VACANCIES

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that during the recess I received communications from several members, notifying me that the following vacancies had occurred in the representation, viz:
Of John Hampden Burnham, Esq., member for the Electoral District of the West Riding of Peterborough, by resignation.
Of Hon. Rupert Wilson Wigmore, member for the Electoral District of St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert, consequent upon the acceptance of an office of emolument under the Crown.
Of Hon. Fleming Blanchard McCurdy, member for the Electoral District of Colchester, consequent upon the acceptance of an office of emolument under the Crown.
1-R-4
Of Hon. Martin Burrell, member for the Electoral District of Yale, owing to the acceptance of an office of emolument under the Crown.
I accordingly issued my several warrants to the Chief Electoral Officer to make out new writs of election for the said Electoral Districts respectively.



NEW MEMBERS

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour to inform the House that the Chief Electoral Officer has received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery certificates of the election and return of the following members, viz:	*
Of Hon. Rupert Wilson Wigmore, for the Electoral District of St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert.
Of Hon- Fleming Blanchard McCurdy, for the Electoral District of Colchester.
Of Sydney Smith McDermand, Esq., for the Electoral District of Elgin East.
Of John Armstrong MacKelvie, Esq., for the Electoral District of Yale.



NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Fleming Blanchard McCurdy, member for the Electoral District of Colchester, introduced by Right Hon. Sir George Foster and Mr. P. F. Martin.
Hon. Rupert Wilson Wigmore, member for the Electoral District of St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert, introduced by Hon. C. C- Ballantyne and Mr. S. E. Elkin.
Sydney S. McDermand, Esq., member for the Electoral Distract of East Elgin, introduced by Mr. Midhael Clark (Red Deer) and Mr. R. H. Halbertt.
John A. MacKelvie, Esq., member for the Electoral District of Yale, introduced by Hon. S. F- Tolrnie and Mr. R. F. Green.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 1, respecting the administration of Oaths of Office, introduced and read the first time.-Right Hon. Arthur Meighcn.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I Lave the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General this day in the Senate Chamber, His Excellency was pleased to make a speech to both Houses of Parliament. To prevent mistakes, I have obtained a copy, which is as follows:
Honourable Gentlemen of the Senate:
Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
On your return to your Parliamentary duties, I am glad to be able to congratulate you on the relative prosperity of the country and its comparative freedom from the feeling of unrest which has agitated countries not so fortunately situated. Following the conditions of expansion due to the war, a period of contraction was inevitable. Restriction of credit involving a certain limitation of production and business has been universal, but this Dominion has been less affected than other countries, and a feeling of confidence prevails. A general reduction of the cost of living has set in, and the country, save in certain limited areas, has been blessed with a bountiful harvest.
In spite of this contraction, the annual revenue of the country has been well maintained, and my advisers considered that certain taxes, imposed in part to check extravagant purchasing, had fulfilled their purpose and might be withdrawn. Accordingly, with a few exceptions, these taxes have been 'remitted, freeing industry and business and thus promoting employment.
Unemployment, the [DOT]world-wide result of the conditions to which I have referred, though less widespread in !Canada than elsewhere, has received the most anxious consideration. Of the charges for the relief of general unemployment, measures have been taken to bear a substantial share, and special measures have been taken to assist disabled and partially disabled ex-service men. These will be submitted to you for approval.
An investigation is being conducted by the Department of Labour into systems of Unemployment Insurance and Old Age Pensions.
There will be submitted to you for approval the important agreement concluded last year with the Governments of the British West Indian 'Colonies for the purpose of drawing still closer the trade relations between Canada and these Colonies and of improving the means of communication and intercourse.
The First Assembly of the League of Nations was recently held at Geneva. Representatives of forty-one nations, including those of Canada, met and deliberated together in a spirit of harmony that promises much for this great experiment. Much time was necessarily devoted to the work of organization, but other measures wrere also agreed upon which are calculated to promote stability and good-will in international intercourse. Most important of these is the draft scheme for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice which will be submitted to you for approval at an early date.
My advisers are convinced of the necessity for revision of the Customs tariff. In order to secure the most complete information a committee has conducted an extensive and

thorough inquiry, and has secured the views of all parties and interests in every province. The hearings necessary for this purpose have now been completed, and the conclusions founded thereon will be submitted to you in due course. It is the opinion of my advisers that in such revision regard must be had to the necessities of revenue and as well that the principle of protection to Canadian labour and legitimate Canadian industries, including agriculture, which has prevailed for more than forty years in this country, must be consistently maintained; tout that the Customs duties imposed to that end should be no higher than is essential to ensure good standards of living among our working population and to retain and make possible the normal expansion of the industries in which they find employment.
A Bill for the repeal of the Conservation Act will toe submitted to you, there being provision made for carrying on the essential functions of the Commission of Conservation in the appropriate department of the Government. This measure will, therefore, avoid very considerable duplication of services, and permit consequent saving of expense without detriment to the public advantage.
A Bill amending the Dominion Elections Act to provide for necessary revision of the electoral lists applicable to the vote shortly to be held in the province of Ontario respecting the Canada Temperance Act will be submitted to you.
Bills relating to copyrights, the simplification and consolidation of the Income War Tax Act, 1917, and amending Acts, scientific research and other matters will be submitted to you. Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
The accounts of the last fiscal year will be laid before you. Estimates for the next fiscal year will be submitted at an early date, making provision for the various services of government. These have been formed with a view to strict economy, having due regard to the obligations of the country and the exigencies of the public service, and any possible contraction, following the expansion of the period of the war, has been diligently sought.
Honourable Gentlemen of the Senate:
Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
In inviting your careful consideration of the important matters which will engage your attention, I pray that Divine Providence may direct and prosper all your consultations to the safety, honour, and welfare of our Sovereign and this Dominion.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGIJEN (Prime Minister) :: I ibeg to move, seconded by Sir George Foster:
That the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General to both Houses of Parliament be taken into consideration on Tuesday next, and that this order have precedence over all other business except introduction of Bills until disposed of.
Motion (agreed to.



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

Arthur Meighen: That a special committee be appointed to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the Select Stand-

ing Committees of this House under rule 10, said Committee to he composed of Messieurs Reid (Grenville), Calder, McCurdy, Middlebro, King, Lemieux and Crerar, and that that portion of rule 10 limiting the number of members of the said committee be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Chief Electoral Officer in conformity with the Dominion Elections Act.-Mr. Speaker.
Joint Report of the Librarians of Parliament.-Mr. Speaker.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour to inform the House that the Sergeant-at-Arms, with my approval, has appointed Louis Charles Panet, Esquire, to be his deputy during the present session of Parliament.



INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSION

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I beg to present a communication from His Excellency the Governor General approving a minute of the Privy Council appointing Right Hon. C. J. Doherty, Minister of Justice; Hon. J. D. Reid, Minister of Railways and Canals; Hon. J. A. Calder, Minister of Immigration and Colonization and President of the Privy Council; and Hon. E. K. Spinney, 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, 1906, entitled "An Act respecting the House of Commons."
On motion of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, the House adjourned at 3.50 p.m.
Tuesday, February 15 1Q20. The House met at Three o'clock. REPORTS TABLED
Annual Report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries; Annual Report of the Department of Naval Service.-Hon. C. C. Ballantyne.
Annual Report of the Department of Public Works.-Hon. F. B. McCurdy.
TRIBUTES TO DECEASED MEMBERS On the Orders of the Day:


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, at this 11
time I desire, and I think the House would wish me to do so, to make some reference to the vacancies that have occurred in our midst by death since we last met together. The number whose loss we have to lament on this occasion is even larger than is usually the case, although seldom it is that we meet in these halls without having to lament the taking away of some of our numbers.
The first to whom I wish to refer is the late member for the electoral division of Medicine Hat, and Secretary of State, the Right Hon. Mr. Sifton. Mr. Sifton's services to his country were in a larger variety of fields and in posts of uniformly higher dignity than falls to the lot of most public men in Canada. He was first a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories; he was a member of the Territorial Government in the early life of that country; and subsequently was Chief Justice of the Northwest Territories. Following upon that and an intervening period during which he engaged in the practice of law, he again became Chief Justice of Alberta, and after that was Premier of his- province. From that post of distinction he came to this House some three years and a half ago and has occupied three positions in the Cabinet of Canada, all with acceptability-indeed, with distinction. The dominant-or, at least, the most outstanding-characteristic of Mr. Sifton was the swiftness and directness of his intellect, the capacity he had for reaching to the centre of a problem at first grasp, and of coming to his conclusions surely and firmly and almost invariably correctly. In this House he was not often heard, and that was a matter of regret, I am sure, to us all; but when he spoke, what he said was a contribution to any discussion in which he took part. It was in the Council Chamber that he displayed his talents to the best advantage; it was there that the virility and energy of his mind stood out in such striking contrast to the quietness of his disposition and demeanour. I am sure I am only voicing the sentiments of all of us when I say that Canada has lost a distinguished servant and that his Colleagues have lost an able and most agreeable companion and co-worker.
The next hon. gentleman to whom I would refer is the late member for Yamaska, Mr. Gladu. With him I came less personally in contact, he being on the other side of the House, and not commingling here as much as some; but it was my duty and my pleasure

to read many of his speeches. I can well recall one of them in particular, delivered, I think, something over ten years ago, in which the grace and elegance of his diction was very clearly and impressively reflected, even in the English translation. He enjoyed that capacity of which so many of his race are possessed-of clear, forceful and easy expression; and I am sure all of us will agree that he was a distinct acquisition to Parliament and will mourn sincerely his loss.
Colonel Harry McLeod has also been taken away since last we met here. The member for York-Sunbury, too, served his country in more fields than one. For some years he represented a constituency in the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, and for a short time he was a minister in the Government of that province. His interests were, perhaps, as much in the military field as in the political field. He was a student of military tactics and military matters generally, and attended manoeuvres in this and in other countries for purposes of study-and, indeed, in the late war, served in the fields of Europe. In this House he had, I think, more than the usual number of close friends, attracted to him by that quality of loyalty to his friends which all of us admire so much. His contributions to parliamentary discussions were not many; but they were valuable, and as a man chiefly and as a parliamentarian as well, we are sorry we shall see him no more here.
The mutations of time affect the complexion of every institution in the world; the hut of the poor and the palace of the rich are not exempt, nor is the hall of Parliament; the energy and usefulness of this House rest not only on the fidelity of its present members, but on the memory and virtues of those who have gone.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to join with my right hon. friend in paying a tribute to the memory of our deceased colleagues and in expressing the sympathy which this House as a unit will feel with the relatives and friends of the deceased members. As my right hon. friend has just said, the vacant places which greet us at the meeting of Parliament as we reassemble from year to year are more expressive in their mute eloquence than any words we are capable of uttering on an occasion such as this. But while our words are necessarily few, our sense of personal loss is very real and

our sympathy for those who have been bereaved is deep and sincere.
In view of what my right hon. friend has already said of the hon. members who until but yesterday were to be numbered amongst his supporters, but little remains to be added by way of personal tribute to their memories. Both of them, as he has mentioned, were gentlemen who had played an important part not only in the public life of their respective provinces, but in the larger arena of federal politics and, indeed, in the still wider arena of world affairs.
The late Right Hon. Arthur Sifton's life was associated with the upbuilding of our Canadian West, in which he had lived for considerably over half a century. As a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories and as Commissioner of Works in the Haultain ministry, and later as Chief Justice and Prime Minister of the province of Alberta, he was permitted to play an exceptional part in laying the foundations of constitutional government in Western Canada. That he did so in a manner which will be an ensuring monument to his ability is perhaps the highest tribute that could be paid to his memory. As my right hon. friend has said, we heard his voice but little in this House. Through ill-health he was presented from taking much part in the affairs of this Parliament; but he was privileged to take a part in international transactions of the greatest magnitude, and in so doing to add further distinction to his own name and to that of his province.
The late hon. member for York-Sunbury, Colonel McLeod, had a career not altogether [DOT] dissimilar, though cut prematurely short by ill-health consequent upon services rendered to his country overseas. Like the late Secretary of State, he was a distinguished member of the legal profession. Before entering this Parliament, he had been actively identified with the affairs of his province as a member of the local legislature and also as a member of the Government. When the war broke out, he raised a regiment in his native province and crossed the seas on active service in Europe with the Canadian Expeditionary Force. A life of such disinterested and patriotic public service speaks for itself.
Of the three members whose decease we deplore, the late hon. member for Yamaska, Mr. Oscar Gladu, hadthe longest association with this House. He was first returned to Parliament in 1904 and was re-elected in 1908. He was defeated at the general

