will be the hand of farmers, men unversed' in the subtleties of legal lore, men largely unacquainted with the intricacies of constitutional precedent or practice. We can therefore bring to this discussion only one factor-and I believe that factor to be one of primary importance-namely, the use of our own common sense, untrammelled by partisan ties. I mention this in view of this singular fact-at least it appears singular to me. This is a question which, I say, should not, cannot be considered from the viewpoint of any party, so transcendent in importance is it to the policies of all parties.
Now, we upon whom the responsibility is thrust, through the peculiar circumstances of the case, of making the decision on this issue, find-on a subject which might well engage the considered attention of any man; which might well call for the expression of men's individual opinions-an absolute and complete unanimity amonigst 116 members of the House on one side of the case and an absolute and complete unanimity amongst 101 members on the other side of the case. In view of that fact, am I to conclude that this discussion or the consideration of this issue has been wholly free from partisanship? I have stated that I propose to discuss it, inadequate though my effort may be, on its merits. I do not, therefore, propose to discuss the Speech from the Throne. I do not, therefore, propose to discuss or consider preelection statements, foolish or wise, made by any public man. I do not propose to discuss the question whether we in this comer of the House have confidence in the actions and policies pr inactions and lack of policies of the Liberal party. I do not propose to discuss whether we have confidence in the Conservative party or in the policies which they state they intend to put into force. I propose to deal with the matter purely and simply from the viewpoint of constitutional practice as it appears to me and from the viewpoint of how parliament can more effectively function under unprecedented conditions.
As I understand the situation, exception is being taken to the action of the government- and for the purpose of my argument I am
speaking of the government now-in view of the condition of affairs existing in this country at the conclusion of the last election, in retaining office and submitting to parliament a Speech from the Throne. In other words, the question is whether their duty, when the results of the election were known, was to tender their resignation to His Excellency and advise him to call into consultation the leader of the opposition, or to meet parliament, as in fact they have done. Now what is involved in the present situation? Because much is involved; and from our point of view in this corner more is involved than from the point of view of either of the two old parties that took part in the contest. No thinking member of this House can ignore the fact that, theories apart, likes or dislikes, tastes or distastes left out of consideration, the party system as we have had it is, not now functioning. Certain conditions have introduced themselves into the public life of the country and into parliament as representing that public life which have had no parallel in our history, so far as we can escertain. Through the multiplicity of groups which have developed in this country and which are finding expression for their various points of view in the House, that condition has become inevitable.
I have listened day after day to the arguments advanced on both sides of the House by men capable of reasoning on the subject, and I have endeavoured to sift the wheat from the Chaff. With this object in view I have forgotten party arguments and have ignored the insinuations as to one side or the other having been guilty of corrupt practices or incorrect statements in the election. These things I have set aside, and I have rather endeavoured, through careful attention to the debate and a zealous reading of Hansard, to ascertain what sound parliamentary principle has been brought forward and submitted to the House. I have sou^lit to glean from the observations of hon. gentlemen who have taken part in the debate what either side of the House has had to offer in this direction, and I must confess that I have found some difficulty in doing so. And I have experienced that difficulty for this reason: that while the precedents which have been evoked are no doubt sound in themselves, the trouble is that we are now trying to apply precedents to an unprecedented condition. I do not think we can very well demonstrate the applicability of those precedents to the condition which we find here to-day; so that in this respect I have been somewhat at a loss. I have found moreover, that the disputants, even on the same side, have not always agreed
Government's Right to Office

in their interpretation of the precedents, as to the weight that should be attached to them, or as to their applicability to the present situation. It has been generally said on this side of the House that the government at present in power or at any rate the government that met defeat, in some degree at least, at the last election had no constitutional right to present to parliament the Speech which His Excellency read at the opening of the session. On the other hand, I read the opinion of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), than whom perhaps no more able exponent of parliamentary usage is to be found in this House. And what did he say? I quote:	[DOT]
The ordinary and well established course which the government should have followed-
That is, this government in the present situation.
-was to meet the House, as they did, bring in the Address, as they did, and move for the consideration of that Address on a fixed day.
So that we find the hon. member taking issue with his colleagues on this side of the House as to the constitutional nature of the action which the government should have taken. He further states that had it not been for an irregular action on the part of the government in attempting to introduce a motion which should not have been introduced, this amendment we are now discussing would not have been moved. He said that if the course he suggested had been followed the discussion of the Speech from the Throne would have taken place in due course and the House would have expressed its opinion upon it, while the Conservative opposition would have had an opportunity to state its views in the form of an amendment, so that the House as a whole might be able to judge the situation on a vote.
I cannot lightly set aside the opinion of the hon. member for South Wellington. But let us go a little further and see what the motion itself really means. It begins by Stating certain facts which are so obvious and well known to every member of this House as to call for no repetition, the facts in connection with the results following the election. On the basis of those facts the motion asserts that the government is acting unconstitutionally in bringing in the Speech which has been submitted to us. Amongst the facts so cited we find, first, that the government was defeated in the majority of constituencies, and secondly that it does not now amongst its members comprise the largest group in the House. It is stated in the third place that the Prime Minister and other members of the government are without seats in' the House.

Now, if the amendment is supported by a vote of the House what will this involve so far as the future of parliament is concerned? It will establish this prnoiple, that under all simitar circumstances, that is to say, when a government after an appeal to the people comes back in a minority, then the largest group, irrespective of the proportion which it may bear to the toral number of members in the House, shall automatically assume the reins of power and the responsibility for summoning parliament. That is what it means.
Frankly, I see two dangers in that suggestion. The first is one which perhaps may be of little weight; it may be a mere figment of my own imagination, due possibly to a lack of knowledge. As I understand the constitutional practice, His Majesty or His Majesty's representative, by and with the advice of the ministers of the crown, performs certain functions. In other words, by and with the advice of the ministers of the crown he selects and calls into council a certain man representing a certain party and asks him to form a government. But if we establish it as a maxim that automatically the largest group in the House, irrespective of the disproportion it may bear to the whole assembly, shall automatically become the recipient of the power and honours of government, then what is to become of the theory which we have held, that the Governor General, by and with the advice of the ministers of the crown, shall exercise his discretion in the circumstances ensuing from an election? That may be regarded as an insignificant point, but it is one that appeals to me as having some weight. The great danger I see in the suggestion is one that strikes the members in this comer of the House with peculiar force. We believe both in theory and as a matter of fact that the time is past when we shall have in this House and in the country two well defined parties one of which will at all times have a majority in parliament. It would be better therefore for the country under these circumstances if some form of group co-operation could be instituted. We believe that the group system will persist, and that future governments must function on a basis of co-operation among the different bodies comprising the House. That perhaps is generally but a theory. But all theories, whether they be held by a large party or only by a minor group, must some time come face to face with the granite rook of fact3, and if they cannot adapt themselves to those facts they will be shattered. The facts are apparent, and for the present at least the principle is in operation: no party in this

Government's Right to Office
House can function at this time save as part of a co-operative body.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the danger I foresee from a constitutional standpoint is that if we by our vote in this House establish as a fixed and determined principle that the larger group,-no matter whether or not they carry a majority in the House,-shall at all times be given the right to form a government, what becomes of the possibility of our opinions on present-day facts being carried into effect? I am not competent, nor do I intend, to speak of the opinions that have been expressed and the different precedents that have been [DOT]laid down for the last eighty years, let alone go back to the seventeenth or eighteenth century. I do say, however, that the British constitution has been built up by precedent after precedent-such precedent as we shall set to-day; that in the manner in which that constitution has been built up, (precedent by precedent, lies its strength, its grandeur and its adaptability. And that constitution is petrified if we take the position now that it has reached its culmination, that no change can be made, no alteration brought into effect to meet conditions which are changing. If we take that attitude we are repudiating the great- basic principle on which the British constitution itself has been founded. I am not speaking as one who has no regard for the British constitution. I am speaking as one who is British-born-a Canadian now, but British-born of British stock. I honour and respect those traditions. Never would I willingly see removed one milestone which marks our progress. I like to feel always that step by step we are linked to the Mother of Parliaments and to the time when that parliament originated; I would like to see that tradition kept in remembrance. But I would also like to see preserved that virile spirit which animates the British constitution.
I shall now pass to another point of view, the other great issue which is facing us-the ability of (parliament itself to function. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that whatever other views we hold, we maintain always the opinion that the essential duty and responsibility of parliament is to function, to carry on; that the essential duty of government is to govern. The essential duty of parliament must be to carry on, to enunciate policies, to embody those policies in legislation. In other words, unless parliament functions all theories go by the board. What is the position to-day? As I have said-and I can state it without fear of contradiction-at the present moment the party system as such cannot function. That statement may be
challenged, but it cannot be challenged successfully. The essence of the spirit of our party system is that one party or another may receive such a mandate from the country as will entitle it to bring forward a programme and command such parliamentary support within itself as will enable it to put that programme into effect. Can any party here do that to-day? Can we suggest that in future the difficulty will decrease, that in future parliaments this situation will never again occur? Hon. members may express a contrary opinion; my opinion is that the difficulty is likely to become accentuated' in the future rather than diminished. We are facing the question now: under what circumstances can parliament function, and on what basis can the government govern to-day? Obviously on one basis alone, that of co-operation between one or other of the major parties, and at least some individuals, if not entire groups, outside of that party. That fact is so obvious that it need not be stressed. Upon what basis, then, may that co-operation be brought about? On a party basis? That is impossible, because there is no party affiliation. On one basis only can parliament function-the basis of policy and legislation. Suppose for one moment this amendment carried and in due course the Conservative party took office and brought in a programme. Although that programme emanated solely from the caucus room of their own party or from the brains contained within their own party, not one jot, not one tittle of that programme could go through this House without co-operative action by other members. Everyone knows that. Hon. members on this side of the House who have spoken have admitted it.	_
Now I say again, on what basis can cooperative action be taken, can parliament function and a government administer national affairs except on a basis of legislation? In voting for this amendment what do I say? That we decide now what government shall function; that we decide now who shall take power, prior to the discussion of the very basis upon, which that government itself can function and upon which parliament can carry on. I hope I am making myself distinctly understood. I say now that I intend to vote against the amendment, just as I would have voted against the motion introduced by the leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Lapointe), because in either case it would have prevented this House from functioning; it would have prevented the discussion of the very basis upon which parliament can operate. I for one was glad when the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) made his statement.
Government's Right to Office

not because I am in the habit of allowing other men to interpret my vote or my motives for me; not because I have been in the habit of placing much emphasis upon the headlines in our daily press to which reference has been made. I have usually, rightly or wrongly, made up my own mind and placed my own interpretation upon my actions, responsible only to the people whom I represent. I would not like it to be understood by the members of the government sitting across the House that by this vote I register confidence in their actions during the last four years. I make it very definite and very clear that on this question I would not be prepared to vote confidence in the government. Nor would I be prepared to vote confidence in the Conservative party. And why do I lack that confidence? Well, Mr. Speaker, it is for a most curious reason. I would be afraid, from the history of the past, that the government of the day would not put their platform into effect; and I would be afraid, from the declarations of the past, that the Conservative party would. Holding the opinions which I hold, opinions on policy and opinions on governments, which I have expressed from time to time, can any hon. member blame me for the attitude of doubt which I assume?
I have made it abundantly clear, I think, that I am not now voting confidence or lack of confidence. I am voting simply and solely on two points: first, whether under the conditions prevailing the government were justified in appealing to parliament to settle the question-and I believe they were; second, to give myself the opportunity to discuss the basis upon which we may be able to function in this House, and to pass my final decision upon policies; to follow the course that the hon. member for South Wellington said should be followed, that we may have before us the proposals of policy emanating from the Liberal party and the suggestions as to policies emanating from the Conservative party, vote on the merits of those two policies and decide which policy we can support. It is not a question of supporting this party or that, but a question of sound legislation.
I was glad for another reason to hear the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) make the statement he did, for we in this comer of the House have contended for years for the introduction of this great factor into our parliamentary life; that when we vote on an issue we should vote solely on the merits of that oarticular question without considering political implications. We endeavoured four years ago to bring about that state of affairs in this House. We moved and supported a