elections of 1911, but was re-elected in
1917.	It is true that he did not take a large part in the way of official position, but he nevertheless was actively identified with the political events of his province and of this country. He was essentially a tribune of the people and he spent his life in advocating their cause and espousing the principles of Liberalism for which he stood. Few men in Canadian public life have possessed in larger measure than Mr. Gladu the talent of popular oratory, the power to sway masses of men by the spoken word, and his gift in that direction has left for him an abiding place in the memory and affections of the people. To those of us on this side of the House who knew him intimately, he will ever be remembered as the most ardent of Liberals, the most loyal of supporters, and the most genial and devoted of friends.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
MacKELVIE
The House proceeded to the consideration of the speech of His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the Session.
Mr. JAMES McISAAC (Kings P.E.I.) moved:: That an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, offering the humble thanks of this House to His Excellency for the gracious speech which he has been pleased to make to both Houses of Parliament.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of King's, I sincerely thank the Prime Minister for selecting their representative to move the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Highly as I appreciate the honour thus conferred, I am fully conscious of the importance and responsibility of the task, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I approach it with considerable diffidence and some trepidation of heart. I realize that the mover of the Address in reply to the Speech from the, Throne at the opening of the parliamentary session, from one year to another, occupies a unique position; he enjoys much freedom in blazing his own trail and developing, in his own way, the theme of his discourse, and under your wise guidance is, to a very great degree, immune from the danger of trangressing the ordinary rules of Parliamentary debate. He is at liberty indeed to "pursue things unattempted yet in prose or rhyme." But this very freedom, this immunity, may constitute his difficulty and his danger. He may, perhaps, incline to too great reticence on the one hand or too great extravagance on the other. It is, therefore, the part of wisdom to adopt a middle course, for, as it is very concisely expressed in the Latin tongue, "medio tutissimus ibis."
Mr. Speaker, before referring to any of the important matters contained in the Speech from the Throne, I desire to tender my cordial congratulations to the right honourable leader of the House on his elevation to the important, exalted and honourable position of leader of the Government, land Prime Minister of the nation. The office of Prime Minister of Canada at any time requires talents and statesmanship of the very highest order; but at the present time, when so many onerous, difficult and intricate public questions present themselves, the need for intellectuality, wisdom and prudence is accentuated. These qualities, I believe, our Prime Minister amply possesses. In this connection I cannot refrain from giving expression to a thought that presses upon my mind, I wish to pay my profound tribute of respect and admiration for the right hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Borden) who led the Government of Canada safely and well through the dark and never-to-be-forgotten days of the world's tragedy, and who for our sakes, by his devotion to duty and self sacrifice for the exaltation of his country, has become a casualty of the war.
In the speech from the Throne it is stated:
On your return to your Parliamentary duties, I am glad to be able to congratulate you on the relative prosperity of the country and its comparative freedom from the feeling of unrest which has agitated countries not so fortunately situated. Following the conditions of expansion due to the war, a period of contraction was inevitable. Restriction of credit involving a certain limitation of production and business has been universal, but this Dominion has been less affected than other countries, and a feeling of confidence prevails. A general reduction of the cost of living has set in, and the country, save in certain limited areas, has been blessed with a bountiful harvest.
But, Mr. Speaker, -what Canada has accomplished in the period following the war up to the present is in a sense not less remarkable than her marvelous achievements during that titantic struggle. By reason of the Government's wise and provident financial management during the war period, as well as by reason of increased production and rising war prices, the finances of the country were greatly augmented, and as a consequence Canada

the address in reply to the speech from the Throne, I must confess that I approach the task with a feeling of diffidence bordering almost upon the point of reluctance; for no one can realize better than myself that my inexperience and ignorance of parliamentary procedure and usage may possibly lead me into errors which I would naturally desired to avoid. I feel further handicapped in being called upon to follow a gentleman who in such eloquent periods has so gracefully expressed sentiments which I am sure are concurred in by a large proportion of this House. I fully realize also the extent to which I must suffer in any attempt to hold the attention of this House by reason of the fact that my predecessor in the County of Yale was a gentleman who, I know, often gave expression to sentiments that were couched in the most graceful and forceful language that could enchain the attention of an assembly such as this. I sincerely trust, therefore, that hon. members will refrain from any comparison between my language and the utterances that from time to time fell from the lips of the former Secretary of State, the hon. Mr. Martin Burrell, whose retirement from active political life, I may say in passing, has caused very widespread regret throughout Yale, and, I feel sure, in other parts of the Dominion as well; and I believe I am but voicing the sentiments of this House when I say that that gentleman carries with him into his new position such knowledge and literary attainments as must eminently qualify him to fulfil the very high expectations of every member who was associated with him for so long in his valuable services in this House.
At this juncture, Sir, perhaps I may be permitted to express the very great satisfaction entertained in the West, and more particuarly in British Columbia, over the fact that another Western man has succeeded to the portfolio of Agriculture, air' one time held by Mr. Burrell; and we, Sir, consider it a matter for great congratulation that the interests of our two great basic industries in Yale, farming and fruit growing are now in the experienced and capable hands of Hon. Dr. Tolmie, and will be under such competent and I know, succesful guidance.
It is for me a matter of personal inclination and a duty which I owe to a large section of my constituents to express in very sincere, but I fear very inadequate terms the sense-the deep sense-of appreciation that our people feel over the exaltation to the highest office in the gift of fMr. MacKelvie.]
Canada of the Rt. Hon. Arthur Meighen, whose clear-cut and forceful exposition of his policy as regards fiscal and other issues, during his tour of the West, gave very complete satisfaction indeed to the great majority of the constituency which I represent. In passing let me say that that constituency of 1 ale is perhaps one of the largest in the Dominion and as big, I suppose, as any five eastern counties. Its basic industries, as I have already intimated, are those of agriculture and horticulture; and you can realize, Sir, what satisfaction and what relief it afforded the men engaged in those activities to hear during the Prime Minister's tour through the constituency such unequivocal and lucid expressions as he uttered regarding the tariff in particular.
After listening to the very able and very comprehensive review of the Speech from the Throne which the mover has presented I feel that there is but little of interest or value to this House that I may be able to add. It is, apparent, I suppose, to all of us that these are times of particular strain and stress. We are passing through a period of unparalleled uncertainty and unrest. Wherever, outside this favoured country of Canada, we turn our eyes our vision seems darkened and disturbed by scenes of distress, poverty, and agitation of all kinds. For years to come, perhaps, it will be a matter of great difficulty for this old world of ours to shake itself down to a position at all approaching stability. War and carnage still stalk through a large portion of Europe. Turbulent agitators taking advantage of the times, are strenuously, actively and continually engaged in an attempt to guide men's minds into channels of revolutionary intent. I am sorry to say also that an active, a well conducted, and energetically pursued propaganda of hate and suspicion is being promulgated in order to create strife between labour and capital. These are problems, I suppose, that will require the attention of thinking men for many years to come. I am, Sir, I think, to be classed among the ranks of what we might term reasonable optimists. At least, I have the most profound and abiding faith in the potential greatness and glorious future of this country of ours, and in its manifold and magnificent resources which as yet have not been touched, by way of development, only on the outer fringes. But, nevertheless, I can see that there is a kind of shallow and superficial optimism which seems to be in the habit of closing its eyes

when difficulties or dangers of any kind present themselves, and which is always bound to be unprepared when a crisis or emergency arises. It is against this tendency of the times I think it behoves us all to guard ourselves.
Under such conditions as I have spoken of it is natural, that in Canada as elsewhere, one of the problems to which we have to give earnest consideration is that of unemployment. I am thankful to say that in the constituency which I represent that condition has not, as yet, become a very serious menace-though it is, of course, not entirely absent. I venture to say, Sir, owing to the very wise and very energetic course pursued by the Government in the demobilization of our troops and in the re-establishment of our men in civil life the fact, is very largely to be attributed that the condition referred to is not more wide spread and more acute in Canada than is the case to-day. Surely, never was there a young country which staggered under a greater burden of responsibility in regard to measures necessary to re-establish our returned men in some way, and to provide pensions for themselves and the dependents of those who so gloriously and heroically upheld the honour of the nation and of the empire during the terrible period of the war. And surely, Sir, no Government on earth ever approached that problem with a more courageous, determined and sympathetic spirit. As we all know-if we are at all frank with ourselves

marvels have already been accomplished in regard to the re-establishing of our returned men. Of course there have been mistakes, there have been blunders and shortcomings in matters of detail; but I maintain that what has been accomplished constitutes a glorious achievement for Canada. While much still remains to be done I misjudge the temper of this House, and the temper of the citizens of Canada, if we begrudge anything further which can reasonably be done to relieve and assist these men of whom the nation has cause to feel so proud and whose devotion to duty and whose sacrifices have laid a debt upon the country which can never even partially be liquidated by material recompense.
In this connection too, I am glad to note in the Speech from the Throne that consideration is being given to the questions of old age pensions and unemployment insurance. I feel quite certain that the House will approach thb consideration of these
subjects with very sympathetic feelings knowing, as we all do, that a certain proportion of our population-very often through no fault of their own-labour under disabilities and burdens, and if anything can be done to relieve them it is our duty, I think, to make an effort to do so.
It will be acknowledged, I think, that the ability of this country to meet the obligations thrust upon us by the war, and, consequently, our progress and prosperity, are inseparably wrapped up with the tariff issue. This is a most important matter, and in a constituency such as that which I have the honour to represent, it is indeed a very vital matter. Fruit growing in the Okanagan and elsewhere throughout Yale has now reached a stage where it is become a very important industry. I can recall the days, Sir, probably about twenty years ago, when the first full car of fruit was shipped out of the Okanagan, and it was an occasion for celebration. This year I hope that we will be able to send forth an output of fruit exceeding 5,000 cars. The course towards this phenomenal growth and measure of success has been by no means an easy one. The road we have traversed was full of obstacles and difficulties, which at one time seemed almost insurmountable; and I am firmly convinced that had it not been for the well-advised action of the Borden administration in raising the duty on apples from 13 to 30 cents a box, the industry in the Okanagan to-day would have been almost extinct. I have no desire to enter largely at this time upon a subject which I know is fraught with so many contentious issues, but I know full well that my constituents would consider me a traitor to their interests did I not upon all occasions endeavour to combat with whatever energy in me lies any attempt to reduce or eliminate the duty on fruit, without which protection our industry could not live.
There were times during the lean years in the fruit growing industry when my office used to be invaded time and again by men who came to me for advice and who were in absolute despair. They thought that I was responsible for their coming to that country and investing their all in fruit lands, and perhaps in some instances they were right. Up to 1914 the industry was in such a languishing condition that nothing but ruin seemed to stare these men in the face. South of British Columbia lie the two great fruit-producing States of Washington and Oregon, and extending east of those States

are large and populous American cities affording the orchardists the best possible market for their No. 1 or fancy fruit; and it was their system to sell their fancy grades in that market and to send in their other grades on consignment to our prairie provinces-which are naturally the markets for the Okanagan fruit-at prices which meant ruinous competition for our growers, and which glutted the prairie markets until on some occasions not a box of British Columbia fruit could be sold. It was under these circumstances that the fruit growers of our district approached the Government as I have indicated and were successful in getting the tariff raised. In 1910 the production of fruit in British Columbia amounted to $250,000. By 1919 this had grown to such an extent that out of the Okanagan Valley alone was shipped fruit and its by-products, including canned and evaporated goods, amounting to over $7,-000,000-an almost phenomenal growth in something short of ten years, due, as I have said before, to the protection given our industry by the tariff.
Speaking in a general way, Sir, on this tariff question, as far as I myself am concerned I belong to a class who are firmly convinced that the economic safety and prosperity of this Dominion depend upon following a similar course in regard to a protective tariff to that pursued in succession by Conservative, Liberal and Unionist Governments. I belong to a class that have perhaps two fundamental principles in regard to their political creed. First, as regards the larger realm of the British Empire, we believe most firmly in what we consider to be a sane system of Imperialism; we believe in maintaining the closest possible affiliations and associations with the Mother Country, while at the same time leaving Canada absolutely mistress in her own house. And as regards our domestic policy, we conceive that, to say ,the least, any deviation from the principle which underlies a protective tariff is a course of folly leading straight forward to disaster.
Now, Sir, I have noted some other points upon which I thought I might speak, but I think perhaps, in spite of the kind invitation to extend my remarks, I will not transgress further upon the good nature of the House. But there is just one other point to which I should like to make brief reference, and perhaps it is not altogether the most unimportant topic to which our attention might be directed. The remarks from the mover concerning the "sounding

sea," reminded me that I too was privileged during my boyhood days to watch the tide come up the bay of Fundy-and although I saw the bore I did not, I hope, become one in consequence! But I was going to say that it was my privilege then to be associated in that country, which contains a very large French population, with a number of boy friends of that race, and the endearing associations then formed, and the respect and esteem in which I have held the French people ever since, have never been obliterated. I thought it was particularly fortunate that in his first political speech after being raised to the high position of Prime Minister, the leader of the Government expressed himself in such forceful terms on the necessity of fostering in this country every possible sentiment that would tend towards bringing about more amicable 'relations between the two great races which form the bulk of our population. I think he touched a chord then which must have found a deep response in every true Canadian breast.
I	wish to remark in conclusion, that I hope nothing will occur during the course of this Parliament that will even in the very slightest degree tend to create any dissension between the two races. I wish I were capable of expressing the sentiments which I desire to convey in the beautiful French tongue, but I am debarred from that pleasure, and in rougher and less ready language I wish to say that it is my sincere hope that we will all with one accord endeavour to foster and stimulate everything tending towards an increase of amicable relations and deeper friendship between the two races, until in fact and in deed the time may come as far as Canada is concerned when the names French and English are merged into the more general and more comprehensive one of-Canadian.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to extend my congratulations to the hon. members who have just moved and seconded the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I am sure that my hon. friend the member for King's, P.E.I. (Mr. Mclsaac) will look upon this as a sort of field day for Prince Edward Island, inasmuch as ne and I, comprising half the representation of that province, have been privileged to be the first speakers in this important debate. _That his speech was very creditable to himself and to the Island, is, I think, the highest compliment that could be paid him. I hope he' will not feel that

I speak at all ironically when I say that, having listened to his poetical quotations and classical allusions, I believe he might have applied to his own speech the words which he quoted from Byron's Childe Harold in reference to the ocean-that there was considerable music in its roar.
I must also congratulate the hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie) on the speech which he made in seconding the Address. As all hon. members know, this is his maiden speech, and usually the making of one's first speech in Parliament is * not an easy matter. All who have had the privilege of listening to his address will, I am sure, feel that in the member for Yale the House has found an acquisition to its debating ability.
With many of the sentiments that have been expressed by both the mover and the seconder of the Address, we on this side of the House are in most hearty accord. There have been on the other hand references to some of the matters spoken of in the Speech from the Throne, there have been references to the present administration, with which I would take issue and which I would discuss at some length if this were the appropriate time and occasion. However, during the course of the debate there will be opportunity to take up matters of the kind.
In one respect, in particular, I find myself in hearty accord with the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne-I join with them in extending congratulations to my Right Honourable friend (Mr. Meighen) upon his attainment of the high and responsible position of Prime Minister.
Perhaps he will permit me to say in public what I have already said to him privately, that on personal grounds it was to me a source both of pride and of pleasure to learn that His Excellency had chosen as his first adviser one who in university days was a fellow undergraduate, and whose friendship, through a quarter of a century, had survived the vicissitudes of time, not excepting the differences of party warfare and acrimonies of political debate.
I realize, in the discharge of our public duties in the opposing positions in which we now stand in virtue of our respective political faiths, there is much that needs to be said that may bring a challenge to all the virtues we possess. I can promise him, however, that in seeking to fulfill the demands of public obligation, I shall strive with him to preserve the highest traditions of our public life, and to be governed in
all things by its amenities, and never by its animosities.
Mr. Speaker, if I do not undertake to refer at any length to the Address which His Excellency has presented to the House,
I hope it will not be thought of as being in any way discourteous to His Excellency. There is one matter which transcends all others in importance, and that is the present position of the Government and of this Parliament with respect to the will of the people. By what right by what authority, do my right honourable friend and the members of his ministry presume to carry on the Government of this country? That is the question which the Administration must answer to the satisfaction of Parliament and of the country, before consideration can be given to any of the lesser matters mentioned in the.Speech from the Throne. Can the will of the people be further ignored, and their rights in matters pertaining to legislation and administration be further- usurped?
In the olden days of British history there was a time when the Crown, in order to find out under what authority certain gentlemen throughout the Kingdom exercised the rights and privileges of positions and offices they held, issued to such persons, a writ known as quo -warranto, to discover by what right, by what warrant, they held the positions which they occupied. King Edward I served the barons of his day with this writ of quo warranto to discover by what warrant, by what right, they were enjoying certain privileges. Later the Crown made use of the same writ as a means of discovering by what warrant and by what right certain of the chartered cities of England exercised coveted privileges. It was used, I think, by other sovereigns in order to find out by what warrant and by what right certain sheriffs carried on the duties of their office. In the name of the people of this country I should like to ask my right hon. friend, by what warrant, by what right, he attempts to carry on the government of Canada at the present time?
Since we last assembled in this Chamber, changes of far-reaching import and significance have taken place. The Government which was then in power has resigned and a new Government has been formed. In order that the situation may be fairly understood outside this House, may I direct attention to certain facts and circumstances. Since Parliament last assembled every member of the old administration has resigned his position; for the Prime Minis-

ter, in tendering his resignation, tendered also the resignation of every member of his Cabinet. Indeed, there was a time subsequent to the prorogation of Parliament last year-a brief moment it was, of course -when there was no ministry carrying on the government of this country. My right hon. friend selected one colleague on the day that he was sworn in; others he selected some three days later, and others later still.
The ministry which we met when Parliament was last assembled was a Unionist administration. It was a Government that had been formed from each of the historic political parties on a basis of assumed equality in numbers and talent. It was formed with relation to a particular issue arising out of the war which was then in progress. It purported to be a war administration, concerned solely with the successful prosecution and termination of the war and problems incidental thereto. Upon its character, its personnel, and its purpose in these particulars, it made its appeal to the electorate and won the support which returned it to power.
The Government which meets Parliament to-day is an entirely new and different Government. Will my right hon. friend contend that in character his is a Union Government? Will he contend that it is a coalition composed of members of both the old political parties, chosen because'they are supposed to be of equality in talent as well as in numbers? Will he contend for a moment that it is a war Government with a mandate from the people of this country to carry on their business? Those are questions which I want my right hon. friend to answer when he rises to address the House. The ministry has, as I have said, changed in character, in personnel, and in purpose from the Government formed in 1917.
Permit me to enlarge for a minute on these several points. As I have already said, the ministry which meets Parliament to-day has an entirely different character from the ministry which we met when Parliament was last assembled. That ministry was a Unionist ministry. My right hon. friend will hardly contend that his ministry is a Unionist ministry. He vjas the first to destroy the word "Unionist"; he absolutely cut it out of the vocabulary 6f his Government. He will hardly say that his ministry is composed of the members of the old historic parties. He, almost more than anyone else in this country, has 
been doing all he can to destroy the reputations of the old political parties and to say that they have outlived their usefulness. Surely he does not believe that any one is deceived as to the character of the present administration through the use of the name "National Liberal and Conservative'' which, despite his abuse of the historic parties, he has chosen as that of his administration. Was there ever such a jumble of inconsistencies and insincerities!
My right hon. friend will probably contend that the situation thus created was not dissimilar to situations which arose after the death of Sir John A. Macdonald, when Sir John was succeeded in June, 1891, by Sir John Abbott; when Sir John Thompson succeeded Sir John Abbott in December, 1892; when Sir Mackenzie Bowell succeeded Sir John Thompson in December, 1894; and lastly when Sir Charles Tupper succeeded Sir Mackenzie Bowell in May, 1896. In other words, he will probably contend that in the course of one Parliament one ministry has a right to succeed another as in that period between 1891 and 1896. I presume my right hon. friend will attempt to have the House believe that the succession in office of his ministry to the previous ministry is a case parallel to the cases which I have just mentioned. As a matter of fact, there is no parallel.
The governments of which I have just spoken between 1891 and 1896 were all Tory Governments, holding office by virtue of a policy upon which the electors had passed in March, 1891, in normal times and under normal conditions. They were one in character, in purpose and in aim. The Government which my right hon. friend has formed cannot lay claim to any succession of that kind. The Government which he succeeded was a Unionist Government; the Government that he has formed to-day is a reactionary Tory administration; it is a reversion back to a type of Toryism such as this country has not known for a great many years. Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend will hardly contend that there is anything of a coalitionist character in his administration. The former Government was a coalition Government, or so-called at all events; it pretended to be such; but the Government of my right hon. friend is wholly different in that respect.
One of two alternatives alone is possible. Either the Government of my right hon. friend is, as it purports to be, an entirely new Government, with a new name, a new Prime Minister, a new set of principles

and policies, and the support of a new party, the existence of which remains as yet to be discovered; or it is the soiled remnant and ragged edges of the old Unionist administration which it itself disowns, travelling under counterfeits and aliases, and purporting in all things to be what in reality it is not.
Take whichever alternative you will, the consequence is one and the same. The Government is without authority from the people of this country to conduct its affairs, and stands as a usurper of their political rights even in the eyes of multitudes of those who helped to return to power the previous administration.
But, Sir, lest there should be any doubt as regards the character of the present administration, may I refer to the personnel of the two administrations? It is necessary to do this in order to bring out one of the points which I think it is of importance to bring out, namely, the difference between the basis on which the Government of my right hon. friend was formed and that on which the previous administration was formed. Aliases, disguises and counterfeits aside, the character of the two administrations is to be determined by the respective personnels. Here is a list of the names of those who composed the ministry of the ex-Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) at the time that it made its appeal to the people. I think I am in order in quoting the names at this moment:
The Prime Minister, Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden.
Minister of Trade and Commerce, Rt. Hon. Sir Geo. E. Foster.
Minister of Finance, Hon. Sir Thomas White.
Minister of Justice, Hon. Chas. J. Doherty.
Minister of Dabour, Hon. T. W. Crothers.
Minister of Railways and Canals, Hon. J. D. Reid.
Minister of Overseas Military Forces, Hon. Sir A. E. Kemp.
Secretary of State, Hon. Martin Burrell.
Postmaster General, Hon. P. E. Blondin.
Minister of Interior, Hon. Arthur Meighen.
Minister of Inland Revenue, Hon. A. Sevlgny.
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and Naval Service, Hon. C. C. Ballantyne.
Minister of Customs, Hon. A. L. Sifton.
Minister of Immigration and Colonisation, Hon. J. A. Calder.
President of Privy Council, Hon. N. W. Rowell.
Minister of Militia, Hon. S. C. Mewburn.
Minister of Agriculture, Hon. T. A. Crerar.
Minister of Public Works, Hon. F. B. Carvell.
Ministers without Portfolio:	Hon, Frank
Cochrane, Hon. Sir Jas. A. Lougheed, Hon. A. K. Maclean, Hon. G. D. Robertson.
Solicitor General, Hon. Hugh Guthrie.
In looking over that list one is struck first of all by its coalitionist complexion
as it was held out in evidence before the people at the time. There were four ministers without portfolio, the Solicitor General adding one more to the ministry. There were eighteen other ministers, seven of whom were chosen from the ranks of the Liberal party. If we add the name of one of the ministers without portfolio, that would mean eight of one complexion politically, and ten of the other, so as to make what the people were led to believe at that time was a sort of fifty-fifty administration. Of those members, the following have ceased to be members of the administration, either through death or resignation:
The late Hon. Frank Cochrane.
Sir Robert Borden.
Hon. Sir Thomas White.
Hon. T. W. Crothers.
Hon. Martin Burrell.
Hon. A. Sevigny.
Hon. T. A. Crerar.
Hon. F. B. Carvell.
Hon. S. C. Mewburn.
Hon. A. K. Maclean.
Hon. N. W. Rowell.
The late Hon. A. L. Sifton.
In other words, twelve of the members of the Administration which went before the country in 1917 have ceased to be members of the present Administration. I am prepared to admit that the personnel might to a limited extent be expected to change with time; but there is this significant point to be noted in connection with the changes that have taken place in the Administration, that for the most part the resignations have been of those hon members who entered the ministry at the time they did because they believed it to be a ministry formed for war purposes, and who joined the ministry to give that Liberal complexion which a real coalition was expected to have. With these hon. gentlemen having resigned from the Government in the numbers they have, I ask my right hon. friend how does he presume to regard his ministry as in any sense a legitimate successor to the one which preceded it?
My right hon. friend in his speeches throughout the country has had a good deal to say about the war record of the late Administration. He has urged that record as a ground why his Administration should have the confidence of the people of this country, I would ask him, has he observed that the Ministers, who, for the most part- there are one or two exceptions, I admit- were responsible for such record as the Government made during the war are the ones who have since left, and are not

members of his Administration? Either he has no confidence in them, or they have no confidence in him. Will my right hon. friend presume to say that none of the credit of the late Administration in the carrying on of the war was due to the hon. gentlemen who are not members of his Administration at the present time? Let us take one or two names. We were told that the Hon. F. B. Carvell was a strength to the whole Government because of his personality. Will my right hon. friend say that his ministry has not been weakened through the loss of a member like the Hon. Mr. Carvell? Take the case of the present member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn). Is he not entitled to any credit in the late Administration for the winning of the war, as my right hon. friend likes to put it? Surely my right hon. friend has no right to seek credit for his Administration on account of the services of the hon. member for East Hamilton, who is not in the ministry at the present time. Take, similarly, the case of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). There was a gentleman representing the agricultural interests of this country, as well as one who was a strong liberal at the time he was taken into the Administration. His name was given out to the public as that of one who lent strength to the Administration' because of those circumstances. He is not in my right hon. friend's Administration at the present time. He is directly opposed to him. How can my right hon. friend lay claim to any public confidence in his Administration on account of what the hon. member for Marquette did in helping forward the work of the Government during the period of the war? Then there is the honl member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean). Though he was a Minister without portfolio, he was Chairman of several important committees, and rendered valuable service. He is not in my right hon. friend's ministry, but is sitting opposite to him at the present time. How can my right hon. friend possibly claim that his ministry is entitled to carry on by virtue of the services which the hon. member for Halifax rendered during the period of the war? Then there is the Hon. N. W. Rowell, the former President of the Privy Council. -


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member, I think, was quite in order in referring to the personnel of the ministry to give their names, but in referring to hon. gentlemen individually who are at the mQment members of the House, it would be better, and

most certainly the correct practice, if he would refer to them by the names of their constituencies.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very pleased to defer to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, which I recognize to be quite proper. The point I wish to make plain is that as respects the Unionist Administration the personality of the gentlemen composing it was an all important consideration. The name of the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell), the former President of the Privy Council, was put forward all over this country as that of one who led the Liberal party in the province of Ontario, and it was put forward particularly to support the claims of the Government on Liberals in Ontariq. How can my right hon. friend claim for himself any expression of confidence on the part of the people in virtue of the presence in the former Administration of the hon. member for Durham? He is no longer a member of the ministry.
Then I would ask my right hon. friend, what about the former Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Leeds (Sir Thomas White). His name and his reputation stood high in this country at that time. Surely he is entitled to some of the credit of the late ministry in the matter of the winning of the war. Can my right hon. friend lay claim to any of that credit for his ministry? The hon. gentleman whom I have just mentioned is not today a member of the ministry. My right hon. friend has been unable to induce him to come into his Government.
Lastly, I ask my right hon. friend, is no credit due to the former Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden? He had long and distinguished service in the position of Prime Minister, and his name and the circumstance of his experience was a factor in helping to win the confidence of the people for his Administration. How can my right hon. friend claim any credit for what was accomplished through the exPrime Minister's efforts in the winning of the war as a ground on which this ministry should have the confidence of the people at the present time, seeing that the exPrime Minister has resigned and is unwilling to come into my right hon. friend's ministry?
So I say, if we go over the personnel of the Cabinet as it existed at the time it made its appeal to the people of Canada as a Unionist Administration and compare it with the present Government, we find the