proposal that every legislative question should be voted on upon its merits, without party bias, and that a government should be defeated only on a direct want of confidence vote. That proposal was repudiated on both sides of the House, and now what do we find? We find that the germ of that suggestion has been accepted by the government; for we have the statement of the Minister of Customs that no implication is to be attached to a vote save as deciding the merits of the question itself.
May I say this, Mr. Speaker, I have gone through this country during the election, because I had to run an election too, and in all parts of the country in which I have gone I have found one opinion prevailing-it prevails throughout all Canada to-day, so far as I know-and that is the country is tired of politics and wants us to consider the matters that come before us as matters of business. It desires, for instance, that the great question of our trade relations as embodied in a protective policy or in a free trade policy shall be considered as a business problem, not as a political issue; that the question of transportation shall be considered in the light in which it really stands, as a business problem, capable of being settled on business lines by business men, and not as a question to be bandied from side to side as a political issue; that the questions of taxation, of credit, and all the other various problems shall be dealt with and settled as business problems, and not treated as political measures. I say that tonight we find here the germ of that idea.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, limiting my vote to the matter before the House, and leaving myself free to support sound policies and to vote against unsound policies, from whichever side they emanate, I shall vote against the amendment. In so speaking I am speaking for myself, but I believe I am also expressing the views of many in this corner of the House who will vote as I vote.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, although the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Caban) is not in his seat at the moment, I want to extend to him my most hearty congratulations upon his recovery from the severe illness which he has recently suffered. I should like to express my persona! satisfaction in seeing that he has lost none of his old vigour of previous days despite his illness. I am glad to see such a man in this House, although I do not agree with all the principles which he has laid down or with all the ideas which he has expressed, I am pleased to admit the sincerity of his motives and his very firm convictions.

Government's Right to Office
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George complained) very bitterly about what he called the bribes made by the present government for the support of the Progressive party in the vote which is to be taken before very long. I would ask him to apply the severe judgment which he has brought against the proposals contained in the Speech from the Throne to the promise of co-operation, good-will, and common understanding which have been extended from the opposite side of the House towards the Progressives in order to get their support and their votes.
The very distinguished member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), in the course of his remarks, complained because during the last three or four years the government had not been very strong and had had to get support from other parts of the House, and he said this had placed the government in a very embarrassing and humiliating position, but at the end of his speech he made an appeal for the support of these very gentlemen who had been supporting the Liberal party for the last three or four years. After blaming indirectly, if not directly, the present government for having tried to get Progressive support during the last three or four years, he expressed his desire to see the Progressive members give similar support to the party to which he belongs. At the end of his speech he was no longer afraid of the embarrassing and humiliating position in which he would be placed in having to comply with the requests of members of the Progressive group. This shows, Mr. Speaker-I d)o not want to cast any reflections upon hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House-that their first intention, their chief desire, is not to have the will of the majority prevail in this House, but to have the chance of getting on to the treasury benches.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George also complained because he found mentioned in the Speech from the Throne many measures which he said had not been discussed during the last election. I have to remind the hon. gentleman that most of the measures which are forecast in the Speech from the Throne were referred to, all over the country in practically all the speeches delivered by the Prime Minister at the meetings he attended, and such as were not were old measures which had frequently been before the House of Commons in past years. Take, for example, the question of the return of the natural resources. This question has been agitated in parliament for several years and has been the subject of discussion between representatives of the provinces and of the Dominion.
If the matter has not 'been brought to a conclusion as yet, it is because the negotiations were not completed until this year, and until now we were not in a position to promise the measure which had been requested a few years ago. This programme and these discussions are not new. The question has been often debated during previous sessions. The completion of the Hudson Bay railway is not a new thing either. We have been spending money every year upon this work, in maintaining the road in good order and good condition. We have never definitely refused to complete the undertaking. It was a subject of much discussion during the last election, and the Prime Minister is not the only man who might be accused of having made a promise to the people of the west. The right hon. leader of the opposition practically made the same promise although, in his case, there was a proviso that the cost should not be more than $3,000,000. Nevertheless, in principle, it is the same promise.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman
permit me? I do not want him to misrepresent what I stated, especially by saying it was the same offer as that of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made his promise conditional on getting sufficient Liberal members from the part affected.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is a fine distinction.
It is not a new procedure on the part of my right hon. friend. We all recognize here that nobody can split hairs better than he can.


Arthur Meighen: Is that a hair?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The question of the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, as I said, was discussed throughout the last campaign and both political parties, Liberals a3 well as Conservatives, are committed to it, so that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has no reason at all to attack the Liberal party because of their promise to bring about the realization of this project, which is so dear to the hearts of the Progressive members. In regard to the other subjects spoken of, the situation is absolutely the same. They are old questions which have been agitated for many years, and now the time has come for the realization of certain of the hopes of my hon. friends from the west. The hon. member in criticising the promises we have made, and our intention to carry out certain demands of the Progressive members, has no serious reason to complain, because the party whose advent to power he is now trying to assist would be forced in the
Government's Right to Office

event, of their succeeding, to make the same concessions that we are now offering the western people. My hon. friend should not find fault with that, although he comes from the great city of Montreal and has been helped by certain newspapers and certain people there who are opposed to any concessions at all to *the west. My hon. friend has no reason at all to oppose any proposals which might help to unite all sections of Canada and bring about a better understanding amongst the citizens as a whole. It is useless to try to develop our country by merely helping a few manufacturers in the city of Montreal; it is futile to try to develop this great country simply by aiding one or two of the various provinces of Canada. If we want to build up this country, if we want to develop our wonderful natural resources, if we want this Dominion to become a great country, we must help all sections of Canada and not limit ourselves to helping one or two provinces.
The sentiments which have been expressed bv my hon. friend (Mr. Cahan) are not new to my ears. I have been accused in many newspapers of having aroused .prejudices in this country. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) made an incidental reference of that kind the other day. I want to [DOT]tell him that when the opportunity comes I shall answer him as to that, because I can confidently compare my political record with his own. If he looks into the fyles of the various newspapers, he will find no ground for any such action as he attributed to me in the reports of the speeches which I have made in the province of Quebec. He will find however *that the editorials of certain English papers of the city of Montreal were calculated to .mislead the people during the last general election. Liberal members, including myself, were accused of making statements during the last campaign which we never uttered. Throughout the campaign we heard our opponents broadcasting all over the province that the Liberal party should be condemned because it had been making sacrifices for the benefit of the people of the western provinces. We W'ere accused of ruining the industries of Quebec and Ontario, because we had made certain concessions on the tariff to please the western people. Such were the sentiments expressed by our opponents in Quebec in the late campaign; they were against all co-operation between Ontario and Quebec and the western provinces. They wanted the two old provinces to enjoy all the advantages of being in power, but they denied1 any advantage therefrom to the prairie provinces to which

every true Canadian should look for the welfare of Canada as a whole.
I have no further comment to offer upon the speech delivered by the very respectable gentleman representing St. Lawrence-St. George, except to say this: personally, I am ready and the province of Quebec is ready, I may say, to make the sacrifices that are necessary to help the western provinces in trying to bring about a better understanding between the citizens of Canada as a whole. It has been said that the Liberal party made certain sacrifices in order to come to an understanding with the citizens of the west. Yes, we have made sacrifices and we are ready in Quebec, as I think some people are ready in Ontario, to make further sacrifices in order to promote a better understanding between all the Canadian provinces. Surely he should not abject because we are trying to bring about such a desirable result, because we are willing to grant certain requests made by the people of the west.
We are placed at the present time in a very delicate position. It is not a new one, and it is quite a natural one. It is the result of new developments in our political life for which, apparently, rules were not provided in the building of what is now our constitution. We have reached a point where we have possibly to establish our own precedents to deal with the situations in which we might find ourselves. We have here different groups, representing different shades of opinion in our country. Is that a good thing? Is that in reality embarrassing? I need not answer these questions to-night. Are these groups to last long, or are they to be of short duration? Nobody can tell that at this time. Let the House try to see its way through the difficulties and deal, not with precedents, not with nice distinctions, but with facts as they are and as they present themselves to us. Precedents have been cited by very learned gentlemen in this House and distinctions have been made. Interpretations have been offered. All this has reminded me of my legal practice, when I had to fight against precedents or when I had to invoke precedents myself. I have always found, and I think we have all discovered in this House in the last few days, that it is easy to obtain precedents on both sides of an issue. I have a certain respect for precedents, but not for them as such. I have respect for precedents on account of the principle that is sanctioned, not on account of the particular judgment which is expressed by the decision. After all what is a precedent? A precedent is the result of distinction on points of law or of interpret-

Government's Right to Office
ation on. points of law, and very often precedents are based upon facts the accuracy of which is very much disputed. In practice they are met in the same way that they have been met here. They are met first of all with the argument that such precedent is no good; that it should not be applied because it is too old. This was the argument which was advanced by the hon. member for South Wellington in regard to the precedent cited by the Solicitor General. It is said also that such precedent is not applicable to the present circumstances. This argument has been invoked against the precedents cited by the Solicitor General, and if I understood him aright, the hon. member for South Wellington said, "This precedent was established in very exceptional cases and in very difficult and trying circumstances, and we should not apply in the present case a precedent which was invoked under such circumstances." We have heard also, and we hear every day before the tribunals of our country, that such a precedent should not be applied because it is too recent and has not had the advantage of the test of experience. Other precedents are not followed because they are too old. It is rather easy to find1 precedents on all sides of an issue, and practically all precedents are disputable. But above all precedents and judgments there is the supreme thought, the golden principle which has come with an increased brightness through centuries, and, as everybody admits, should govern all our parliamentary institutions, and that principle is that majorities should rule.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am glad to see that this principle is accepted in all corners of the House. I hope that the applause which now comes from the other side will come also when I try to find out where, the majority exists. I am sure of one thing: where is the majority to exist if it is not in the House of Commons? Where is the real majority upon which we can depend, upon which we can be sure, if it is not in the House of Commons. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) expressed the opinion that the majority of all ballots cast should be ascertained after the closing of the polls, and that is what he calls a majority of the popular vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am surprised to hear a distinguished lawyer like the ex-Minister of Finance accept such a statement. .


Ernest Lapointe: He is not serious.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Everybody knows that many of the electors vote on account of personal sympathy for the candidate and have only a slight interest in the questions which are at issue during the fight. I am sure my very estimable friend the member for Fort William received votes in the last election on account of the personal sympathy of many of the electors of his constituency, who were not interested in the government which might be in .power after the election. All they wanted was that the hon. gentleman should represent them in the House of Commons. Are we to count those votes in favour of the Tory party? It would not be fair to do that. How are we to regard the votes given, for example, in favour of candidates of Mr. Patenaude in the province of Quebec? My right hon. friend said the other day that they were against the government. That- is true, but neither were they in favour of the right hon. leader of the opposition, and I can say that I have more respect for my hon. friend than those people have. He was not going to be their leader. If the Conservative party was returned to power, not he, but Mr. Patenaude was going to be Prime Minister of Canada. This is what was advocated in the province of Quebec by the Patenaude candidates. They all said that they had no confidence in the present leader of the opposition; that they would not vote for him; but that they wanted to have as Prime Minister Mr. Patenaude, because some of them said that according to the information which they had received the present leader of the opposition was going to be defeated in his own constituency. During the campaign in the constituency of Beau-harnois, in Quebec, it was said by the candidate and the other speakers that they would not be embarrassed by the present leader of the opposition; that he was not going to be in the House after the 29th October; that Mr. Patenaude was the man who would be chosen as Prime Minister of Canada and leader of the Conservative party. In face of that, can hon. gentlemen opposite count votes cast for such candidates as votes in favour of my right hon. friend? That would be the result of the argument of the hon. member for Fort William if we were to accept it with regard to what he describes as the popular vote given against the government.


Robert James Manion: Did they express any confidence in the government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That does not matter; I
admit they declared that they were opposed to the present government, but my point is that they were as strongly opposed to the leader of the opposition.
Government's Right to Office


Mr. LANCTOT:: My opponent was more
strongly opposed to the leader of the opposition than to the Prime Minister.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If the popular vote were
going to be considered as the opinion of the people which should govern in this country and establish the majority, certain members having been elected by larger majorities would have a right, as a consequence, to speak louder and longer in the House of Commons. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), on account of the huge majority which he received, would have more authority than three or four members of the House of Cotnimons, and certainly he would have more than members sitting behind him who were returned to this House by a minority vote. So, it is very easy to see that we cannot rely upon the popular vote as such. Many reasons may have influenced the result of this election in favour of one particular candidate as against another. The hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) is not here on account of the record of the Tory or Union administration. He is not here on account of the record of the Conservative party. He is here on account of his personality and the goodwill which he enjoys in the constituency of Argenteuil. This is another example to illustrate why we cannot rely upon the popular vote as such. According to our constitution, we have to accept the will of the people when it is expressed ,by their duly elected representatives in this House of Commons. All the members are equal here. Those who have been elected by a small majority have all the rights which those elected by a larger majority may claim for themselves. Under our constitution, our system as it exists at the present
10 p.m. time, ail representatives elected, whatever may have been the vote given them, providing they have a majority, are entitled to sit in this House. If we were going to take the popular vote as already explained, we might have to tell certain hon. gentlemen sitting here, that they had nothing to say, but must wait for the expression of opinion of their electors as indicated by the popular vote cast in their respective constituencies. More particularly in a house constituted as the present House of Commons is, with two, three, four, five, and possibly six groups of men dividing public opinion in Canada, the true will of the people, or, if I may use this expression, the will, constitutionally expressed, of the people, is to be found in the House of Commons when their duly elected representatives are assembled here. Otherwise, there would be chaos; our parliamentary institutions would be of no value

and could not exist, if we were to take into consideration only the popular vote as it is counted after the close of the polls.
It might be said that a prime minister is often called upon to form a government, after the closing of the polls, without any summoning of parliament. But when His Excellency calls upon the leader of a party to form a government, he is not certain, he only assumes that this leader will be in a position to carry with him in the House of Commons a majority of the representatives of the people. He is not relying solely upon the result of the popular vote as cast. He assumes from the popular vote cast at the polls that the leader who has the majority of members elected to support him will be in a position, when in the House, to maintain this majority in favour of the measures that he is going to propose. The challenge is always -made and can be made only as to the majority in the House of Commons. It cannot be made outside of the House of Commons. It does not matter if one group is larger than another, if one is smaller than another. The larger group may be in a minority, if all the minority groups unite. That is the situation at the present time. So, in my humble judgment, the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite form the larger group is of no importance under the present circumstances because, although they have the larger group, they are still in a minority in the House of Commons. The majority, not the group is the essential thing. After the last election, it was found that all the groups were in a minority. My right hon. -friend said: Well, the government, and ithe government, alone was before the people and it is the government which was rejected. We may very well answer -him ,by saying: That might be true, but you have not been elected to deal with the affairs of Canada. You yourself have not been given the majority to command the destinies of our country. What, then, was the course to be followed? The summoning of parliament, the calling together of the representatives of the people to decide the various issues. The resignation of the Prime Minister would not have -made the situation any dearer. The same thing would have happened. Suppose we had resigned and the leader of the opposition had been called upon to form a government, and, having done so, had- convened parliament. He would have been subject to the same attack that has been made upon us in the present situation, and to obtain -a majority and retain power he would have been forced to seek the support of another group in the House. Obviously therefore the position would have been absolutely as it is at the present time. Two courses were

Governm'ent's Right to Office
open to the government, as I have indicated: the government could either meet parliament or iit could advise His Excellency to call upon the leader of the opposition to form an administration. But in giving this advice to His Excellency, it was necessary that the Prime Minister should himself be convinced that the right hon. gentleman was in a position to command a majority in the House of Commons. If the Prime Minister entertained any serious doubt about my right hon. friend's ability to secure a majority in the House, then it was undoubtedly his duty to refrain from advising His Excellency to call upon the right hon. gentleman, for had he done so, he would simply have been inviting chaos.


John Wesley Edwards: Whose statement has the hon. gentleman been quoting from?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not quoting any statement; I am merely expressing my own humble view of the matter. Was the Prime Minister, then, in a position to convince himself that the leader of the opposition would be able to command a majority in the House, which majority he could secure only by the support of the Progressive party? We may answer this question by considering briefly the circumstances attending the election.
Throughout the campaign the right hon. gentleman's friends and) himself have been attacking the government, because of the fact that it had been on friendly terms with the Progressives during the preceding three years. The government was severely condemned because it had made certain concessions to the Progressive party, small as those concessions were. We were accused of sacrificing the^ interests both of Quebec and of the province of Ontario in order to obtain the support of that party, and we were charged further with responsibility for the closing of our factories as a result of our reduction of the tariff, made, the allegation was, as a means of pleasing Progressive members. And Mr. Patenaude, during the last campaign, in a speech that he cannot deny, because it has been published broadcast throughout the province of Quebec, made the statement that the Liberal party and the Liberal government had practically sold that province and the province of Ontario to the people of the west. These facts were all published and were in the mind of the Prime Minister. Well, does any one contend for a moment that the Prime Minister could reasonably conclude, under the cir-j cumstances, that the leader of the opposition, in view of the stand he had been taking, could secure the support of the Progressive party?
Where is there a man with ordinary common sense, a man capable of thinking for a moment, who believes that the leader of the opposition could hope at that time to obtain the support of the Progressive party? That support may be given him; we do not know. Certainly the invitation that has come from the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) is interesting and attractive. But there was something more that operated to convince the Prime Minister of my right hon. friend's inability to command a majority in the House. The Progressives are low tariff men: how therefore can any one think they would approve the policy of the leader of the opposition, who had declared that, if given an opportunity he would increase the tariff on agricultural implements? This declaration of his cannot be denied, for it appears in speeches he has made; he is so reported in Hansard of June 2 last year. A question was put to the right hon. gentleman by the then member for Brantford, Mr. Raymond:	"If you are
returned to power, do you intend to raise the tariff on agricultural implements to the level at which it was when you left office?" And the right hon. gentleman answered, "Undoubtedly, I would, and I give this answer unhesitatingly." There is no doubt whatever that he made this declaration; it cannot be denied. It is therefore a part of his policy to increase the duty on agricultural implements, and such was the interpretation given to his motion presented last session in favour of the revision of the tariff. In view of this fact, does any one with ordinary common sense imagine for a single moment that the right hon. gentleman could reasonably expect the support of the Progressives, with a policy of further increasing the tariff on these implements? No. Under the circumstances the Prime Minister certainly could not recommend to His Excellency that he call upon the right hon. gentleman to form a government, for the facts all indicated beyond the shadow of a doubt that the right hon. gentleman was in no position to command a majority in the House. If therefore the Prime Minister was in doubt in this respect, he had only one course open to him, and that course he followed, namely, to summon parliament in order to have the will of the people expressed through their elected representatives. This was the only logical, the only democratic, the only legal course which the Prime Minister could have followed, although no doubt by a very slight distinction it may be contended that it is not constitutional. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied with the legality of the procedure, and if the course we have followed is legally sound, I do not
Government's Righl to Office

care for the various interpretations, on constitutional grounds, which have been placed upon the position we have taken. Certainly that position cannot be legal and at the same time unconstitutional; nor can it be constitutional and at the same time illegal. That there must be at least some relation between the two, is evident to the common sense of hon. gentlemen representing the people of this country.
I say therefore that the course which the government followed was the only democratic one that could have been followed. It has been said that our position was one of people acting in an autocratic manner. I hold however [DOT] that if we had done what it 'is suggested we should have done, we would then have been acting autocratically, because such a course would have deprived the representatives of the people, composing the groups which we find in this House, of the right to have their say in the matter.
Our position, I repeat, is legal and it is constitutional. Many authorities have been cited on both sides of the House by learned gentlemen who have read considerably from numerous books. Reference has been made to Mr. Gladstone. Well, I have under my hand an extract from Morley's Life of Gladstone in which it is related that in 1874, although Mr. Gladstone did not meet the House, it was his personal opinion that he had a right to do so. Surely that opinion, coming as it does from so eminent an authority, carries weight. Although Mr. Gladstone did not put into practice the view he held, it was undoubtedly his opinion that, had he met parliament, be would have been acting constitutionally; he admitted that he had the right to face the House, just as we are facing it to-day. And being in the House legally-and I add, constitutionally, because our authorities are as good as those cited by our friends opposite 

we are met here by an amendment which has been the subject of very learned discussion on the part of members who have the right to call themselves constitutional lawyers. What is contended in this amendment? It is contended purely and simply that the procedure which we have followed is not the right one; that we are not competent to face the House, and that we have no right to bring down a Speech from the Throne. That is the amendment proposed by the right hon. gentleman, and nothing else. What we have to decide here in the light of the discussion which has taken place is this: Was the government competent; hadi the government authority to meet the House and ask for a decision by the representatives of the 
people? That is the only question. It is not a question of passing judgment upon the past record of 'the Liberal party; it is not a blanket authority given to the administration for the future. The only issue at stake at the present time is to decide if we are competent to face the House and have the question decided by its members. I am in good company when I say that we were right in doing what we did, because the strongest lawyers in favour of the amendment admitted that we were right. The hon. and learned member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) has admitted1 very plainly that the government had the right to do what it did-and Jet me remind you that this gentleman was the former Minister of Justice in 'the administration of my right ho-n. friend. He was the first one to attack the contention of his leader in the House. He brought here a mass of documents and authorities, and after studying them he came to the conclusion that we had the right to summon parliament. And he is not alone. Another hon. gentleman whom I esteem very highly, because to my mind he is one of the best debaters in the House of Commons, the hon. member for South Wellington, admitted the same thing -that the government was right in summoning parliament. And he went further than that; he denied by his very admission-


John Wesley Edwards: Will the hon. gentleman pardon me? Did he state that the government had the legal right, or the constitutional right? There is a difference. Which does he mean? I do not charge the hon. gentleman with misstating it, but I have under my hand the statement of the hon. member for South Wellington, which disproves the statement of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My statement is that we
can draw a conclusion from the remarks of the hon. member for West Calgary and those of the hon. member for South Wellington that the government had the legal right to summon parliament in order to have this matter decided. The hon. member for South Wellington said that we had not only the right to convene parliament but that we had also the right to present the Speech from the Throne, and he said that the proper time and the only time the position of the government could have been challenged was on the discussion of the Speech from the Throne. Therefore it was necessary to have a Speech from the Throne, because the challenge was to come on that very Speech.