two so different in character and in personnel that it is presumption, to say the least, for may right hon. friend to assume that he is entitled to any credit for work which the previous Government carried on, or ito any continuance of confidence from the people of Canada ais a result.
May I ask my right hon. friend this question, and I hope he will answer it-Does he believe that if he himself had |been called upon to form a Unionist Administration in 1917, he would have been able to do it? Does he mean to say that if he instead of the ex-Prime Minister had gone before the country as Prime Minister seeking support for a ministry at that time that the people would have given to him the confidence which was given to the late Prime Minister and the colleagues he had about him? Unless he is prepared to stand up and say that he was just las capable of forming a ministry as the ex-Prime Minister and that the people have just as much confidence in him and his present colleagues as in the ex-Prime Minister and the group that surrounded him, by wlhiat authority does he presume to carry on government, as one holding the confidence of the people of this country?
But, Sir, not only is the character and the personnel of the ministry changed, as I have described, but what is most important of all, the aims and purposes of the two ministries are entirely different. The Unionist Administration went before the people of this country as a war Administration, for the purpose of carrying on the war and dealing wiith the problems of the war. Will my right hon. friend say that this is a war Administration? Unless he is prepared to ,say that he is entitled to the confidence of the people of this country at the present time as the leader of ia war Administration, by What authority does he presume to carry on the Government of this country?
I might quote at considerable length from the Statements which were given to the people of this country at the time as to the purposes of the late ministry. I shall not take up the time of the House in quoting at any great length from ithe different statements made; two or three will, I think, he pertinent enough. As to the purpose of the previous Unionist Administration, I shall quote only from the ex-Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), who formed that Government, and from my right hon. friend who is leading the Government at the present time, and I will ask my bon. friend after
he has listened to these statements, to be good enough to say whether he is prepared to stand up in this Parliament and affirm that the ministry fwhdch be is leading to-day is the same in aim and purpose as the ministry which wias formed in 1917.
Here are one or two statements made by the ex-Prime Minister at the time the Unionist Administration was formed. Speaking at Toronto on November 21st, 1917-the quotation will be found in the Mail and Empire of the following day- the then Prime Minister, the present member for Kings, said:
My purpose in forming a Union Government was to bring within it such a personnel as would be thoroughly representative of all those elements of the population of Canada that were willing to stand behind the Government in its efforts to win this war, and to fight the battle for humanity, for civilization and the fate of the world.
Speaking at Oshawa on Nov. 26, 1917, as quoted from the Toronto Globe of the following date, the ex-Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) said:
Union Government-does any man know of any reason why there should not he union and national unity in this country when national peril confronts us? The 1 issue is whether the war effort of Canada is to be maintained, or whether Canada is to get out of this war. That is the issue.
That was wbat the right hon. the then Prime Minister of this country told the people at the time of the last election. He distinctly stated that the issue was whether the war effort of Canada was to he maintained or whether Canada was to get out of the war. Can my right hon. friend' who is now leading the Government (Right Hon. Arthur Meighen) describe the issue before the country at the present time in those terms? Can he find anything which will justify him in maintaining an administration on the basis on which the Unionist Government twas returned at the last election?
Speaking at Milton on November 29, 1917, as will be seen from the Toronto Star of November 30, my right horn, friend the member for Kings, the then Prime Minister, made a statement which is to be found quoted in several papers. I shall quote from two because they are significant:
" There is only one issue after all in this campaign," said Sir Robert, " whether we shall keep our pledge or bond given to those men at the front, or whether we shall abandon them when they need our help most".
I will ask my right hem. friend to pay particular attention to these words, which are taken from the Toronto Star:

" There is only one issue in this campaign, whether we shall keep our pledge, etc."
The Mail and Empire, referring to the same speech, quotes the right hon. gentleman in these terms:
There is only one issue in this campaign- only one that I can see to-day-
Observe, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend repeated the statement-only one.
-whether Canada shall maintain her effort in the war and support the men who have gone forth on the pledge of her honour, or whether Canada shall relax her effort, withdraw from the war, and practically leave these men to consider themselves abandoned and betrayed.
I submit that when the people of this country were told by the then Prime Minister that there was only one issue-only one- in such plain terms that every man, woman and) child in this country could understand the nature and meaning of it, the services of the administration elected on that issue were at an end when the issue ceased to exist; and when a Government comes along two yearts after the war is lover and attempts to harry on the affairs of this country without appealing to the electorate for any vindication of its position, it is usurping the authority of the people. I ask my right hon. friend what becomes of the theory that government is carried on in virtue o>f the consent of the governed? The governed gave their consent on one issue, an issue which has long since passed. Yet the hon. gentleman presumes to carry on to-day without even Consulting rtfhe electorate. He ignores them in the most flagrant manner.
The Prime Minister of that day, however, was not the only one who described to the people of this country what the issue was. My right hon. friend himself made a good many speeches during that campaign. He and two of his colleagues at the time were, I think, the first to address a large public meeting in Canada, the one that was supposed, to use his ow.n words, "to sound the appeal of the new government-" That meeting, as he may recall, was held in the City of Winnipeg. It was largely attended, and an account of it is given in the Manitoba Free Press of October 23, 1917. A three-page report appears in that issue of the Manitoba Free Press, and' it was quoted all over this country. The hon. member for Marquette (Hon. Mr. Crerar) was one of those who spoke along with my right hon. friend, and the Hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization, who is also President of the Privy Council at the present time (Hon. J. A. Calder). They were all present, and these are the words
of my right hon. friend. He said that Ihis purpose, and that of the colleagues appearing with Ihiim on the platform (was to present the principle and to sihow forth the spirit that had brought them together, and " to sound the appeal of the new government-" He was dealing both with the principle and with the spirit of the new Government. As he listens to ibis own words, I want to ask him wihether Ihe thinks that principle and that spirit apply to his administration at the present time. I will not quote the whole of his -speech; I shall merely give extracts:
" Our Government, for which we stand tonight, is founded on the rook of compulsory-service, and on that rock we will still build it.
Will he stand up in this Parliament and say at the present time that his Government is founded on the rock of compulsory service? and that on that rock he is Still building?


Mr. BUREAU:: It is merely an aggregation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To continue:
I want to make it as clear as I can that the only way Canada can give the verdict of " carry on " is to vote for the Union Government. We can only vote for or against the Government.
In other words, he describes the issue as being that of " carrying on". I admit that the phrase to carry on might be used as a cry for his present administration, but I think he ha-d a -different purpose in mind at that time. I do not think my right hon. frienid intended to have that cry serve a double purpose. Then he said further:
We can only vote for Borden and Union administration, or vote for a man who, no matter under what flag hp may be running will be a follower of an administration headed by Sir Wilfrid Baurier. This vote for Borden or Baurier is a vote to carry on the war or to quit.
Now, m-ay I ask my right bon. friend when he tells the country that the whole question lait that time was -between Borden and Laurier, whether that is the question before the country at the present time? Between Borden and Laurier? Where, may I ask my right -hon. frienid, does he come in? (My right bon. friend was modest at that time. He wats careful to exclude himself. He did not presume to stand along side of those - distinguished gentlemen as being equal to them in political stature. But he has changed -his attitude since. Here is another sentence from the speech -he delivered then, and I would call his attention particularly to it. He said:

There never was a clearer issue before the people than today. It is simply an issue of Union Government and a vigourous prosecution of the war, or Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Canada's virtual withdrawal from the war.
I think my hon. friend knew better than to say what he did say in reference to Sir Wilfrid Laurier at that time, but apart from that portion of the quotation, let me repeat what he said as to the issue itself:
It is simply an issue of Union Government and a vigorous prosecution of the war.
Is that the issue at the present time? I am sure my right hon. friend cannot lay claim to office in virtue of those terms. My right hon. friend concluded his speech with this reference which is interesting:
1	appeal to the people of Manitoba, I appeal to the people here, to give to this Government its mission, to the Prime Minister of this country his mission, to carry on. He is the man who will perform the task.
Now what was my right hon. friend aiming at in that remark, when he said that day, speaking about the Prime Minister, "He is the man?" He did not then say "I am the man"; but that is what he is saying to-day. He is telling the people of Canada to-day that the verdict which was given in 1917 was a mandate to him to carry on the Government of this country. Now I say that unless he is prepared to stand up and make that statement here, in the presence of his colleagues and the members of the House generally, neither he nor his Government has any authority to carry out what they propose to do and they are acting in direct violation of the spirit of the constitution of the country.
Mr. Speaker, there is a matter to which I wish particularly to refer in this connection. I notice that in the Speech of His Excellency to Parliament reference is made to the Customs Tariff. That reference begins:
My advisors are convinced of the necessity for the revision of the Customs Tariff.
Well, they have got along thus far but it has taken them a long time. We told them year after year there was need for that revision. It is interesting to notice that my right hon. friend now admits that there is need for revision; but I want to ask him by what right he and his ministry are presuming to undertake the revision of the tariff? That is the question that should be answered I think before we dis-cuse the tariff one way or another in this
House. My right hon. friend knows, or ought to know that when an appeal was made to the people of Canada in 1917 there were certain questions, certain subjects, which were expressly excluded from consideration by the electorate and by the Parliament that was to be returned that year. It was recognized it would not only be difficult but that it would be impossible to form a Government if certain questions were to be considered by the parliament then to be elected. The tariff was one of those questions and I now say to my right hon. friend that when the Government of 1917 was formed it was with the distinct understanding that the tariff would not be brought up in parliament under that administration. Therefore he has no right and no authority to introduce that subject for discussion at the present time; it should remain for the consideration of a parliament that is truly representative of the people of Canada.
Let me make perfectly clear to the House just how far my right hon. friend and the colleagues who were associated with him at that time went in expressly excluding the tariff from any consideration by this parliament. [DOT] I shall take first the speech that was delivered by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). Here is the statement of that hon. gentleman made at the meeting at which my right hon. friend was one of the speakers:
After I had taken my seat in the Cabinet, a friend of mine in Ontario, one of the most intelligent among the eastern farmers, met me in Toronto. The first thing he said to me was. "What concessions did you get on the tariff?" I told him that I had not got any, and that I had not asked any. That is not to say that I did not feel strongly on the tariff, but I feel that the present issue is not the tariff, but the winning of the War, and to prosecute that great purpose this Government has been formed, and old political opponents like the gentlemen you see here on the platform have struck hands across the Cabinet table of the nation and are going to guide the nation's destiny in this time of peril.
I ask my right hon. friend if he hears those words? Let me repeat them again:
That is not to say that I do not feel strongly on the tariff, but I feel the present issue is not the tariff but the winning of the war.
Could there be a clearer statement than that made by a member of the Government at the time? The hon. member for Marquette was speaking as a member of the Government. He was speaking as a member of the Government of which my right hon. friend was at the time a member, and he said at that time that the tariff would



not be considered. On the basis of that assurance he made his appeal to the electors of western Canada, and of other parts of the Dominion as well. In the face of that I ask my right hon. friend how can he presume to deny to the people of Canada the right to return a representative parliament to deal with that issue when the time comes for it to be taken up.
The hon. member for Marquette was not the only minister who spoke in that way at that time. A member of the present administration-the Minister of Immigration and Colonization -(Mr. Calder)-also gave his word to the electors of Canada as to what would be done by the administration.
I now ask my hon. friend (Mr. Calder) how he reconciles his remaining as a member of the Government which contemplates a revision of the tariff with the statements which I am about to read to him-statements made at a time when the Minister of Immigration and Colonization gave his word of honour as a public man to the people of Canada as to the grounds on which the administration should be returned in 1917. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization said:
It is because we are in the war,,and all that it means, that we three men happen to sit just where we are to-day. The one main issue is whether we are to carry on or not. We have simply consented to union for the immediate purpose of this war and the solution of the problems arising out of the war and we are prepared


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hear hon. gentlemen oppo-, site applauding the statement as to dealing with the issues that grew out of the war. Do hon. gentlemen opposite mean to say that the tariff is an issue that grew out of the war? If so they can place any issue under heaven in a similar category. If my hon. friend (Mr. Calder) now holds such a view, he surely entertains an entirely different mental attitude from what he did at the time to which I refer, when he declared that the tariff was to be excluded from consideration by the Government. In 1917 my hon. friend was very careful to say that the tariff would not be a matter to be considered.
My hon. friend (Mr. Calder) went on to say:
We were prepared for the time being to sink our differences of opinion in so far as many of the domestic and local problems which we have are concerned. We must do that to get union. Just imagine what would have happened if Mr. Crerar had sat down with Sir Thomas White to try and get together on questions of tariff.

Let me repeat: the hon. minister said:
Just imagine what would happen if Mr. Crerar had sat down with Sir Thomas White and tried to get together on the question of the tariff.
I ask my hon. friends opposite who applauded the idea of the tariff being an issue growing out of the war whether they will applaud that remark? Unless hon. gentlemen opposite are prepared to do so they have no right to presume that the tariff is a question with which they can deal to the exclusion of a parliament so empowered by the people. My hon. friend went on to say:
We would never have had Union if one of the requirements was that it had to be reached on the question of the tariff.
I ask my hon. friend, as a member of the present Government and as a member of the Government speaking at that time, whether he meant what he said on that occasion.


An hon. MEMBER:: He was only joking.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was my hon. friend telling the people the truth at that time or had he something else in his mind? Was he quite sincere in what he said then? I find difficulty in reconciling his utterances with his remaining at the present time in a ministry which is attempting to deal with the tariff. Let me read the sentence again:
We would never have had Union if one of the requirements was that it had to be reached on the question of the tariff.	_