John Wesley Edwards: Will my hon. friend permit me again? Or page 92 of Hansard I find these words:

Government's Right to Office
Mr. Guthrie: I submit he had no constitutional right to do so, and particularly without a seat in parliament.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In answer to my hon
friend I might read the words of the member for South Wellington:
The ordinary and well-established course which the government should have followed was to meet the House as they did, bring in the Address as they did, and move for the consideration of that Address on a fixed day. That we expected; that we anticipated.
Was he anticipating anything which was not constitutional?


John Wesley Edwards: Absolutely.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He went on to say:
Then the Address would have been proceeded with on that day so fixed, just as my hon. friend from Kindcrsley (Mr. Carmichael) expected the government to do.
I invite your attention to this. The hon.
gentleman said:
The ordinary and well-established course which the government should have followed-
If it is not the constitutional course, I ask what the course is. What is the "ordinary and well-established course" to which the hon. gentleman referred? Further he says:
I quite agree with the hon. member for Kindersley that this discussion might better have taken place on the discussion of the Speech from the Throne, and it would have taken place on that occasion had the government not attempted to trick us out of our opportunity.
So, Mr. Speaker, the reason why the hon. member for South Wellington is in favour of the amendment is not the same reason as the one given by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition. It is a reason which has come to the front since parliament opened and the Speech from the Throne was delivered. Upon that foundation the arguments contained in his speech were built. This is the kind of argument we have had to listen to. I think I am right in saying that it has been adnaitted by the most learned constitutional lawyers of the other side that we had the constitutional right to convene parliament and to ask for a decision by this House. The question which we have to decide is whether or not the government followed the right course.	The main
contention upon which our opponents are basing their arguments is that the Prime Minister has not a seat in the House. As has been contended, the absence of the Prime Minister is only temporary. Answering the argument of the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said: "How can
you be sure that the absence of the Prime Minister is only temporary?" Mr. Speaker, this question of a temporary absence from the House is not new under our constitution. Everybody knows that a minister after he has been defeated can continue in office for a reasonable time; he continues in office as a minister so long as he does not send in his resignation. So there is nothing extraordinary in a minister being absent from the House, because under our constitution and practice a minister can retain office for a reasonable time after he has been defeated. When the Prime Minister is absent from the House the business of the country is carried on just the same by the other ministers, who are equally advisers of the crown. The affairs of the country are dealt with in just the same wa3', and so it does not matter if the Prime Minister has not a seat in the House of Commons provided that his absence is only temporary. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will not be out of the House of Commons for a longer period of time than would the right hon. leader of the opposition if he should be called as Prime Minister after the vote in this House. If the amendment of my right hon. friend does carry the Prime Minister of to-day will probably advise His Excellency to call on the right hon. leader of the opposition, and he will be sworn in as Prime Minister. The moment he is sworn in, he is out of this House, and it is the same with all his ministers. The House would have to be adjourned and all its business postponed, and we would have to wait three weeks, possibly four, for the election of fifteen or seventeen ministers. The hon. member for South Wellington said in reply to the hon. Solicitor General: "You do not know whether the Prime Minister will be re-elected." The same remark applies to my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition. He is no more sure than the Prime Minister of being returned if he should become Prime Minister of Canada and seek re-election.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But he has a
seat in the House now.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As soon as he is sworn in, he no longer has a seat in this House, and if he wishes to have a seat he must be reelected. Pending his re-election everything has to be postponed, and if he should be defeated when seeking re-election, what position would the House of Commons be in then? If that would not be chaos, I ask myself what is chaos? Why run all these risks? Why expose ourselves to an adjournment of the House for three weeks or a month?-and if the right hon. gentleman was defeated in his own constituency and had to run in another,
Government's Right to Office

that would take four more weeks. We do not know when he would be in a position to [DOT]come into the House; we cannot tell when the House would be in a position to resume its business. But supposing he should be reelected in his own constituency, he would then be met in the House by a motion of want of confidence, and the position would be practically the same as it is to-day. If he was not then in a position to command a majority of the House of Commons all the delay would have been time wasted, all these troubles would have been in vain; the position would not be improved at all; it would be worse than if we were to go on now with the business of the House and decide upon the legislation to be submitted.
The issue, Mr. Speaker, is not approval or disapproval of the government. The issue is not the record of the government. It is not a question of accepting in advance the policy of the government. The sole issue is to decide if the course we have followed is the legal and constitutional and proper one.


Arthur Meighen: If that is the sole issue, does it not follow that every government which after election meets parliament should be sustained in parliament?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In some cases there is no doubt at all. There was no doubt in 1921, for instance.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend has missed the point. He says the only thing parliament has to decide is whether the government were right in coming to parliament. Then every government which comes to parliament should be sustained.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Arthur Meighen: That is what the hon.
gentleman is arguing.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The present condition is
exceptional, due to the fact that public opinion is represented in this House by different groups.


Arthur Meighen: It always is. The hon. member does not see the point; it is not his fault, I know. The point is this. He says: What the House has to decide is whether we were right in coming to parliament. Suppose the House assumes they were; then does it not follow they must be sustained in parliament?


Ernest Lapointe: Afterwards.


Arthur Meighen: Very well, then. Is not the issue: Should the government be sustained in parliament under the circumstances?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The proper place to decide that is on the Address, as the hon. member for South Wellington admitted.


Arthur Meighen: Why not decide it now?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The right hon. gentleman
in his amendment contends that we were not competent to meet parliament, that we had no right to have a Speech from the Throne.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is
misstating the amendment. He will not find the word "meet" in it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Let me read it:
-and under such circumstances are not competent to act-


Arthur Meighen: That is not meeting
parliament.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: -as, or to become the committee of parliament.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Let hon. gentlemen keep
their applause for the last part. It continues:
-or to address parliament through His Excellency.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What does that mean? It means that we had no right to have a Speech from the Throne. That is the only meaning of the amendment. That is the issue

whether we had the right to convene parliament, whether we had the right to have a Speech from the Throne. That is the sole issue contained in .the amendment of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition. The record of the government is not criticized at all but only its competency to convene parliament and to speak through His Excellency the Governor General is challenged. I think hon. members will not be very much embarrassed in deciding this issue because it has been admitted, as I said before, that the course we followed was the proper one. The only duty now devolving upon the House, is to decide if it approves of the convening of parliament and the bringing down of the Speech from the Throne, and if it is proper to give to the House the opportunity of ascertaining whether Liberal policies still commend themselves to the judgment of the majority of hon. members. Indisputably we had the right to do as we did. Old precedents Cannot stop parliament in its action. Parliament is the court where precedents are created, changed, or reversed; and in the present instance, if we are sustained and the amendment defeated, we will be able to

Government's Right to Office
proceed with the affairs of the House and bring down the legislation, which has been announced in the Speech from the Throne. The House must be permitted to look aft-nits own destinies, proclaim its supremacy, and afford an opportunity of finding out whether the government's programme can offer some satisfaction to all parts of Canada, because, after all, satisfaction of all parts of this country is the only way in which we can ever expect to bring about real Canadian unity.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware it has not been my practice to occupy the time of the House in making long speeches. On the contrary I have always been willing to expedite as much as possible the transaction of the business of parliament. On this occasion, however, I would like to offer a few remarks on the subject engaging the attention of the House.
I have listened very carefully to the indictment by my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) and his able and eloquent lieutenants of the gentlemen now professing to constitute the government of this country. 'I have listened just as attentively to -the defence offered by those gentlemen of their status, and it seems to me the position we now find ourselves in is that since the 2:9th of October last Canada has had a government without a head, ana that since this House met on the seventli instant we have had neither a governmental head nor a government. Strange as it may appear, the modern precedent that our friends opposite most strongly urge in support of the conduct of this alleged government in clinging to office is the action of the right hon, leader of the opposition in 1921 when, failing of election in his own constituency and ceasing to be the leader of the largest group, he with very little delay took the necessary steps and secured election to parliament from another constituency willing to elect him. The course pursued by the right hon. gentleman at that time was vehemently denounced by the then leader of the opposition, now the ex-Prirne Minister, Mr. King. It was denounced at that time by him as entirely unconstitutional, yet that very precedent is now urged in justification for the present conduct of the exPrime Minister. In the following (language ex-Prime Minister King expressed his decided disapproval of the course of my right hon. leader:
I can only say at the moment that such a violation of constitutional procedure can scarcely fail to bring the severest censure upon Mr. Meighen, a censure which the party he leads must also share if it countenances such an act.
14011-12 #



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
Just whether this high-handed and unwarranted course on Mr. Meiglien's part can be defended on technical or legal grounds remains to be seen. That it is morally indefensible I do not hesitate to say. , One thing is certain; the Canadian public will not fail to recognize, nor Canadian political history to record, that Mr. Meighen's last act as Prime Minister, like his first, was one of usurpation.
Not sure that it was unconstitutional, but quite sure that it was morally wrong. That is how Mr. King described the precedent that is advanced now by his followers here as justification for the course which he has pursued, evidently with the idea that in their eyes two wrongs, if one was a wrong, make a right.
In reality, IMr. Speaker, there is a vast difference between the two teases. Let us briefly examine them. In 1921, on failure of election in the district of Portage la Prairie the right hon. leader of the Conservative partjr as soon as possible became a candidate in the district of Grenville. He was elected, and so became entitled to all the rights of a member of parliament. He qualified himself to function as such, and proceeded to function to the great advantage of his country and of his party, and evidently to the great discomfiture of hon. gentlemen opposite. On the other hand what was the course of ex-Prime Minister King, ex-member of parliament? He does not deem it worth while to qualify as a member of parliament either by seeking election to this House or by appointment to the Senate. Yet he assumes to be Prime Minister, to hang on to the office of Prime Minister; and I presume he will	claim-probably is
claiming and receiving-tfhe emoluments of the office without being a member of parliament.	*
Mr. King is reported in the press of the country as taking the high moral ground that the Liberal group should not make appointments, should not function as a government, and in this respect no one will quarrel with him. But how about his own case? Is he consistent in that regard? Does he live up to the high ideal which he has proclaimed?
It is all very well to refrain from other appointments, but how about the office of Prime Minister? One may be pardoned for referring to that hon. gentleman's own words to describe his conduct. This is what he says:
That it is morally indefensible I do not hesitate to say.
Surely those words are not too strong in referring to Mr. King's present course. He has not been a member of parliament since
October 29 last, yet he professes to assume -and shall I, in his language, say usurp?-

[Stage Direction]
Government's Right to Office
[Stage Direction]
the office of Prime Minister, an office to which only a member of parliament can attain. He actually comes to this House when not a member. He pretends to be Prime Minister and in that assumed role-or, as he would put it, that usurped role-he actually meets His Excellency at the portals of this House and escorts him to the seat of honour. If the positions of the two leaders were reversed, if one could imagine my leader putting himself in that ridiculous position, what adjectives would Mr. King use to describe the situation? Certainly something much stronger than those he used in 1921. It would be interesting to be able to look behind the mask of officialdom and good breeding and to read what was actually taking place in the mind of Byng of Vimy, and to know what he actually thought of his escort on that occasion. It cannot be controverted, Mr. Speaker, that ex-Prime Minister King has not been a member of parliament since 29th October. He cannot enter either house of parliament. He is neither a member of the Commons nor of the Senate. The constitution of Canada, the British North America Act, says that parliament shall consist of the sovereign-that is the Governor General, -the Senate or upper house, and the House of Commons. Now the ex-Prime Minister is no part of parliament, and, of necessity, not being a part of parliament, he cannot be Prime Minister. We have no Prime Minister and no government and there is no use pretending that we have. It has been observed often with pride that we Britishers have no written constitution hedging us in and hampering us between its four walls; that we play the game according to unwritten rules, well defined and well understood. How can we continue to carry on under that system if public men fail to play the game. We will soon require to have a written rule to hold some people.
Speaking in defence and in approval of the manner in which his leader is playing the game, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) -I will not use his leader's expression and say the gentleman who is usurping the position of Minister of Justice-said the other day:
I rise to-day to defend the public honour of the right hon. the leader of the government and to show that not only had he the right to do that, but that it was his supreme duty to do it. Any other attitude on his part would have been a breach of trust, an infringement of the rights of parliament.
The hon. gentleman would have the House and the country believe that Mr. King is doing the only thing it was open to him to do. Anything else, as it was put, would have been a breach of trust and an infringement on the rights of parliament. Surely that is, to use a slang expression, "a bit thick". Does it

not occur to Mr. King and the Minister of Justice that there was one thing he might have done, one obviously manifest thing he should have done, and that was to resign- that is if it is necessary to resign when one fails of election? I have been a defeated candidate. I did not have to resign. The electors attended to that for me, as they have done in Mr. King's case. The difference is that he persists in ignoring their verdict. I did not attempt to function as a member of parliament until elected on a subsequent occasion. Mr. King assumes to foe much more than a member of parliament. He assumes to be Prime Minister without the qualification of an.election. It is a wonder he went to the formality and the trouble of standing as a candidate at all in North York, if he could be Prime Minister without election. Are there two members for North York? Apparently there are, one elected and one defeated. The defeated1 one, notwithstanding that fact, is Prime Minister, and the other is only a private member.
If hon, members of the Progressive group would like to hear a rule of conduct that was laid down by one whose opinion should have great weight with them, and now should have great weight with members of the Liberal party, I would like to quote what was said on 17th April, 1923, on the eve of the last election campaign in Ontario. Mr. Drury, the head of the United Farmers of Ontario government, made the following statement:
In order that, there may be no doubt whatever as to my position I take this opportunity of stating it clearly and unequivocally. If, after the election I find myself in command of a clear majority of the House I will of course continue to carry on the Government. If I find that either of the other parties has a clear majority of the House I will at once in accordance with sound constitutional procedure advise His Honour to call on the leader of that party to form a government.
If, on the other hand I find myself the leader of a party which, while in the minority, is still the largest party in the House I will carry on the government relying on and accepting such support as the merit of my record and policy may bring us.
If there should be elected a group or party larger than that of which I am the head, though not large enough to command a clear majority of the House I will advise His Honour to call on the leader of that party to form the government.
That is what Mr. Drurv said, and that is what I submit any manly man would say. Certainly it is a more manly course than that now pursued by this government. What would happen if other defeated ministers declined to accept the verdict of the electors and clung to office and emolument? What about democracy and the rights of the people, so dear to Mr. King? Other ministers and other members of parliament have exactlv

Government's Right to Office
the same right to cling as Mr. King has. and what a lovely state of affairs we would have if they undertook to do so. And if he does so. why not they?
Now what has led up to the present situation in this House? A comparison of the Speech from the Throne of this year with the Speeches of the years 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1926 shows repeated references to many subjects upon which legislation and fulfilment of promises never materialized-old grandstand plays repeated. But in the Speech from the Throne of 1926 we find that reforms and important questions to which reference was made and which the government promised to deal with in 1925 and failed have been omitted altogether. I will just quote two. I quote first from the Speech from the Throne in 1925-and to those of us who were here during that session of 1925 it will recall most interesting incidents. The Speech from the Throne says:
With regard to ocean freight rates, action is being taken to overcome the restraints on export trade due to the exactions of the powerful steamship combine known as the North Atlantic Steamship Conference. Your approval will be asked of a measure aimed at affording the government of Canada a control of ocean rates.
We remember the introduction of that Petersen contract by the then Minister of Trade and Commerce. We remember when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), following the minister, pointed out the undesirable features of that contract and ventured to suggest that the government, in wishing to refer it to a select committee, would be only too glad to have important changes made in it, to have it trimmed up. We remember how the then Prime Minister arose in his place and announced that the government would stand for no change in the contract; that not a line, not a word would be changed; that they would stand or fa'll by it, and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre expressed his satisfaction and said that that was the first time he had ever heard the Prime Minister say that he would stand by anything. Those of us who were here then remember, as if it were yesterday, when the next member of this House rose tc speak, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man), who has spoken here to-night, and attacked the contract quite as severely, if not more so, than-the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, how quickly the then Prime Minister changed his attitude. He rose and assured the hon. member for Red Deer and the Progressive group that they had misunderstood him. Stand or fall by the contract! Why, 14011-12J
they could do anything they liked with that contract and he would be glad to accept it if they would only continue him in office. The (same plea is being made by the remnant of the government to-day. Office is all that concerns them. On that memorable day the Prime Minister climbed down quickly. Jn that same Speech from the Throne, I find these words:
You will be asked to sanction the calling of a conference between the federal and provincial governments to consider the advisability of amending the British North America Act with respect to the constitution and powers of the Senate.	.
That is a very mild statement when considered in the light of the bold statement made by the Prime Minister in the closing hours of the preceding session. Then he (promised the House and the country that he would bring in a measure to reform the Senate. When less than twelve months had gone by, we find this anaemic paragraph in the Speech from the Throne promising a conference of the provinces. Was anything done with that? Was it followed up in the House? Was the conference ever held? Has that reform been accomplished? How has this government concluded to reform the Senate? By allowing Providence to remove the Conservative members and by Mr. Mackenzie King appointing (Liberals and putting his ministers in that haven of rest in the Senate, fleeing from the wrath of the people. A wonderful reform of the Senate! Surely our Liberal friends give members of this House, including members of the Progressive group, credit for some ability to judge of their insincerity and credit for some memory. Surely 11 p.m. they cannot think we have forgotten their broken pledges of economy. The word "economy" runs through all their Speeches from the Throne. In each the government promises strict economy. Surely they cannot think we have forgotten their broken promises of free and freer trade, of sound immigration policies, of rural credits, of proportional representation, of the alternative vote, of the extermination of combines and trusts, of the control of the Great Lakes freights, their fake surpluses, the promised Senate reform, their expensive royal commissions and many other matters on which the House was allowed to waste much time, but on which the House, lacking a lead from the government, divided itself so that these proposals came to naught. To members in doubt whether they should now vote for the amendment before the House, the fact that the defeat of this amendment will mean a continua-
[Stage Direction]
Government's Right, to Office
lion of the weak, vacillating, aimless government which Canada has had for the past four years, should be sufficient to help them in .making up their minds.
It is gratifying to me, as it must be to my right hon. leader and to those supporting him ;to hear, during the course of this debate, member after member of the Progressive party rise in his place and say publicly that he had every confidence in the integrity and sincerity of the leader of the Conservative party and express the belief that he and they would staijd by their .pledges and carry out their .announced policies, while they had no such faith in the ex-Prime Minister or the Liberal group of members opposite. That being so, *how can members of the Progressive .party bring themselves to support the remnant of this Liberal government in anything which it .may bring before the House?
We have had quoted in this debate the opinion of one very prominent citizen of Canada, indeed, that of the most prominent Canadian, of Mr. Mackenzie King himself, the former Prime Minister, on the government of the [past four years. In effect, he says that the government was a failure, an impossibility. That is the reason he had an election. Some of his words have been already quoted; but they are so conclusive and So much more applicable to the present situation than that of which he spoke that they are worth repeating :
As I have already said, I have not the least doubt we shall be able to command such support as we all along have had in the House of Commons at another session; but shall we be able to do more than that ? That is the question I have put to every one of my colleagues in the government, and to not a few of the members. It is a question I now put to you who have honoured me with your representation in the House of Commons. It is a question I put to the electorate of this country. Is it sufficient that as a government we should continue in office, drawing our indemnities and salaries as members and ministers, and enjoying the other fruits of office, when great national questions press for solution, with which for want of an adequate majority in Parliament we are unable satisfactorily to cope? ... I would say further, I do not believe that any one of the four-
Speaking of the four great questions the government found it necessary to deal with.
-can be dealt with effectively by a government which is not supported by a substantial majority in the House of Commons. Group government and minority government may be inevitable in transitional phases of our political history, but neither is the kind of government wherewith to achieve great reforms.
In those words Mr. King admitted failure on his part, admitted that the government should no longer carry on. That is his opinion of his own government; thait, as a matter of fact, is his real opinion of the situation to-day, and that is the opinion of his ministers. There

is no doubt about that because his government is much weaker to-day than it was then. Will any hon. member dispute that fact? Is the loss of the Prime Minister nothing? He has gone. Is the loss of the Minister of Railways, the Minister of Labour, the trust-busting Minister of Labour-
An hon. MEMBER:: That is nothing.