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Who said that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Immigration and Colonization, the present President of the Privy Council. He went on to say:
We found it absolutely necessary on both sides, on the Conservative Party's part and our own, to sink all differences of opinion in connection with these domestic problems. So far as X am concerned, on the questions of tariff, banking, agricultural credit, land settlement, and all those problems affecting our western people, I stand where I stood three weeks ago, and I am certain my friend (Mr. Crerar) does not stand far from that position. But for the time being, we let them go by the board, and we go into this union with an entirely different purpose.
Again, may I ask, in the face of such an appeal to the electorate, the bonafides of which were vouched for by his presence on the platform, and with the Minister of Immigration and Colonization still one of the ministers in his own adihinistration, how dare my right hon. friend presume to say that his Government is justified in dealing with this all-important question, without first giving to the people of Canada

an opportunity to return to Parliament a House of Commons that will give a proper expression to their views?
At that time the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and my right hon. friend were standing side by side; to-day they are standing directly opposite to each other, taking directly opposite positions. And why did my hon. friend for Marquette leave the ministry of which he was a member? He left it because he felt it was formed for a particular purpose, and when that purpose was fulfilled, that was as far as it had any right or authority to go. He took exactly the same position that my hon. friend has taken here, that the tariff was not an issue with which this Parliament could deal one way or the other. Under these circumstances I ask my right hon. friend, when he retains in his cabinet a colleague who has given a pledge of that kind to the people, how does he presume to suggest to His Excellency that the tariff is a question for discussion at this particular session of Parliament?
But the honourable member for Marquette and the honourable the Minister of Immigration and Colonization were not the only speakers who expressly excluded legislation with respect to the tariff from the jurisdiction of the Unionist Government, or who gave assurances, which the Canadian public were justified in taking as final and authoritative, that the tariff would not be dealt with until some subsequent appeal were made to the electorate with specific reference to domestic issues. The right hon. the Prime Minister himself also spoke with special reference to the tariff. I have already quoted the nature of his appeal on the general issue. Here is what he had to say more particularly with reference to the tariff:
In time of peace we can afford to support a candidate with a reservation, but in time of war they are a menace to a nation. I make no imperious demands. I only ask the people of this country to see the issue as it is, and to rise to a certainty that a vote in opposition to the new administration is a vote which will imperil the conditions under which we work for the war. We ask from no man and from no woman a reversal or abnegation of his or her convictions on fiscal matters or tariff matters or any other subject.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says "hear, hear." I would ask him: Will he presume to say that his ministry in attempting to legislate on the tariff in the present session is not obliging the men and women of this country to forego an expression of their views on the
tariff question? If my right hon. friend will say that he intends to appeal to the people, then I am quite prepared to admit that he may not be denying them that right which he then said he would not take from them. But if he presumes in this session to attempt to deal with the tariff, the people will hold him guilty of as great a breach of faith as it is possible for a public man to commit.
We only ask that they postpone the prosecution of those opinions and convictions, and subordinate them to the infinitely greater necessity until we get through these abnormal times. This is all the appeal we make. The accepted basis of union was the only basis on which union was possible at the present time. What Mr. Calder, Mr. Crerar and I ask is that the people of this country unite on the same basis that the Government of the country united.
In the quotations I have cited, you have heard from the lips of the then Minister of Agriculture and the present Minister of Immigration and Colonization what the accepted basis of union was. They have both said that it expressly excluded any dealings with the tariff. My right hon. friend joins with them in an appeal on that ground. Again, I ask, how dare my right honourable friend presume to say that his Government is justified in dealing with this all-important question, without first giving to the people of Canada an opportunity to return to Parliament a House of Commons that will give a proper expression to their views?
Well, Mr. Speaker, one is almost at a loss to imagine what my right hon. friend can say in reply in view of the statements which I have just quoted.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Do not worry; you will know soon enough.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I know already what he will say. He and his colleagues in different parts of the country have apparently found it necessary to work out a defence for their position, they realize they are on the defensive in this matter, and when addressing different meetings they have attempted to make an explanation to the public, which they hope will be accepted. As far as I have been able to follow the remarks of my right hon. friend and his colleagues, there are broadly four grounds upon which an attempt will be made to justify the continuance of this Government. First of all he will seek refuge in the law and the constitution, in the limit of time permitted a Parliament by the British North America Act; in the right of a ministry to exist so long as it has

a following in the House of Commons, or, in other words, the plenary powers of Parliament to legislate as it pleases. Next, he will seek to defend his position on grounds of literal interpretation. He will contend that no pledge was given by the Government of my right honourable friend, the exPrime Minister, that it would hold office only for war purposes, or, to use his own words, that the Government "did not commit itself"; and, finally, he may make mention of personal considerations, and repeat what he has also said elsewhere, namely, that the Leader of the Opposition does not want a general election.
Let me briefly examine each of these several contentions. First, my right hon. friend will argue that his right is based on the law and the constitution. He *will no doubt quote to this House section 50 of the British North America Act, which is as follows:
Every House of Commons shall continue for five years from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer.
He will tell the people that inasmuch as Parliament has the right by the constitution to sit for five years, therefore it is entitled to sit for that length of period. Let me say to my right hon. friend, what I am sure he knows quite well, that a legal right does not constitute a legal or moral obligation to continue the term of Parliament for five years under the limit of time fixed by the constitution. More than that, as my right hon. friend knows, the main purpose of the constitution in limiting the time is to place a limit on ministries such as his, which would continue in office forever in the absence of any time limit.
If my right hon. friend will look to British parliamentary procedure, as well as to the procedure of our own Parliament in the past, he will find that the constitutional practice all along has been not to exhaust the full limit of time, but rather to have regard to the issues which come before the people, and to dissolve Parliament when the old issues have been settled and new issues arise. Let me cite to my right hon. friend by way of exact reference the British Parliamentary practice under a rule which is similar to ours.
There was a period when the time of the British Parliament was not limited; it could sit indefinitely. Then it became necessary to limit the parliamentary period, and it was first fixed, for seven and afterwards for five years, similar to the limit which is to be found in our own eonstitufMr. Mackenzie King.)
tion. The position in the case of the British Parliament under that legislation was exactly the same as the position of this Parliament under the British North America Act.
Before the Triennial Act, 1694 (6 Will an:! Mary C. 2) there was no constitutional limit to the continuance of Parliament but the will of the Crown. Under the Septennial Act, 1715 (1 Geo. 1st 2C. 38) it ceased to exist after seven years from the day on which, by the Writ of Summons, it was appointed to meet, a period which was reduced to five years by the Parliament Act, 1911-May's "Parliamentary Practice," 12th Ed., p. 53).
Now, let us examine for a moment the duration of the various British Parliaments from 1865 up to 1911, during which period the limit fixed by the constitution was seven years.
The Parliament elected in Great Britain in 1865 lasted for 2 years and 9 months.
The Parliament elected in 1868 lasted for
5	years and 1 month.
The Parliament elected in 1874 lasted for
6	years.
The Parliament elected in 1880 lasted for 5 years and 6 months.
The Parliament elected in 1885 lasted for 5 months.
The Parliament elected in 1886 lasted for 5 years and 10 months.
The Parliament elected in 1892 lasted for
2	years and 11 months.
The Parliament elected in 1895 lasted for 5 years and 1 month.
The Parliament elected in 1900 lasted for 5 years and 1 month.
The Parliament elected in 1906 lasted for
3	years and 11 months.
The Parliament elected in 1910 . (Jan.) lasted for 9 months.
The Parliament elected in December, 1910, passed the Parliament Act, 1911, which reduced the parliamentary period to five years. On account of the War, this period was extended from year to year, until after the termination of the War, and in December, 1918, a general election was held.
This record shows us that with one single exception no British Parliament from 1865 down to the present time has run within a year of the full period of the term allowed by the constitution. It shows, too, that about one half of all the parliaments that met in Great Britain subsequent to 1865 used only one half of the period of time provided by the time limit of the constitution. Why has that been the case? The answer is simply this: The spirit of the constitution is much more important than the letter of it. The letter of the constitution

provides a limit beyond which the term of Parliament may not run, but having regard to the rights of the people the parliaments of Great Britain have for the most part found it desirable and necessary to exhaust only about one-half, some of them two-thirds, of the full period which the constitution allows.
Take, next, the history of our own Parliament since Confederation. In Canada, notwithstanding the 5 year limit fixed by the British North America Act, the duration of the several Parliaments since Confederation, has been as follows:
The 1st Parliament dissolved July 8, 1872, 4 years, 9 months, 15 days.
The 2nd Parliament dissolved January 2, 1874, 1 year, 4 months.
The 3rd Parliament dissolved August 17, 1878, 4 years, 5 months, 24 days.
The 4th Parliament dissolved May 18, 1882,
3	years, 5 months, 27 days.
The 5th Parliament dissolved January 15, 1887, 4 years, 5 months, 8 days.
The 6th Parliament dissolved February 3, 1891, 3 years, 9 months,, 28 days.	1
The 7th Parliament dissolved April 24, 1896,
4	years, 11 months, 30 days.
The 8th Parliament dissolved October 9, 1900, 4 years, 2 months, 26 days.
The 9th Parliament dissolved September 29, 1904, 3 years, 11 months, 20 days.
The 10th Parliament dissolved September 17, 1908, 3 years, 11 months, 18 days.
The 11th Parliament dissolved July 29, 1911,
2	years, 10 months, 20 days.
The 12th Parliament (the War Parliament) dissolved October 6, 1917, 6 years, 3 months, 17 days.
The 13th Parliament, until February 14, 1921,
3	years, 3 months, 27 days.
The seventh Parliament ran to within one day of the time limit. There was in power at that time a Tory administration like the present, which was doomed, and the members of which knew it. I suppose my right hon. friend and his colleagues, being similarly situated will regard this as the precedent they should follow and will endeavour if possible to hold out, not to the last day but one, but the very last, if that is at all possible. The Thirteenth Parliament, this present Parliament, has lasted for three years and three months; it has already lasted longer than some of the other Parliaments which have assembled in Canada. The Parliament that was dissolved in 1908 lasted for three years and eleven months; the Parliament that was dissolved in 1911 had lasted for only two years and ten months.
These figures afford ground for some interesting reflections. In the first place, it will be observed that this very Parliament has already had a longer existence than the Parliament which was dissolved on July 29, 1911. The late Right Hon. Sir
Wilfrid Laurier had the same legal rights under the constitution as my Right Hon. friend. He had a much more powerful following in Parliament. His appreciation of the spirit of the British constitution and his sense of public duty and obligation to the electorate were, however, a little higher and keener than those of my right hon. friend. He recognized the rights of the people as superior to those afforded his Government under the constitution. He believed that Government should he carried on only with the consent of the governed. He dissolved Parliament to afford to the people their constitutional right of passing upon a great issue which was an issue other than that of the elections of 1908.
It will be further observed that the existing life of this Parliament, joined to that of its predecessor, already comes within less than three months of. exhausting the time limit of two consecutive Parliaments enjoying the full length of term permitted by the constitution: also that, already, it is within less than a year and three months of the duration of the preceding three Parliaments of the Liberal Administration.
When it is recalled that since 1911 the people of this country have had no opportunity to pass upon distinctly Canadian issues, and that in the interval men who fought for their country overseas have been denied all privilege of even hearing these issues discussed at a general election, that only a fraction of the women of the country have had a voice in government though all have since been admitted to the franchise; that hundreds of thousands of citizens were disfranchised in 1917; and that practically all young men between the ages of 21 and 31 have never yet had opportunity of recording their votes with respect to matters of vital domestic concern, the injustice to the electorate, of attempting further to prolong the life of this Parliament, must be apparent to all.
If we are to have regard for the spirit of the constitution, rather than the letter, it is perfectly clear that it is 'the rights of the people, with respect to important national issues, which is- the determining factor in deciding the length of time fox which a Parliament should sit-issues upon which a ministry has been returned to power, and new issues upon which the people have a right to be consulted, and to make their will known. Clearly, the spirit of the constitution demands at the present time, both as respects the issue upon which the Government of 1917 was

returned to power, and which has ceased to be an issue, and the domestic problems which have .arisen in this post-war period, and which present new and far-reaching considerations requiring immediate solution, that the present Parliament should not exhaust the period of time which the legal limit permits, but that the people should be entitled without further delay to an expression of their will at the polls.
The next contention of my right honourable friend will be that Parliament is supreme; that so long as the Government is in a position to command a majority in the House of Commons, it is all-powerful, and that its rights and powers to legislate cannot be curtailed in any particular.
Here, again, may I say that no one will question the supremacy of Parliament where Parliament is duly constituted. But once more, it is to tbe spirit of the constitution, not to the letter of the law, that, in existing circumstances, we must look for a fair and just interpretation of the rights and duties of Parliament.
The theory of the supremacy of Parliament, as it is understood in our day, is based upon the assumption that Parliament represents the will of the people as expressed through representation effected under a	franchise which preserves the people in their full right of control over Parliament. Will my right hon. friend maintain that such can be said of the existing representation in this House of Commons? No one knows quite so well as my right hon. friend that tbe franchise under which the representation of the present Parliament was effected was anything but of that nature; that, as a matter of fact, it was a franchise so framed and brought into being and administered as to constitute the worst betrayal of the rights of the people which this country has ever known. Except that the nation was at war at the time, it would not have been tolerated even by those who were ready to profit by its unjust provisions, and their still more unjust manipulation at home and across the seas.
What was the ground upon which the late Sir Wilfrid, then leader of the Opposition, and the Liberals in Parliament consented to an extension of the term of Parliament for one year in 1916? It was that the rights of the people in the matter of their control over Parliament were in no particular being abridged. Sir Wilfrid made it very clear and distinct that he would not consent to an extension-and the Prime Minister had already said that he

would not attempt to get an extension unless Sir Wilfrid Laurier agreed to it-if the people were being robbed of their control over Parliament one way or the other.
Here are the late Sir Wilfrid's words as expressed at that time:
I would observe, first of all, that it is not proposed here to alter the principle of the constitution. It is not proposed to override the control which the people have over Parliament. It is simply proposed to suspend for the time being the operation of the constitution. If it were proposed to make away altogether with that principle which is embodied in the constitution, certainly I would oppose such an attempt with all my might. But no such thing is proposed. This measure simply proposes that the constitution shall be suspended for twelve months, at the expiration of which time it will resume its full force.
Well, how were the rights of the people in the matter of their control over Parliament secured at that time? One instrument was the then existing franchise, embodied in the Dominion Elections Act, 1898, under which the Government of the day, as well as its predecessors of an opposite political faith, had been returned to power. Is it conceivable that Sir Wilfrid Laurier ' and those who surrounded him at the time, would have agreed to the extension had they believed that during the period of that extension the people would have been robbed in so large measure of the provisions of a law specially framed to preserve them in their right of control over Parliament; that in its stead an Act would be placed on our statutes which would take away from thousands of electors whose approval of the extension was taken for granted on grounds of patriotism at the time it was made, the political rights of citizens which they then enjoyed; and give to other thousands of women, specially favoured, political rights not previously enjoyed and withheld from all other loyal and devoted women in the country.
When the Franchise Act as it existed at the time the extension of Parliament took place, was changed, the representative character of Parliament was doomed from the very outset, and the Parliament which was returned under the different election Acts, Acts framed for war purposes, cannot be said to represent the will of the people at the present time. I think my right hon. friend must admit that the franchise under which this Parliament was returned was a franchise framed only for war purposes. The two Acts under which this particular Parliament has come into being are the War-time Elections Act and the Military Voters' Act. Under the War-time Elec-