George Black: Some hon. members say that is nothing; but I do not think the members of the government think it. is nothing. Was the loss of the Minister of Immigration nothing? Did the loss of the Minister of Trade and Commerce not weaken the government? Didi the loss of some four other ministers not weaken the government? If they were weiak before they lost them and the fifteen private members who went down to defeat along with them, what is the condition to-day? If the Prime Minister then felt they could not function to the benefit and satisfaction of the Canadian people, how can they ask the people of Canada to keep them in power in their present dilapidated state? What is the use of it? What good will the country derive from it? What will anyone get out of it except the emoluments of office which the members of the government and their followers will annex? The national problems to which the Prime Minister referred in that election speech of his have not [DOT] yet been solved. Can this aggregation now calling itself a government do any more towards solving them? They admitted before the election that they could not. The fact of the matter is that Mr. King has put himself out of cotirt; he has delivered judgment against himself. Let hon. members who are in doubt as to how they Should vote follow Mr. King's advice. I have read you some of his words; let me quote him further:
I refer now to all important national problems that are pressing for solution, and which cannot be solved in a parliament constituted after the manner of a parliament elected in 1921, or by any government which does not command a substantial majority in the House of Commons.
How, then, are these unsolved problems to be handled by this government? Surely the government now in office will not urge that it has a substantial majority in this House. But apart from this practical aspect of the question, which should be sufficient to decide any wavering member, there is another consideration which we as Canadians cannot afford to lose sight of. What about the British spirit which the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) so vehemently proclaimed as more important, more desirable than British precedent, than British policy,

Government's Right to Office
more important to him than even the British Empire which he announced as something indifferent to himself? The British spirit defined is after all the spirit of good sportsmanship; that is the very essence of the spirit of British institutions. It is instilled into the British people from the cradle; it is the dominating spirit of the British public schools and of the British universities. And that spirit goes out with them into all parts of the world, and gains for them the respect of all nations. They play the game, as they say: they play the game in politics, they play the game in business and they play the game in sport. They observe the rules, unwritten though they be. Certain things are simply not done; there is no need to ask why. They are not good form and they are not done, and that is all there is to it. Now, we Canadians pride ourselves on being good, clean sports. But what has happened in CanadS? Mr. King, the leading Canadian citizen, challenged us to play. He dissolved parliament for a trial of strength and we accepted the challenge and played on his own terms. Mr. King lost the game; he was struck out and yet he tries to remain at the bat. This notwithstanding, the Minister of Customs ,(Mr. Boivin)) this afternoon extolled to the House the Prime Minister's high sense of honour and propriety. Picture the unlovely spectacle of a British cricketer fairly bowled out and yet in violation of the British spirit clinging to the place he has lost. That is the situation in Canadian politics to-day- an unlovely spectacle in the eyes of the world. Can any sport-loving member of the House be a party to such unsportsmanlike conduct? Surely no one with a drop of sporting blood in his veins can approve, much less support, such a course. I say to hon. members, play the game and do not stifle or besmirch the British spirit. The government could meet, and did meet the House; that is demonstrated by the fact that they are here-'those that are left of them at any rate. But they did not do so fairly. They have acted in violation of that British spirit, for the game was fairly played, and they know it. I say therefore that the largest group in the House should be given an oppportunity to form and attempt to carry on the government; and this the Prime Minister in violation of the British spirit has refused.


Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose):: Since the present debate began we have listened to a number of able and eloquent speeches on both sides of the House by legal authorities who have won not only a national but, I believe, an empire-wide reputation. For myself I am free to admit that I am unable to
discuss the question with either a legal or technical knowledge, and I shall therefore endeavour to consider it entirely from the layman's point of view. Everyone will agree with me that as we meet in parliament to-day we are confronted by a unique siuation such as has never been witnessed before in Canadian parliamentary history. I agree quite heartily with the suggestion which was thrown out the other day by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), and also by the hon. member for 'Lafoelle (Mr. Bourassa), that if it were possible the members elected to represent the people should should come down here holding more or less independent views and form a composite cabinet and try by co-operation to carry on the government in the national interests. Personally I believe this would work out to the satisfaction of the various classes and the various industries we have in this country. I know there are many hon. gentlemen of the two old parties who repudiate this idea and are of the opinion that it is impractical. Let us remember, however, that the two-party system has not always been in practice even in Great Britain. We can go back to the time in British history when the monarchical form of government exercised power, and I have no doubt that when the people of those days attempted to wrest the power from the monarchy all sorts of fears were entertained that revolution would ensue and that the destruction of the state would be inevitable. But when it became evident that the monarchical form of government was no longer able to cope with the changes of time it had to go. The reason we have groups in this country to-day is the fact that the party system of government has failed to meet the will of the people. It has not been elastic enough to take in every phase of our development. Why was it that our farmers' group started in Canada? Was it because the farmers desired to enter political life simply in order to obtain the honour and power that went with it? Absolutely not; it was because they felt that they had not been receiving justice at the hands of either of the old political parties since confederation. According as our people advance in civilization and in education they are going to demand an increasing share in the government of the country. The people are going to do more thinking for themselves, and unless the political parties that we have in Canada to-day are prepared to adapt themselves to the changing situation then the time in my opinion at least, is not far distant when those parties will disappear. Let me quote in words better than I can express:

Government's Right to Office
New times demand new measures and new men;
The world advances and in time outgrows the law
Which in our fathers' time seemed best;
And doubtless after us some better scheme
Will be worked out by wiser men than we,
Made wiser by the steady growth of truth.
I am fair enough to admit that while I believe the group system is coming, I agreed with the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) when he said the other day that he was not in favour of turning any sharp corners. I believe the time is not ripe for that \vet. When one looks at the spirit of this parliament, with the antagonism shown between the two major parties, it is impossible to believe that they could get together in any spirit of co-operation. Therefore 1 believe we have to face the situation as we find it and deal with it in the best way possible.
There has been a great deal of argument as to whether the amendment involves a vote of confidence, or raises a purely constitutional question. I have already stated that 1 have very little confidence in either of the two old parties. During the last four years I have heard each party hurl accusations across the floor at the other, and they have washed a great deal of dirty linen. I want to say to both parties that so far as I can judge there is enough brush in both to bum them to cinders.
To come down to the purely constitutional aspect, from my point of view I feel very strongly on this question, and I believe that we are establishing a precedent at the present time which may prevail for many years to come. 1 want to say I am very sorry to have to disagree with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), for whom I have the greatest respect. In the last four years we have been able to see eye to eye on many questions which have been before this House, but while I heartily agree with him when he says that the group system is coming, I cannot agree that in establishing ' the principle that the largest group should first be given the opportunity of forming a government we will in any way interfere with the introduction of the group system into this House. My opinion is that if the Labour group, which at present consists of only two members, should develop in Canada as it has done in Great Britain, and come back after an election with the largest group, it would be^only right and proper that they should first be called on to form a government and present their policies to parliament. That does not necessarily mean that if their policies did not meet with the approval of the other groups, they would be sustained, but they should at least be given the first opportunity.	.

Let us look back to the time when the Baldwin government came into power in Great Britain, just a few years ago. They came back after the election in a minority, but they were the largest group and therefore had a perfect right to come to parliament and present their Speech from the Throne. They were defeated and the minority group headed by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was then called upon to form a government, which in my opinion was quite proper. Then let us look at the situation in Ontario in 1919, when the Hearst government appealed to the country. They came back as a minority group, which is the situation here to-day, with a larger group opposing them, neither having a majority in the House. What was the result? Mr. Hearst immediately resigned and left it to the lieutenant-governor to call on the head of a larger group to form a government. The result was that the Farmer group, at that time although in a minority, in co-operation with Labour, were able to form a government and carry on for some years.
In establishing this principle I feel that I am taking an absolutely independent stand, and not favouring either the Liberal or the Conservative party. I say that for this reason, that in casting my vote on this occasion it is true it might place the Conservatives in office, but if the situation were reversed and we had the Liberals with the largest group, it would mean that the Liberals would go into office. Therefore I think I am standing by the principle and taking an absolutely independent stand in the matter.
Npw let us look at the results of the last election. That election was not forced on the government. They chose their own time, and the Prime Minister stated then, as the House has already been reminded, that the reason he could not carry out his programme was because he had not a majority. He was appealing to the countiy for that majority, and he said that if he did not get it he would ask for dissolution. In the last election it was a well recognized fact that the Progressive party, even though every candidate was elected, could not form a government because of their lack of numbers. Therefore the contest in the last election, as to who would form a government, was between the two major parties. And what was the result? As between these major parties I do not think it can be disputed by anyone that the Conservatives had the largest popular vote in the country, and also the largest number of members of any group returned to the House. Only at one time have the people an opportunity of expressing their will, and that is at

Government's Right to Office
an election. The people at the last election showed by their vote, both the popular vote and the representatives in this House, that while they did not give a mandate to either party they at least did show a preference, and in my opinion the will of the people should not be flouted. The party shown that preference should first be called upon to form a government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have listened to many able arguments on both sides, some short and some more lengthy. I believe our minds are pretty well made up, and I would not have spoken in this debate had it not been for the fact that there have been honest differences of opinion in this corner of the House, and I felt it my duty after having come to the conscientious decision to which I have come, to at least explain the reason why I will have to support this amendment.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Mx.
Speaker, seeing that so many speeches from learned men of this Dominion have been directed to this part of the House during the last three or four days, I have come to the conclusion that the presence of the Progressive party bears some significance in our public life at this time. Indeed', Sir, it reminds me of a young lady I knew once who had some trouble in deciding 'between two suitors both seeking her favour; but I would pity any young lady who saw so little difference between the two suitors as the Progressive party is seeing between the two parties who to-day are craving our favour.
We are discussing what appears to be a most unique subject for this parliament, indeed, for any parliament. We have had an election to decide the policies of this country. Different parties, so-called, have appealed to the people for their confidence. I think it may be well for a minute to define what is meant by a party, k party, as known in politics, is a group of men that have gathered themselves aroimd a set of principles in an endeavour to bring those principles into effect. The Liberal party is, per se, the people's party, the party that stands for progress along lines of principle favourable to the common people, the workers on the land, and the name as applied indicates a person or group that advocates freedom of thought or of action in political matters. Liberalism is a freedom from bigotry, or narrowness or selfishness.
Conservatism literally means opposition to change. A Conservative is one who is disposed to maintain existing conditions, an advocate of class distinctions and privileges; so says the dictionary.
There are two parties in this House at present, and only two, on principle, the one composed of the Labour representatives, and the Progressive party, to which I belong. They together may well be called the Liberal party. A number who call themselves Liberal but who are by nature advocates of class privilege and class distinctions, on whichever side of the House they may sit, must be classed as Conservatives. This Conservative party has been inaugurated, and has been maintained, by the inauguration of class privilege many years ago. This was a system of legislation freely called by Sir Richard Cartwright since 1878, when he was in parliament, legalized robbery. These beneficiaries of privilege, or legalized robbery, per Sir Richard Cartwright, have dominated this House of Commons, and it does not matter that they divide themselves up into two groups called Conservatives on the one side of the House, and, in error, Liberals on the other; they both belong in one party. Indeed, taking the last four years as a criterion of the legislation enacted in this House since 1897 in particular, the advocates of class privilege and class distinctions have dominated entirely this House of Commons. It is this infidelity on their part to their nominal platform or professions of principle that has brought the country to the present impasse in which we now find ourselves. The beneficiaries of privilege over the whole of this Dominion to-day dominate the Conservative party and the so-called Liberal party, and there is no doubt in my mind that to-day we are making ourselves a laughing stock in political circles the world over. Both parties are appealing to-day to the people's party, the Progressive party, to put them in power, and we of the Progressive party have to decide, what is there in principle that would warrant a decision one way or the other. Both parties stand for class privilege and class distinctions. Both want to get the reins of government, as that is a great advantage in the next election, which in all probability will soon be called, and the country will again be plunged into the turmoil and expense of another political contest because the parties who in practice, in this House claim the right to rule are not divided on principle. It is a sad thing, Sir, for any nation when it loses itself in a maze of selfishness. The political leaders of this Dominion have led us into and are to-day responsible for the ridiculous position we are now in. Privilege is enthroned, and1 legalized robbery is maintained by misrepresentation of facts on the hustings, the intimidation of workers in our industrial centres, control of the press, and the corruption of

Government's Right to Office
electors throughout the country at election time by federal and provincial party means.
I want to say, Sir, that the two party system of government has come to an end in Canada. It has come to an end for one or two very good reasons:	First, because there has been
allowed a control from outside that has at last obliterated entirely lines of principle. Surely there can be some way found whereby the government of the country can be continued on other than the two party system. It was this lack of principle in that system that brought the third and perhaps the fourth party into this House. It was agreed, when the last election was called, that the real purpose of that election was to eliminate from politics in this country, the third party or Progressive party. I want to say that the Progressive party is going to live. It is going to live because what it advocates is right. We seek no privilege, we seek no class advantage, we only seek legislation that will benefit the entire country. What we are seeking is freedom, and freedom people will have. The Conservative party, promises nothing but bondage, and increase of bondage, high freight rates without the prospect of a nearer outlet to the sea through the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. Indeed taken altogether, their policy as presented in this House since I have been a member is entirely one favouring privilege. Under the circumstances can we decide in favour of that party?
The Liberal party offer the Hudson Bay railway. It is to be completed forthwith. If I do not mistake the meaning of the word "forthwith" it means immediately, without delay whatever the circumstances and whatever the cost. In this impression I ani bome out by the speech of the member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) yesterday and to-day. A measure of relief is also promised from high rates of interest on agricultural credits. These are the things that are promised and they commend themselves to our people. Of course there is the experience of the last four years to be remembered. Where then do we stand?
The amendment moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition is for the most part a legal quibble trying to decide if it is constitutional for the Liberal party, who came back from the election with a smaller number of supporters than the Conservative party, to hold office. In some way I believe it also embodies a vote of non-confidence. Now, many precedents have been given in the argument pro and con, and I should like to bring one more to the attention of the right hon. leader of the opposition. If he had 
followed the example of Mr. Clynes, for instance, when he brought in his vote of confidence on January 17, 1924, there would have been no mistaking the meaning of the present amendment. The amendment moved by Mr. Clynes on that occasion was in these w'ords:
But it is our duty respectfully to submit to Your Majesty that Your Majesty's present advisers have not the confidence of this House.
I think these few words better express the real meaning than the present amendment does and in about one-tenth of the language. I am not a lawyer, and I know very little of constitutional practice, but if a decision has to foe made as to the right to hold office I think parliament is the proper authority to decide, particularly in view of the fact that neither of the parties has been returned with a majority. We are moving forward. As I say the days of the two party system are drawing to an end. Old things are passing away and new ones are taking their place. There is a definite democratic principle involved in this decision. I think parliament is the right authority to decide the majority that shall carry on the government. It is only majorities that can really be recognized, and parliament must decide as to the majority in this instance. Whichever way I vote on this amendment I want the House and those who sent me here to understand that I am not giving unreservedly my support to the legislation that may be brought down later by either party. I must say there was no need for citing so many precedents in this matter. We do not need to go over the whole of history for examples as to the course we should pursue. Even after listening with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) yesterday I notice that in all the historic incidents he related he did not give one precedent where a government, returning after an election with the second largest group handed over the reins of office to another group who were also in a minority.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. gentleman
not aware of the case in the province of Ontario where the Hearst government handed over the reins of office to the Drury government?


John Evans: I was not aware that the
hon. member for Fort William quoted that as a precedent.


Robert James Manion: I did not quote any precedents at all. I simply argued from the standpoint of the majority of the people in the country voting against this government. I was arguing that the people, irrespective of

Government's Right to Office
the Progressives, voted against this government by over 200,000.


John Evans: I cannot see yet that it
alters the fact that the Tory party have come back as a minority group.
Just a word further as it regards our position. I was rather amused to hear the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) say in his speech the other day that the Progressive party was brought into being by the sins of the Union government. Permit me to say that this organization came into being as a result of the doings of monopolies that controlled the marketing of our products as far back as twenty-five years ago. It is true that we did not organize for political adtion until nineteen years afterwards. It is also true that was during the administration of the Union government, but it was not because anything new in the way of political abuses had transpired. The fact was we had come to a time when we thought we could better redress our grievances by taking a hand in legislation. The time is past in Canada for the old two party system or the two old parties to reign supreme in this House. The people are no longer content to listen to the staged sham fights of days gone by. We have been accused of being a class group, selfishly seeking benefits for ourselves. I want to say that for many years, particularly since 1897, both the Liberal and Conservative parties in this country have constituted a class group who have selfishly ridden on the backs of the primary producers, particularly the argiculturists. Now we have this group in the House representing a class that was hitherto not represented in parliament, that is, the agriculturists. So far as our organization is concerned, the people organize themselves and finance their own election. Their candidates did not have to be endorsed by the heads of any parties. We are the people's party. We are not afraid to publish the sources of our campaign fund. Indeed, sir, judging by the methods employed by some of the candidates of the Liberal and Conservative parties throughout this country, we are no more careful about our 14,000 indemnity than they are. We do not have to purchase any votes to be elected. I was greatly struck the other day by an article in Sir John Willison's magazine, an article which anyone not familiar with the old time methods of election should read if he wants to learn something of the corrupting, debasing, disgraceful and shameful methods of this centralized control. Sir John Willison says:
In too many cases wealthy candidates are grossly plundered. Too often the grants from the centra! fund never get out of the hands of the party middlemen. Contributions, too, are made with the expectation of a twofold return from governments. There is corruption in the constituencies and direct purchase of administrative or legislative favours.
I hope this country is getting away from such methods. The Progressive party to-day has shown the country how to organize and to get away from them, as Sir John Willison explained that it might. I do not think anyone will accuse Sir John Willison of not knowing what he is talking about. In this article he pleads for a system such as ours. For my part I am glad to realize that the country is moving on, and parliament will have to adapt itself to the new system. It is possible that for a long time to come or never there may be no party in this House with a decisive majority-perhaps never. Constitution may be based on precedent, but I want to say in conclusion that I am not going to help to create a precedent that will make it constitutional in the future to give the government over to the largest party while that party is in the minority. I think parliament should see to that.


Mr. BAKER:: If as a result of the election on October 29 the Progressive party had been returned to the House with the largest group, would you or would you not expect the Progressive party to form a government?


John Evans: No, I should say plainly not, unless we were in the majority; unless we represented over fifty per cent of the people of this country.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: There are one or two distinctions which I would like, if I can in my humble layman's way, make a little clearer. The constitutional lawyers on both sides have had a good deal of fun poked at them, and I think with some justification- and by the way they have also taken up a good deal of the time of the House in fine hair-splitting. I propose now to indulge in a little fine hair-splitting myself from a layman's point of view. The situation as I see it, is roughly this: the 'Conservatives say that the government in the elections in October had their majority reduced, that the Conservatives increased their following in this House, and that therefore the government should have resigned. The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) says so at page 55 of Hansard. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) says so at page 14 of Hansard, and the hon. member for 'South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) says so at page 92-and by the way, that hon. member made the statement most emphatically, of all. There is no dispute about it in his mind: the government should have resigned directly the election was over. The amendment does not say this. The amend-
Government's Right to Office

ment is very careful not to say it. I will put a proposition to the House and ask if it is not a fair one: if the elections had resulted in an overwhelming mandate to a group, other than the party in office, unquestionably the minority group should have resigned. I do not think there would have been any question about that; whether or not they had a Prime Minister in the House would make no difference. But if there was any reasonable doubt, mark you, as to the majority so far as public opinion was concerned on major national policies, then I am satisfied the administration was right in calling a meeting of parliament, presenting itself to the House with a policy, and asking for the support of the House upon it. I do not think 1 need dwell any longer on that point.
The hon. member for Portage la Prairie admits the legality of the position of the administration. He does not question it at all. At page 97 of Hansard he states:
I stated that they could legally justify themselves, but that it was not the best constitutional practice.
It might be constitutional practice, but was not the best constitutional practice. The statement of the hon. member for South Wellington at page 92 on this particular point is probably worth reading to the House. He admits not only the legality of the position but also the probability of the constitutionality of the administration's position if one certain thing had happened, namely, the election of the Prime Minister to a seat in the House. At page 92 of Hansard the hon. member says:
I say again that when he knew the result of the vote, when he saw that the popular vote was against him, his duty according to the constitution, was to retire.
I grant that if there is ground for a reasonable doubt there is something to be said in favour of his meeting the House, provided he has a seat.
There was no major objection, therefore, either on legal or on constitutional grounds, to the administration carrying on until parliament met. The only major objection raised in the amendment is that the government cannot function now because of the absence of the Prime Minister. Well, here, we come to the very ticklish point-and this is where the lawyers have done most of their hair splitting. Who can assert that the Prime Minister does not intend to take a seat in the House? Yet the whole argument of the hon. gentlemen to your left, Mr. Speaker, is based upon the assumption that he will not-indeed, that he cannot. It is a most absurd position to take. They argue that because there is no Prime Minister in the House the administration cannot function. I do not know, but I am inclined to think they are confusing the functions of an executive

body, which are extra-parliamentary, with the functions of a committee of parliament, which are	intra-parliamentary.
As I look at the situation, this question occur? to me: Suppose the Liberal party had been returned to this House with an overwhelming majority, 200 members on that side and 45 od this side, but no Prime Minister, would there be no government? Could we not function? Would all these charges be levelled at the present administration? Would there be a demand that they resign office? Can hon. members not see the absurd position into which their hair-splitting brings them? Yet we have to listen to this howl about chaotic conditions and all the rest of it. What more chaotic condition can they imagine than the resignation of the administration at the close of the election, the forming of a government by a minority group which was defeated in the election just as the Liberal party was- for they have no majority in the House-and their meeting a House unquestionably opposed to them on major policies? The history of the last four years definitely sets the Progressive group against the Conservative group. The declared line of policy of the Conservatives, their own statements in this House, have alienated any possible support from any portion of the group to which I belong. Had they offered reasonable co-pperation; had they said to us: We are willing to get together and endeavour to form a Ico-operative administration looking to honourable, frank, stable business government, we might have had some ground for putting this administration out and our Conservative friends in.	What is the
position? The hon. member for West Calgary, the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, even the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) intimated .most dearly that there was to be no truck with the Progressives; that they had no bids to make-and they slammed -the door in our faces. Is that a favourable position for them to take as a minority group? How can they now say: If we are put into office, we will carry on for one year or two years; it is all right, your indemnities are safe-and all the rest of it. Their position is absurd.
We find, therefore, that everything is orderly, legal and constitutional down to the time that the administration met parliament. Does any hon. member to the left of Mr. Speaker claim that the administration had no right to advise the crown before parliament met? No. No one has done that. No one dare do it. They were the properly, legally constituted advisers of th,e crown. As such they drafted the Speech from the Throne, a speech which