tions Act, rights were, as I 'have said, taken away from large numbers of people of this country; they were disfranchised; they lost their control of Parliament. Since that time they have been taxed without any representation in Parliament one way or the other, so that there has been a direct violation of the spirit of the constitution in that regard. I will not enlarge upon the different iniquities of that measure, but amongst the Government's own supporters of the day it would never have passed except for the fact that we were in the midst of a war at that time and the War-time Elections Act was excused as a war measure for war purposes only. How can my right hon. friend contend that a Parliament returned under a measure such as that can be of a representative character at the present time?
The Military Voters' Act was a measure passed by this Parliament for'the purpose, not of defeating the will of the electorate, but of giving expression to it. My right hon. friend knows, perhaps more than anyone else in this House, that that Act was used to effect the representation in this particular Parliament. I shall spare the House a recital of that disgraceful chapter in our national history, whereby advantage was taken of the Military Voters' Act to coerce, in the matter of their political rights, thousands of the young men of this country who were serving their country and the cause of freedom overseas, and whereby their votes, together with the votes of hundreds of men and women who had never seen Canada, were poured by emissaries of the Government into specially selected constituencies, with no object other than that of ensuring the defeat of candidates opposed to the Administration, a course of action which, by the way, has been openly defended and commended by my right hon. friend on the very floor of Parliament. My right hon. friend knows quite well that there are sitting in this House of Commons to-day many members who would not be sitting here at the present time if the election had taken place under the old Dominion Franchise Act instead of under those particular Acts.
Unless we have a representative Parliament, what becomes of any theory of the supremacy of Parliament? The supremacy of Parliament is based in every particular upon the circumstance that Parliament is supposed to be truly representative of the will of the people. I have not, however, mentioned these two particular measures for the purpose of enlarging upon the
iniquities which helped to disgrace the record of our Canadian history at the time; my 'purpose is to draw the attention of Parliament to the circumstance that both those Acts have been repealed, and that we have at the present time upon the Statutes a new Franchise Act which was passed by this Parliament at the last session. The meaning of that is simply this, that this Parliament recognized that the franchise under which the members of the present Parliament had been returned was not a franchise which adequately represented the views of the people of this country at the present time. They recognized that that was a franchise permissible only for war purposes and that its ends were served when the war was over. When we have a new Franchise Act passed by this Parliament which gives the right of the ballot to thousands of citizens who had not that right previously, for the Government to continue to carry on in view of the support that it is getting from representation effected under those old methods, constitutes,
I maintain, a direct usurpation of popular government in this country.
That brings me to the third point on which I think my right hon. friend has already attempted to justify his carrying on of the Government of the country. He has attempted to justify it on a literal interpretation of what was said in the campaign of 1917. He has said that the then Prime Minister gave no pledge at that time; that the Government of that day did not commit itself. That line of defence implies such colossal deception that I do not think any ministry could feel itself so unworthy as to come before the people on such a ground.
Does my right hon. friend wish it to be assumed that when he and his distinguished predecessor in the high office of Prime Minister of Canada were appealing in the name of patriotism to men and women of all classes to forget party and party considerations, when they were appealing to mothers for their support that an end might the more speedily be made to the sacrifice of their sons, and the slaughter of human lives, that all the time they were cherishing a mental reservation which looked beyond the winning of the war to personal aggrandizement and the maintenance of political power when the war was won, regardless altogether of the nature of their appeal. The thought is too abhorrent even to entertain. I refuse to believe any thing so unworthy of my fellow countrymen, and least of all of those who have come to occupy a distinguished position in our public life.

I do not wish to take up too much time in discussing this matter further. I might, however, direct the attention of my right hon. friend to a very important circumstance, namely, that fortunately some of his former colleagues in the late ministry view their obligations to the people in a different way from that in which he is prepared to view his obligations at present. We have had five resignations by Liberal members of the previous ministry, and I think all of them have been on the ground that the hon. members who resigned felt that when they entered the Unionist administration the public believed they were entering a war administration and that when that administration had served its purpose, their right to continue longer in office was at an end. On June 4, 1919, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) resigned; on August 2, 1919, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Carvell) resigned; on January 1, 1920, the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mew-burn) , then Minister of Militia and Defence, resigned; on February 23, 1920, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) resigned, and on July 8, 1920 the then President of the Privy Council, the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell) resigned. All of these gentlemen have read their obligations to the people in terms wholly different from those in which my right hon. friend is reading his obligations at the present time. They, at least, did not have any mental reservations one way or the other in what they were leading the people to believe at the time they entered the Unionist administration and appealed to the country.
I have mentioned certain members of the late Government who have read their obligation in a different way. There is one other member of the Government that I should like to quote in the matter of obligation, because he happens to be a member of my right hon. friend's administration. I think there are only two of the original so-called Liberal members of the day who went into the Union Administration who are now in my right hon. friend's ministry.
I have here a quotation from a speech made by my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) in this Parliament at the time the hon. member for Marquette resigned from the Government, and perhaps it will be worth while to give it just to show how my hon. friend viewed the matter of resignations at that time. Here is what he said (Hansard, p. 3341): Let me ask hon. members of this House what would be the consequences if we all followed 
the course taken by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). Suppose the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) resigned, and the President of the Privy 'Council (Mr. Rowell), and the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Maclean), and myself and others should resignat which point there was some interruption, when my hon. friend continued:
Do not he too sure, my friends, the task of carrying on government in this country and the responsibilities thaifc are thrown upon public men are not so alluring as some hon. gentlemen seem to think. I say that if those resignations did take place there would 'immediately be a political crisis in this country, and one thing, and one thing only, could happen: either the Prime Minister would have to appeal to the country, or he would have to advise the Governor General to call upon my friend who leads the Opposition to form a new Government.

(Hansard, p. 3341).
Well, all these resignations, and others, save alone that of my hon. friend, have taken place. Are we to assume, then, that he is the slender thread on which the fate of the ministry hangs; that it is to his presence in the ministry we owe the aversion of a political crisis, and the one thing and one thing only that could happen? If that be so, let me assure my hon. friend that the greatest service he can render the country is to drop out of the ministry just as speedily as possible.
I come now to-the last mentioned of the arguments enunciated, namely, that the leader of the Opposition himself does not desire an election. I would hesitate to make mention of this contention, since it is so puerile, were it not that my right hon. friend himself has put it forward on different occasions, and one or two of his colleagues have busied themselves whispering it about.
What, may I ask, have my wishes or desires to do with this matter, or, for that matter, the wishes or desires of my right hon. friend, or any other member of this House on either side of you, Mr. Speaker?
It is not a matter of wish or desire; it is a matter of right and duty: the right of the people to self-government, and the duty of their representatives in Parliament to be scrupulous in the defence of that right whenever it appears to be infringed. It is the basis of all our liberty, and our one sure defence against arbitrary behaviour and revolutionary tendencies in matters of government.
My right honourable friend says he has been all over Canada and has heard no demand for a general election. That only proves that his hearing is not as good as my own. I may tell him that I also have

crossed the Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and everywhere I have gone, it is the one demand I have heard.
But if he has not heard it, perhaps he has seen it in the record of the by-elections which have been held since the termination of the War. They reveal an overwhelming public opinion against the Government.
Whilst a general election has been refused the by-elections show an overwhelming public opinion against the Government. The Government's record in the by-elections is a tale of defeat, a story, for the most part, of enormous majorities wiped out, and enormous majorities recorded against them. Since the armistice was signed there have been in all sixteen by-elections. These are divisible into three groups: by-elections of hon. members opposite who are in the ministry ; by-elections held in constituencies that were won by the Liberals in 1917; and by-elections in constituencies that were won by the Unionist Administration in 1917.
Take the case first of by-elections of Ministers. We all know that constituencies normally are gratified to see their members made Ministers of the Crown. It requires a strong wave of popular indignation to defeat a minister; usually his return is by acclamation. That was so in the case of my honourable friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). It was recognized by the country that at this, of all times, it was important the country should have a Minister of Finance, and that he should be as free from embarrassment in the discharge of his duties as possible. So my honourable friend from Kingston was permitted to take his seat unopposed. It was not the same, however, with the other honourable ministers. In the case of my honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, (Mr. Tolmie) his majority as a Minister was reduced, in the city of Victoria, from 8,764 which he obtained when returned as a private member, to 2,134 when returned with the prestige of a Minister. In the case of the present Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue (Mr. Wigmore) as my hon. friends know, he was only opposed at the last moment and a good deal was said and promised by my hon. friend and others to encourage the electors of that constituency during the campaign. His majority was reduced, in the city of St. John and the counties of St. John and Albert, from 7,917 when returned as a private member, to 4,155 when returned as a Minister of the Crown. Then, in the case of the present Minister of Public Works, (Mr. McCurdy) in the
county of Colchester he was elected by acclamation as a private member in 1917; but in the by-election, running as a member of the present Administration, he was strongly opposed.
Let it not be forgotten that in the case of all the ministerial by-elections, the Government had the choosing of the constituencies and the opening of all of them. They were careful to select what they conceived to be their strongholds in the respective provinces. In all these elections, they only retained seats previously held.
Coming now to by-elections of the second group, what does the record show? In the case of constituencies won by the Liberals in 1917, not one has been lost.
There was the constituency of Prince, P.E.I., which was contested in the general elections. The by-election there was won by acclamation. In Quebec East an election was fought in 1917*, but the Government did not dare to put up a candidate against my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) in the by-election. In Kamouraska, where there had been an election in 1917, my hon. friend (Mr. Stein) was returned by acclamation in the by-election. In St. James, Montreal, in that great metropolis and industrial centre, my hon. friend (Mr. Rinfret) was elected without opposition from a Government candidate.
That is the record in regard to the voice of the people in the case of hon. members who were returned for constituencies held by the Liberals in 1917. Contrast that with the constituencies won by the Government in 1917 and see what the voice of the people is when it gets the only expression possible. We have been denied general elections but the by-elections serve to give some indication of the will and wishes of the people.
There have been eight by-elections held in constituencies that were won by the Government in 1917.
Of the eight they have retained one, and lost seven. The one retained was Yale. In the by-election which was held in that constituency this year the Government ' received only 389 of a majority, whereas their candidate, a minister, in the general election in 1917, had been returned by acclamation. That is all they received. Now what about the other constituencies? Here are the results so far as the Government is concerned. In Glengarry and Stormont an election was held on the 27th of October, 1919. In the general elections of 1917 the Government's candidate was returned by acclamation: in the by-election there was a majority vote of 2,376 against the Government. In Assiniboia the Government's can-

didate received, in the election of 1917, a majority of 4,524. In the by-election there was no Government candidate. In Vic-toria-Carleton where in the general election of 1917 a Minister was returned by acclamation, there was a majority against the Government in the by-election on October 27th, 1919, of 3,544. In Timis-kaming, in the elections of 1917, the Government candidate was returned by a majority of 2,150. In the by-election on April 7th, 1920, there were three candidates running ; the Government candidate came in at the foot of the poll, a total vote of 5,316 having been registered against him. In North Ontario, in the general elections, the Government candidate received a majority of 1,555 while in the election on December 9, 1919, the Government lost the constituency which was carried by an Opposition candidate by a majority of 185.
Now we come to the period since the assumption of office by my right hon. friend. Two by-elections have been held since he has become Prime Minister in each of which he has made a special appeal to the people for support and confidence in his government. In 1917 the Government candidate in the constituency of East Elgin received a majority of 308. In the by-election, as my hon. friend will remember, there were three candidates running, and the total majority against the Government was 2,263. Then there is West Peterborough, in which there were five candidates. In that riding the Government candidate, in the election of 1917, had a majority of 3,418. In the election just concluded, as rrty right hon. friend knows, the combined majority of the four candidates against the Government was 7,331.
I ask my right hon. friend to say whether it is possible to have a plainer expression of public opinion than that evidenced in these several by-elections?
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that since the armistice Canada is the only country among the nations of the British Empire [DOT] and among the countries that torm the associated and allied powers wherein the Government has denied to its people the right of a general election in order that they might return a representative parliament?
I think my right hon. friend, if he has not given attention to that aspect of the question, will find it perhaps the most serious of all. Of all the self-governing countries that compose the British Empire, including the United Kingdom, the governments have permitted their people, since the armistice,

to return representative parliaments. The people of Canada alone have been denied that right by their government. Of all the countries of the allied and associated powers, that took part in the war, this is the only one in which the people have not been accorded the right of returning a representative Parliament. Not only that, Sir; 'even countries in the Orient and in South America, even enemy countries, have given to their peoples the right to choose representative parliaments since the signing of the armistice.
Let me give my right honourable friend the record in this respect. In the United Kingdom a general election was held in
1918.	Is the example of the British Parliament not one worthy of being emulated here? The people in the Old Country were not more interested in after war conditions than we are. The Government that had been formed and carried on in England during the war was a Unionist Administration, but the Prime Minister of England had a very different sense of obligation to the people from that which my right honourable friend has shown, because he did not lose any time before he gave the people a right to return a new parliament to deal with post-war questions. In Australia a general election was held in December, 1919. Are the people of Canada so inferior to those of Australia that they cannot be given the same right to return a representative parliament? Are they not to be trusted as much as the Australians to choose representatives who will do their duty by the public? Come to New Zealand. General elections were held there in December, 1919. Again, I ask, are the people of this Dominion not to be given the same right as the people of New Zealand in this respect? What about South Africa, the latest country to come within the Empire? South Africa has had not one but two elections since the signing of the armistice. The first election was held in February, 1920, and the other has been concluded within the past week. Are our people so inferior in calibre and in appreciation of the rights and duties of citizenship, so incapable of administering their own affairs, that they are not to be trusted in the same way as the citizens of South Africa? Take the island of Newfoundland. It had its general elections in November, 1919. Why should our people be denied that right?
Now, let us go outside of the British Empire and look at the nations that compose the allied and associated powers.