Government's Right to Office
I may say frankly, has gone out to the whole western Country and has been received with approval. Of course we have had Speeches from the Throne on previous occasions that promised many things, and gave but little- that never bore fruit. But they were presented under entirely different circumstances from those under which the Speech came down in this instance. For me to say that it is useless for us to attempt to co-operate with the government until the promises contained in the Speech from the Throne are implemented, is to deny our own power. I refuse to olace myself in that ridiculous position. I have told my people that I will sup-12 m. port any administration that will give to the country the legislation which, in -my opinion, the country should have. The legislation in the Speech from the Throne, so far as I have been able to analyse it, is good legislation. It is favourable to the part of the country from which I come, and indirectly it will be of benefit tc the whole of Canada. Am I to go back to my people and say: I rejected that; I would not consider it at all, because the leader of the opposition introduced a political amendment, drew a red herring across the trail and through a political trick, attempted to divert me from a plain businesslike course? What have they offered? No truck or trade- the same old thing. The old words ring so familiarly. Nothing to do with the Progressives, you see! They are reciprocity men. No truck or trade with the Yankees over the line, or with the Progressives from western Canada! That is an amazing, a regrettable position, a position which, I venture to say, will have a more far-reaching effect upon the future of the Conservative party than any other position taken by them within the last four years.
Very well, we have got this far. The Speech from the Throne was properly initiated by the advisers of His Majesty. Parliament was called together. By the way, here we come to that via media again, that peculiar line of communication that was missing, that extraordinary hiatus between parliament and the crown. But it is amazing how easy it was to get over that. Let me recall to you, Sir, that we have on the very first page of Hansard of this year an intimation that a via media exists. The House of Commons was in session; we were sitting, and the Clerk of the House, Arthur Beauchesne, Esquire, B.A., K.C.. proceeded to read to the assembled members a communication-from whom? From the Secretary of the Governor General. We had not cut off communication. His Excellency was able to communicate with us.
He informed us, through Mr. Beauchesne, that the Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, would proceed to the Senate chamber on Thursday, the 7t,h of January, at three p.m. That was not the only via media, the only line of communication we had. The awful chaos pictured so eloquently by the hon. member for West Calgary, that vast yawning abyss into which the whole of this parliament was to be hurled for years if we did not recognize the desperate position of the Prime Minister -that he had no power, no office and there was nothing we could do-we find it quite simple to get over that because, you see, Your Honour had been appointed; you had been regularly elected to the office of Speaker by the members assembled here. Parliament met the next day. We were again in communication with His Excellency. His secretary wrote a letter to Mr. Speaker informing him and, through him, this -House, that at three p.m. on Friday, January 8, His Excellency would proceed to the Senate chamber for the purpose of formally opening the session of the Dominion parliament.
So much for the via media. The imaginary difficulties of the via media are as absurd as the situation painted by hon. members on this side of the House who would assure us and the people of Canada that because there was no Prime Minister in the House, the House could not function; the administration could not function; nothing could be done; _ we had better pack up and go back home until the Conservatives came into power. What I would like to know is this: We find there is a via media; that the Speech from the Throne is properly, constitutionally and legally drafted. It is presented to His Excellency. His Excellency calls us together and we walk down to the -Senate chamber, stand humbly before the bar of that noble and august chamber and listen carefully to the reading of the Speech. Then, Mr. Speaker, a messenger walks down with a copy of the Speech to yourself. Your Honour comes back into this House and you read it to the House. Everything is beautiful. Just when did it become illegal for this speech to be read? Just when does the leader of the opposition state it was improper for the Governor General to have sanctioned that Speech? I do not know whether this point has ever struck any hon. member. Just at what point, at what particular instant, did the administration cease to exist, cease to become advisers of the crown, cease to be capable of carrying on as an executive? That has never been told to me. I cannot
Government's Right to Office

ascertain it. and I have read and listened to most of the speeches. We have the Speech read. It is brought into parliament. It is moved that we consider it. No, said the leader of the opposition, there is no government. We cannot consider it. We will not consider it at all; but instead of considering it we shall have a different amendment altogether. We will move that the administration is not competent to carry on:
That those who now assume to be His Excellency's advisers have among them no Prime Minister with a seat in either house of parliament, and under the circumstances are not competent to act as, or to become, the committee of parliament, commonly known as the government, or to address parliament through His Excellency, and their attempted continuance in office is a violation of the principles and practice of British constitutional government.
The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) endeavouring to prove his point took up a little space. I must say that I have heard few orations in this House that equalled in splendour or volume this sonorous speech of the hon. gentleman. It might be well to note in passing that a column of Hansard is about eight inches in length and that there are eight lines to the inch and two and1 a half inches to the line. So that on this basis the hon. gentleman gave us three hundred and sixty feet of talk in order to prove-what? In. order to prove what Gladstone did in 1845. I can tell the hon. member, if he is bent on tradition, that Gladstone also chopiped wood, and I would recommend that instead of worrying about constitutional traditions the hon. member should adopt that very healthful practice. I notice also that Gladstone practised free trade. How far are the opposition, especially the hon. member for West Calgary, willing to go in putting that theory into practice? We shall find out more about that when the coal policy of this country is before the House for consideration. I want to remind the 'hon. member for Portage la Prairie that Mr. Gladstone was a strong advocate of peace, and I will concede this much, that lately the right hon. gentleman has shown an inclination to adopt Gladstone's traditional policy in this direction. But we must be oareful not to say "Ready, aye, ready," because that would foe jmis-quoting the right hon. gentleman. I have been in this House four years and have listened to the leader of the opposition again and again declare that he had been misquoted, and I have come to the conclusion that there is no more misquoted person in the Dominion of Canada than he is. I do not think it is altogether his fault; it may be due to the stupidity of his reporters. I do not think 
that even the Angel Gabriel will be able to report him properly when he goes up above. I say, I do not think it is due to any fault of the right hon. gentleman; as a rule he is exceedingly clear in his analysis of any situation or of any policy that comes before us. I believe that it is due rather to the darkness of Conservative policy, for it is impossible for any human being, with all the weaknesses of a human being, to make the Conservative policy blear. I read somewhere in a description of a certain lake that it was so dark and so deep that even the eye of God could not see into it. I wonder if the Conservative policy is as dark as that. Can anyone'tell me when the administration actually ceased to function? Did it cease on Thursday before the Speech was read? If it did, then His Excellency had no right to read the Speech because he had no advice. If it did not cease on the Thursday before the Speech was read did it cease while His Excellency was reading the Speeoh? Do you not see what an absurd position we get into? I cannot for the life of me see the logic of it; it puzzles me. It is as deep indeed as the black lake to which I have referred.
The point is made that when parliament met there was no government. That can have no relation to majorities, because on the principle laid down by hon. gentlemen to my right, if the Liberal party had returned with 200 members and still had no Prime Minister they would have had to resign at once: by reason of that fact they would have no government, no via media. They would have to walk out. We see again the absurdity of the thing. It seems to me that it would be well for us to reduce our arguments once in a while to ordinary farmer's horse sense. If we did so we might get a little further ahead than we do by listening to learned dissertations from constitutional lawyers. Let us examine, for instance, the functions of the executive. They are two-fold: first, to advise the crown, and secondly, to execute laws. Both these functions are extra-parliamentary; they are exercised outside parliament altogether. But what are the functions of the executive within parliament? None whatever. The executive in parliament resolves itself into individual members who may consider such legislation as is before the House; but so far as the committee of parliament is concerned it is a mere phrase and that is all. Let me ask hon. members to your left, Mr. Speaker, this question: Does the committee of parliament cease to function because one of its members happens to be absent for a while? Certainly not; any committee of this

Government's Right to Office
parliament appointed by the all-powerful representatives of the people can function so long as it has a quorum. The government therefore were not necessarily under the obligation of resigning simply because they, like hon. gentlemen to your left, Mr. Speaker, did not have a majority over all. That seems clear to me. In the second place,
I do not think that the absence temporarily of the Prime Minister is an essential feature. If any hon. gentleman can show that the Prime Minister deliberately intends to flout his responsibility to parliament; if he can show that the Prime Minister is conspiring against parliament to take advantage of the situation-if any hon. member can produce the proof of this, I will vote for the amendment. But if he cannot produce that evidence, then I say he is not justified in assuming that the Prime Minister intends to remain indefinitely out of parliament, especially when every voice we have heard agrees, as indeed hon. gentlemen to my right know for a positive fact, that the Prime Minister intends to seek a seat at the earliest opportunity and take his place in the House. But let us suppose that this flagrant situation exists as hon. gentlemen suggest, and that after a month or so the Prime Minister is still out of parliament: what then? Why, parliament is still all-powerful and it can instantly rectify any wrong that may exist. There, again, we need to use some common sense. I do not feel justified in supporting the amendment. Apart from what I have said, I cannot regard a vote for the motion itself, as a vote of confidence. I cannot regard this as a vote of confidence. We have the word of the ministry itself that if this amendment is defeated it will not be taken as a vote of confidence, either in the past, the present or the future, and I am willing to accept the ministerial statement to that effect. I personally would not care at this time to vote confidence in the government until I had an opportunity of discussing their policies. But what is the position of my hon. friends to my right? They ask us, inferentially at least, to vote confidence in them without any policy at all, indeed, with a frank statement saying that they will have no dealings with us whatever-no bids, no truck or trade.


An hon. MEMBER:: No bribery.


Edward Joseph Garland: Exactly. Nothing whatever. Under these conditions I am not going to be trapped into casting my vote on some trick amendment. I would regret indeed if the government itself should have attempted to trap us; I would regret it just as much
if the opposition attempted to trap us. I intend to reserve my vote for legislation. If I have no confidence in the power of the administration to carry out the legislation, with my assistance, I will have no hesitation in voting them out; and I can assure my hon. friends to my right that when that day comes I will give them just as much consideration, just as fair treatment, as I am willing to give to either party in this House, to assist that party to function and carry on the administration. If the amendment-and this, Mr. Speaker, is the concluding argument which has convinced me of the reasonableness of my position-carried, what would it do? It would aim a loaded gun at the head, the body and the tail of every economic group organization, every individual independent, every little group now endeavouring to take organized citizenship action, every lititle body of individuals coming together and trying to build up their citizenship intelligence to that point where they can once and for all time eliminate the cursed evils of the political party system. It would aim that gun at their heads and at any moment it could be set off.
What does the amendment say? It says in effect that after every election the Governor General should designate as the administration that group which has secured most of the seaits in the House, in other words the major group. That is a vicious principle, and one which for all time- consigns organized democracy to oblivion. I want you to imagine the situation, if Your Honour will. We have a House of 245 members; 45 of them are elected as a major group. The other 200 are divided up into several groups, intelligently organized, trying to take separate political action, separated from campaign funds and the influences of special privilege, trying to undertake the development of true democracy. This amendment says these men shall not get together, but that the little group of 45 is to carry on the administration. Note this:	They Can carry on until parliament meets, which may be months. They may do irreparable harm to the Dominion in that time. It is true that once parliament meets they cannot exist longer, but in the meantime they have held office; they have held the machinery to do many things, to fill many posts, let many contracts and do a great deal of evil. So. Mr. Speaker, having at heart the interests of the organization to which I belong and to which I owe responsibility, the organized farmers of the province of Alberta, I cannot be false to my trust and deliberately assist the opposition in aiming that gun at the head and body of that association, threatening it with utter extinction so far as
190	COMMONS
Government's Right to Office
political action is concerned. This amendment is infinitely more evil, more far-reaching in its effects, more damning to the democracy of this country than were certain amendments to the Elections Act.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
amendment. Before the vote is taken I wish to remind hon. members, that this is a difficult vote to poll on account of the number of new members who are going to take part in it. I would therefore ask every member kindly to remain in the seat assigned him. not to interrupt the counting by the Clerk Assistant- his task this evening is a very difficult one- and to rise one by one in each row as the names are called.



INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House) presented the following message from His Excellency the Governor General:
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons a certified copy of an approved minute of council appointing the Hon. J. H. King, Minister of Public Works, the Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. E. M. Macdonald, Minister of National Defence, and the Hon. George H. Boivin, Minister of Customs and Excise, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as Commissioners for the purposes and under the provisions of the eleventh chapter of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1900, intituled An Act Respecting the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 1.05 am. (Friday).
Monday, January 18, 1926