Franee suffered in the war, and she has her post-war problems to deal with. She had a general election in November, 1919. Italy had a general election in November, 1919; Belgium had a general election in November, 1919; The United States had a general election in November, 1920. Japan had a general election in November, 1920. Every one of the countries that comprise the allied and associated powers has given to its people rights which have been denied the people of this country by the present administration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Even Mexico has given the people that right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Even Mexico, as my honourable friend states. But we may go further and say even China. China in 1917 had a general election; Argentina in 1918; Denmark in 1918 and 1920; and Greece and Germany in 1920. Yet my right hon. friend denies the citizens of this country rights which even enemy countries have granted their peoples.
In addition to that, there is not a single province in this Dominion-with the exception of Alberta and Saskatchewan which provinces had their elections a little prior to the signing of the Armistice-that has not had an election since the signing of the Armistice. The electors throughout the country are the same people, for Federal purposes, and if the Provincial Governments have found it possible to appeal to the people, on what ground does my right hon. friend presume to say that the electorate of Canada, taken collectively, are not to be accorded the same right.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to tell me when the elections took place in Saskatchewan and Alberta?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I stated, but the Prime Minister apparently did not hear me, that all the provinces had held their elections shortly after the Armistice, with the exception of Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Arthur Meighen: I did not hear the hon. gentleman state the exception.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The elections in Alberta and Saskatchewan, I believe, were held in July 1917.


Arthur Meighen: This House was elected in December, 1917.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but I am speaking now of the period subsequent to the signing of the Armistice. It was a short time before the signing of the Armistice when these particular provinces had their elections.
Does my right hon friend think that the people of the different provinces are so inferior that they are not to be entitled to a general election? The Government of which he is the head is denying to the people of Canada rights which every Government that has a real appreciation of its duty to the people, has long since conceded. May I say to my right hon. friend that I think he will find that the only Governments which have not allowed their people a general election are those of Canada and Russia.
My right hon. friend, in his public addresses, has had a good deal to say about Bolshevism. He seems to regard all those who are not of his way of thinking as Bolshevist. Let me ask him what is Bolshevism other than the usurpation of government by a group, through some act of violence which defies the laws, usages, and customs which constitutional procedure has devised to preserve representative institutions. So long as the Consequences, in robbing the people of their rights, are the same, it matters but little what the method employed may be. The only fundamental difference between the usurpation of the powers of popular government in Russia and its usurpation by the present administration in Canada, is that in Russia physical violence has been the instrument used by the usurpers to effect their purpose, while in Canada it has been legislative violence.
When a comparison of this kind is even remotely possible, it is evidence, Mr. Speaker, of the lengths we have drifted away from the spirit of our constitution, from the responsible self-government which is the very foundation of our political freedom. .
It was not alone our Parliament buildings which suffered partial destruction during the period of the war; our parliamentary institutions suffered destruction in large measure along with the rest. Customs usages and practices, intended to preserve the free, representative, self-governing character of our Parliament and the responsible character of its ministry, were one by one temporarily set aside, one by one ignored, until to-day we are witnessing open defiance of the most fundamental of all principles of free government, namely: the right of the people to control their own Parliament.
What matters it if we preserve the form and letter of the law and of the constitution if the spirit is lacking? "for the letter kil-leth but the Spirit giveth life".

We have reconstructed our Parliament Building's and made of them a glorious edifice, of which as a nation we are justly proud. But unless we can restore the spirit of our forefathers, which made the constitution what it is; unless we can make of these halls of parliament a citadel of a people's liberties, we will have erected over the sacrifices of the war only a whited sepulchre, a thing in form and appearance outwardly beautiful, but within a charnel house of disillusionment full of intrigues and deceptions, full of broken pledges, of shattered ideals, of lost visions, of vanished faiths, and containing the seeds of a nation's decay.
What is it, Mr. Speaker, that works havoc in human lives, that destroys the noblest of friendships, that blights all that is most sacred in our human relations? It is the loss of confidence that comes through disillusionment, through the broken pledges, the shattered ideals, the lost visions, the vanished faiths. Cruel, indeed, it is when that breach in confidence comes between man and man, between friend and friend, between race and race, between nation and nation; but when it comes between a people and its Government, there is no saying what injury it may ultimately work.
What we need to-day is to seek to restore to the people faith in our parliamentary institutions, through conceding their right of control over the Parliament of the country. We know that there are rights under the law; that there are powers under the constitution; these we are prepared to concede to the limit. But is there no such thing in our national economy as public morality? Is there nothing binding in conscience and in honour between those who rule a people and those who have permitted them to rule?
The people know, they do not have to be informed upon the grounds of the support given by them to Union Government in 1917. It was demanded of them in words of patriotism; it was engraven upon their hearts in terms of human sacrifice. Confidence in the patriotic motives of the members of the Government was the essence of their support. That confidence has gone. The people thought they were returning patriots to power. They find in office to-day only office seekers, and office holders, those who love the loaves and the fishes, who make broad their phylacteries, who enlarge the border of their garments, who love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and

greetings in the markets, who make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within are full of extortion and excess.
Confidence in government, Mr. Speaker, will never be restored till the people regain the control over Parliament and the executive which they have lost. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by my hon. friend the member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) that the following be added to the Address:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's present advisers do not possess the. confidence of this House or of the country, and that their retention of office constitutes a usurpation of the powers of popular government.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, a few moments remain before six o'clock in which I may at least undertake the task of complimenting, in terms and in spirit sincere, the efforts of the mover and seconder of this Address, and of acknowledging some of the personal references that have passed from the previous speakers.
The mover of the Address has not only done credit to himself and to his province, but has contributed to this debate a literary charm that constitutes, to the present point at least, one of its main excellences. The seconder is a new member, and I only speak the mind of all the hon. members here when I say that he has disclosed an ability and a grasp of Canadian affairs that constitute him at once a real asset to Parliament, an acquisition to debate, and an honour to his constituency and to his province.
I have to thank both of them for their kindly references to my accession to this office, and having done that, I pass to acknowledge, in the spirit in which I know it was meant, the very generous terms in which personally the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) referred to myself, and to the hope he expressed that the conflicts of parliamentary life and debate will not disturb the long standing friendship that has existed between us, nor in any way perturb the amenities of our personal, or, indeed, of our public intercourse. I am under no temptation whatever at the present time to believe that his hope will not be realized to the full.
I have known the leader of the Opposition for, I think, something over a quarter of a century. I think I understand his public opinions and I think I can clearly get the meaning of his speeches; and I assure him here and now that if the essential humour of his addresses is always to be so thinly

covered by a veil of argument and satire, as it was this afternoon our relations will never be distured in Parliament.
In the meantime, until the House resumes the debate, I will attempt to discover and then to answer what there is of matter in his address.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Right Hon./.ARTHUR MEIGHEN (continuing) : Mr. Speaker, my desire is to extract as fairly as I can what there is of substance in the speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King) in the way of an attack on the position assumed by the present Government-to extract it and place it before the House in such form that at least the House can understand what .the attack means and what was the argument by which it was sought to support that attack. I will have to drag the substance from under a mass of hyperbole, but the effort must be made.
I may have the aspiration-but if I have I certainly have not the talent-to rival my hon. friend in the power of declamation, a power that he has exercised throughout most of his life and which he has brought to some degree of perfection. All I aim to do in my humble way is to place before this House, in understandable terms, and through this House, before the country, the position this Government honestly takes; and the position which it believes it is in duty bound to take in the interests of the people.
My hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) places before the House an amendment to the Address, in which he declares that this Government, has not the confidence of this House. Well, if that is the whole purpose of the amendment, it has no purpose at all. If the motion for the Address is defeated, that means that the House has no confidence in the Government. So the first question that arises in one's mind is: Why is this motion before the House at all? Why is this amendment here? It serves no purpose in the world-that is to say, so far as getting an expression of opinion on the part of this House is concerned as to confidence in the Government. I do not think I will proceed very far before the House will understand just what my hon. friend had in mind in. bringing up this naked amendment for discussion. It was not so much to throw an issue into Parliament as to see that Parliament did not get an issue at all.
Last session we had this same amendment-or, rather, we had an amendment calling for a dissolution, which my hon. friend says is still his persistent object and purpose. But he had the grace last session to embody in the amendment some reasons why in his judgment dissolution should take place. Last session he read the following as the reasons why the House should dissolve and an appeal to the people should be made:
The regrettable protracted absence of the Prime Minister, the "widely accepted belief that it is not his intention to return to the duties of his office, the makeshift arrangements for the direction of important departments to which no minister has been regularly appointed, the attempt to carry on the public business when the three eastern Maritime Provinces are entirely unrepresented in the Cabinet-these and other things-
The other things being all unspecified

-operate to produce a condition of uncertainty and instability from which a vigorous and efficient administration of the Dominion's affairs cannot be expected.
And those reasons are absent from this amendment. Why? Because they all ceased to be true. The very opposite is the fact in every instance, and my hon. friend, in search for some reasons that he could append to and embody in his amendment, finds none at all; so he simply comes forward with no reasons and states that the House should express its lack of confidence in the Government.
He wants to know by what right this Government is in office. By the sane right that every government is in office in Canada to-day or has ever been in office in this country-by the right of the confidence of a majority of the Parliament elected by a majority of the people. My hon. friend thought we had no right to be in office last session, but on every vote the government was sustained by a large majority, particularly on the vote in which he wished to declare that a dissolution should take place, "Oh", he says, "you may have a majority in Parliament, but you should not be there because you have a new Prime Minister and a new Government". Did not all the members of the old Government, he says, go out of office with the Prime Minister? Why certainly they did. Did they not all declare allegiance to the new Prime Minister and the new Government and take the oath of office again? Certainly

they did; that is the case with the advent of every new Prime Minister in the history of every country. That was the case in the instance recited by my hon. friend of Sir John Abbott and Sir John Thompson. It was also the case when the present member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) resigned the post of Premier of Nova Scotia and was succeeded by Mr. Murray. It was the case when Mr. Hardy became Premier of Ontario. It Was the case when Mr. Martin, the present Premier of Saskatchewan took office there. It was the case when Mr. Stewart, the present Premier of Alberta, took office in that Province. It was the case when Mr. Oliver, the present Premier of British Columbia, took office in his Province. In every case all the members of the old government went out when a new government came in.
But, my hon. friend says, I would concede you the right if only in point of character, in point of purpose and in point of aim you agreed with the government whose place you took. Well, I tell my hon. friend that in point of character, in point of purpose, and in point- of aim, we are in full accord and harmony with the government we succeeded, in every respect and to the last jot and tittle. In purpose and in policy we are the same. In every respect we are a continuation of that government-in every respect in which Mr. Hardy's government was a continuation of that of Sir Oliver Mowat; in every respect in which Mr. Murray's government was a continuation of that of the hon. Mr. Fielding at that time; in every respect in which Mr. Martin's government is a continuation of the government of Mr. Walter Scott. In all these respects we follow in the direct line of the government whose place we take in office. Did my hon. friend refer to the policy of this government in seeking to show that there was a divergence and departure from the course pursued by the late administration? He never refered to policy at all. ;The policy is published and is well known; in no particular does it diverge; in no particular is there a departure; this Government is a legitimate successor and continuation of the government which it succeeded.
What, then, does my hon. friend resort to in order to show that we have no right to be in office notwithstanding the fact that we enjoy the confidence of a majority of Parliament and notwithstanding that our term of office is still some two years from its expiration? "Oh," he said, "you

came into office in 1917 on the basis of a union, and you are a union no more." I try to put it in some understandable form. He argued, in substance: You are not, in point of the constitution of your government, in line with, in accord with, or the same as, the Government you succeeded. Well, how do we differ? He reads the names of members of the Government who have gone-members of the Government led by the hon. member for King's N.S. (Sir Robert Borden) and shows that some of them have retired from office; and he wants to know how it is that we assume the virtues of those who have retired. Well, really, I am not able to put that in understandable form at !all. It is true that some have retired from office; I suppose six or seven or eight have done so. But of all those who have retired, only one, retired because of any difference in principle or policy from the Government from which he departed-only one who after his retirement failed to support the Government of which he had been a member, and did not continue the support of that Government in this House. Because men retire from office feeling that for reasons of their own they cannot longer give the kind of public service and the great labor required of public office, does that mean that the character of the Government	is altered?	Does	that meanthat the	Government	lacks	public	confidence?	Why, one	might just	aswell argue that if a	member of	the
Government dies it is evidence that public confidence is gone. Never in the history of this country has 'a government sat in office with so many ex-ministers of the Crown sitting behind it in full accord with its policies and principles. And, forsooth, that is the government my hon. friend refers to in language of unparalleled exaggeration as composed of merely office-seekers and office-holders, eager to draw the salaries of ministers of the Crown, filled with all manner of scriptural vices and extortion and excess. Rather than draw the fruits of office and engage in the responsibility and continued labours that the enjoyment of office entails, there have gone from this Government, one after another, men who are not only in full accord with the policy of the Administration, and with all members of the Administration, but whose belief and expressed belief it was that the duty of the Government was to carry on as before.
My hon. friend tells us that in 1917 when this Government was elected, the issue was

the carrying on of the war, and he is right. That was the great issue of the 1917 contest, not only great but overwhelmingly great: that was the issue that overshadowed all others, and in the main was the reason for the vast popular majority which this Government succeeded in obtaining. But does that mean that this Government has no duty save to carry on the war? But if it had no duty save what my hon. friend himself is willing to accord it, namely the duty of dealing with the problems of war and the problems that succeed and grow out of the war, this Government's duty is not yet done. Is there an hon. member who will argue that we in Canada are even substantially past the problems of the war? There is not a problem that confronts us now, not a difficulty that we have to surmount, not a mountain that we have to scale, that is not placed where it is and is not of the magnitude that it is by reason of the war, and is not directly, in point of character and origin, related to the problems of the war and growing out of the war itself. Is re-establishment complete? I agree, very much has been done; I believe more has been achieved in this country than in any other. But to say that all the problems of re-establishment are solved is to utter language that undoubtedly argues a lack of acquaintance with conditions in Canada at this hour. But, though the war and the problems of the war were the first duty of the Government, though the carrying on of the war was the great overwhelming issue in the contest that elected this Government, the duties of this Government were just as wide and sweeping in their scope, just as inclusive of everything that pertains to Government in Canada as were the duties of any Government ever entrusted with power. In the platform on which we appealed to the electors in 1917, though it was set out in the plainest terms that the carrying on of the war was the great purpose of that campaign, there are no less than thirteen or more other distinct duties which the Government set itself to perform; some of them related to the war, many of them only remotely related to the war, many of them not so much connected with the war as are the problems that now confront us. This Government set itself the task of carrying those duties out.
Was this Government absolved from the duty, yea, the necessity, of dealing with every question that ordinarily comes within the scope of the functions of a Government? If we were so circumscribed, if we were so restrained, who was to carry on this work who was to be responsible? Was nobody to attend to it? Did we not have to attend to it? " Ah," my hon. friend says; " you have no business to touch the tariff at all; you should not touch anything except something connected with the war." Does he know that during the very first year after the Government was elected and while the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) was a member of the Government and all the elected members of the Government were there, the tariff was affected, the tariff was, indeed, reduced? And the following year the same? In every year of our existence the necessities of the tariff situation were attended to. No general revision was brought on, but that was because the time had not come when a general revision could be made with advantage to this country, when the necessary information could be obtained and when we would be in a position to lay before Parliament the terms of a revision that would be sufficiently studied and thought out. But in relation not only to the tariff, but to every other subject, the Government had dealt with these problems in the same way as it would deal with the war or any problem arising out of the war. It is true that in the concert of principles upon which the members of the Government came to common ground in the fall of 1917 we did not then agree on any matters of permanent tariff policy for Canada, and the words of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) quoted by my hon. friend this afternoon were true and apt words: they spoke no more than what was the fact. But because it was not necessary to agree upon that issue for the purpose of union at that time, did that preclude us from agreement at any time on what should be the lines of tariff .policy in this country during the constitutional term of office of this Government? The Minister of Immigration and Colonization did not say so. My hon. friend himself never thought so until very lately. Why, when, did it occur to him that this Parliament had no right to deal with the tariff? That is a new thought that was born in his mind in the course of the Peterborough election. Will the House believe that it is not yet twelve months since the Leader of the Opposition seconded a motion in this House demanding that the Government deal with the tariff at once? But let me come back to the argument that I did not fully complete, namely, that the composition of the Government is different in that those who

came from the Liberal party are not so numerous as they were before. My hon. friend quotes some six or seven; he claims, I think, that there were eight who were there. Well there are five to-day, and there is one who has been deceased for only a very few days, so that it seems to me it is straining a little too much to say that a reduction from eight to six is such a breach of the whole constitution of this country that we are landed now in chaos.
When my hon. friend was being carried away with the magnificence of his own declamation, particularly in those last fifty awful sentences, surely the thought came to his mind-and if it did not, it must have come to the minds of many of those who sit around him-that he was overdrawing the picture; that even if everything he had argued for was right, even if the little points he made had driven him to the conclusion that he sought, he had wholly overstated the consequence and so grossly exaggerated it that it was becoming pretty close to the absurd. Is the whole moral structure of this country going to go to pieces, because a Government retains office when Parliament has by no means run its full term but when in the main the great issue upon which it was elected has been decided? Even if he is right in his contention, does it necessarily follow that there has been some terrible, vicious, vile, and permanently destructive act perpetrated against the people of the country?
But in the first place, when did the doctrine first arise that after the great, say even the only, issue upon which an election is fought is decided, the government ceases to function? When was that subscribed to by any writer on constitutional law or history? When-was it subscribed to even by hon. gentlemen opposite? In the history of this country there have been many elections in which there was virtually one issue, and one issue alone, upon which the verdict of the people was obtained. That was the case in 1891. That was the case in 1878.	That was the case in 1904,
when the late leader of the Liberal party in this country, assisted without a doubt by my hon. friend, went to the electors of Canada on the issue of building the ill-fated Transcontinental railway. When he was returned, with the help of my hon. friend upon that issue, and when, in pursuance of the mandate which they said they had obtained, they went on with the construction of that railway, did the fact that they did so mean that their functions were ended? Were

they then believers in the theory that they had no mandate from the people of this country to do anything else except to build the Transcontinental railway? And in 1911, when honorable gentlemen opposite were defeated on the issue of reciprocity, when there was indeed a new and big departure in, public policy proposed in this House by hon. gentlemen opposite, and when the country was appealed to on that issue, and as a consequence reciprocity was defeated, did it follow that the Government should not continue-that they had no power for example, to deal with other grave issues that confronted the country? And even if the Prime Minister through stress of circumstances should be compelled to resign and a new Prime Minister should come, does it mean that the new Prime Minister is a usurper, and guilty of all the crimes ascribed to me by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Mackenzie King) ?
Then he told us we were the only Government in the civilized world that had denied the people the right to elect a new parliament after the Armistice. Well, I do not know that we need be very much disturbed as to the precedent that may be set in China, or even in Germany, or Austria, or Russia, but if there is anything in my hon. friend's contention that can be argued from precedent set in any of the Dominions or the Motherland, then possibly he would have said something that would have given colour to his contention. But is that the case? One would have thought by his reference to Australia that their position was quite analogous to ours, and by his reference to New Zealand that the case was the same there. Is he aware that in New Zealand the Government there was elected in 1914, and that although by the constitution of that Dominion they had only a three-year term for their Assembly, actually, by extending the life of Parliament, they went until December 1919, over six years, and then appealed to the country? And because, after more than six years-when their term was three-they went to the country, my hon. friend argues that in this country, after three years,-yea, a year ago, he said, after two years-when our term is five and when our election was held in December 1917, we must by virtue of the example of New Zealand, go to the country too. In the case of Australia, the facts are very similar, although there was no extension there. In the case of Great Britain, the Lloyd George government, which was the successor of the Asquith administration, but which did not feel that because Mr. Asquith retired it must appeal to the country at once, carried on for some years.

It did appeal to the country late in the winter of 1918, I think, but only after that Parliament speaking from memory, for seven or eight years, whereas its term by constitutional practice is about five years. There is therefore no argument to he drawn from any British case.
Here in this country we were elected on a war issue, we actually went to the country in war time. The British Government did nothing of the sort. They did not go to the country at all until after the war was over. The war being over they appealed to the country, whereas we went to the country just shortly before the war was over; that is the difference between us and the British Government.
My hon. friend says: You went into power as a war Government, and now that it is peace time it is your business to step out. If that is the case, a peace Government that is elected in peace time should step out when war comes. Does my hon. friend remember the hue and cry he himself raised and that his leader and the members of his party raised, when, in 1914 after the outbreak of war, the Government then in office, a peace Government, elected in peace time, was complained of for even contemplating an election at that time. Why, they fairly tore the purple off the clouds for fear we would go to the people, although we, a peace Government, were then confronted with the difficulties of war. My hon. friend's argument, if there was anything,. in it, would work both ways.	.
The fact is both the spirit and the letter of the constitution of this country may be defined thus:	The term is five
years; the usual practice is four years; the Government is entitled to hold office during that term, provided it maintains the confidence of the representatives of the people as reflected in the parliament elected. In the history of this country or any other that I have any knowledge of the only departure from such a practice has been on occasions where some overwhelmingly important issue has arisen, where a departure of policy of major consequence is proposed by the Administration, and when, as a result, it is desirable that the will of the people as to that departure be known. Those occasions have arisen in Great Britain ; they have arisen in Australia. Will my hon. friend say that they now have arisen here? Is there a great, sharp issue of public policy dividing this House? Is there, Mr. Speaker? Did you hear anything of it in the speech of my hon. friend? I would like if such an issue could be raised, but
3	'
we do not propose any radical departure of public policy in the first place. We do not propose to give the people of this country anything save what they have voted for almost times without number in this country.
Where, I ask again, is the great issue that has arisen? Oh, my hon. friend says, the only issue is that you should not be there-that I should be there instead of .you. Well, what would be the issue in the country if we dissolved Parliament? The issue my hon. friend raises would be settled once dissolution took place. He says we should appeal just for the sake of an appeal, that we should have an election just for the sake of an election. Well, you have an election once you dissolve Parliament, but on what are you going to fight the election in this case?
If a big issue does arise, if it is clear-cut and unmistakable, if it goes to the very fundamentals of public policy, then 'there is justification for a government laying down the reins of office which the people have entrusted to them, even before the full maturity of its term. But until that does arise, and in that form, while a government maintains the confidence of Parliament, it is recreant to its duty to depart from office and abandon the trust reposed in it and be stampeded by the voice of a party press or a party leader, whoever he may be. The hon. member quotes words used by myself in Winnipeg in 1917. By every word of that speech, by every word of that appeal, I stand. I invite the honourable gentleman to quote more from that speech; I do not think it will detract at all from the quality of his own. He quotes as well from speeches of the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Hon. Mr. Calder), by whose remarks also I stand. Undoubtedly, if three, four, or five members of a government retired at the same time and for the cause assigned by the honourable member for Marquette (Hon. Mr. Crerar), that is a blow from which perhaps no administration could recover. That is one thing. For one minister to retire merely because he disagrees on a point of public policy-not, mark you, because he does not think we should touch the tariff, but because he thinks we did not touch it enough, for that is why he retired -that is a very different thing from many men retiring at the same time because of a divergence of views on a great issue of public policy. It is one thing for one to retire at one time and another at another time merely because they cannot give more


Jacques Bureau: Then the Prime Minister must have been blind for a long time.


Arthur Meighen: Well, we had a contest in those two constituencies, and the leader of the Opposition proclaims in this House the total lack of confidence in the present administration in the city of St.
John because 'the Minister of Customs was elected only by a majority of a little over four thousand. Why, he said, we (the Opposition) only put in a candidate at the last moment. Why at the last moment? What was the matter with the first moment? I can remember well when that seat was opened. I can remember well when the challenge of the member for East Quebec was accepted. . I remember well when the leader of the Opposition announced through the press of this country that there would be no election by acclamation there; that he would see to it that the Government was confronted with a real candidate in the constituency. But, somehow or other, he was not able to carry out his threat until very close to the contest. It was not possible even then for him to get a candidate to stand in the county of St. John for what he stood for. At last when one did appear he tried to at least bring some show of success by proclaiming that rather than be a Liberal he would be an "independent Liberal," and in that capacity he ran.
In the county of Colchester my hon. friend (Mr. King) and his party had no representative at all. Not a man in the county of Colchester represented his party. Perhaps there was not a man in the county who knew what his policy was. There was a candidate of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crerar) who is represented to-day by the distinguished member for Red Deer. There was a candidate of that party in the county of Colchester and they had some rather questionable support - support from men who advocated very strange doctrines, very strange doctrines, indeed, doctrines put into practice in only one country in the world that I know of. But that party had a candidate and its candidate was huried under a majority of some fifteen hundred voters.
Then there came an election in the County of Yale and in the County of Elgin on the same day. Did my hop. friend have a candidate in the County of Yale? I do not hear him say either yes or no. But he supported a candidate in the County of Yale. Now I am going to state the reason why it is that this amendment-in its naked form, stripped of all substance-is put before the House. My hon. friend supported a candidate in the County of Yale all right, but a candidate whose views had just as much relation to his own as the blood of a South African negro has to mine. Were the tariff views of that candidate in the County of Yale in accord

with those of my hon. friend? Had they the faintest resemblance to them? The only tariff view he had, or ever espoused, was the determination to see to it that there was sufficient protection on fruit. He did not care much about anything else so far as I heard, and I heard him make several speeches and I read his platform. He was determined that there should be sufficient protection on fruit anyway, and I suppose because of that he was supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Did my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) or the party that he represents have a candidate in the County of Yale?


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: I was not
there.


Arthur Meighen: Well the only affiliation of the candidate with the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Clark's) party that I could discover was that he called himself a farmer. In point of platform, in point of argument, and in point of principle he was just as remote from the party led by my hon. friend from Red Deer as the South Pole is from the North.


Michael Clark: I believe in cheap fruit.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but that was not the chief desideratum of the candidate of the Farmer party in the County of Yale. Well, the result-very fortunately for this country, and fortunately for Yale and to the credit of the electorate-was the return of my hon. friend (Mr. McKelvie) who so happily seconded the Address this afternoon.
In the County of Elgin there was a candidate that stood, I think-although he was very chary about pronouncing his views- on something akin to the Liberal platform of 1919; but he too sought to evade the odium, or whatever it might be that attached to that platform, by declaring himself an independent Liberal. At all events, so near was he to my hon. friend in name at least, that he succeeded in being buried at the foot of the poll by some thousand or more votes below the second candidate; and the vote that in that county individually stands behind a policy that this Government frankly supports was divided in the Town of Aylmer and divided throughout the county between the so-called independent Liberal candidate, and the candidate that supported the Government, so the candidate following my hon. friend from Red Deer managed to be elected by a narrow majority. If there is consolation in that for the Leader of the Opposition, it

is at least a striking demonstration of the contention that in certain circumstances consolation is not very hard to discover.
Now we will come to the election in Peterborough. I have, been anxious to say a word about that election, mainly for the lesson that may be drawn from it by my hon. friends angularly across the way- they who have been courted by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), they whose affections have been sought to be engaged by the Leader of the Opposition, and a marriage with whom was the purpose of his extended trip through the prairies and on through the Rockies.
I would like to draw the attention of my hon. friends to what took place in the County of Peterborough; to where my hon. friend stood in the County of Peterborough and to where his candidate stood; to the tactics pursued by the gentleman supported by my hon. friends in a contest in that county. Does anybody in this House know to-day on which side of this great issue, an issue which, a year ago, my hon. friend declared to be vital to the electorate of Canada, the successful candidate stood? One would think to hear the address of the leader of the Opposition that the people of, Canada were not the least concerned about anything in the way of policy, that it really did not matter what the Government stood for, that it really did not matter what the Government had achieved in a great and prolonged crisis-that matters industrial, social and economic were not of the slightest concern to them, but that all they were concerned about was whether or not we or he should sit in the seats of power. That is what he endeavoured to contest West Peterborough on, and he then and there put himself in a position that he will find the utmost difficulty in extricating himself from just so long as he is a public man in Canada.
He supported, I said, a candidate in Yale who stood for protection on fruit-on foodstuffs; he supported a candidate in West Peterborough who stood for free trade on foodstuffs and protection on everything else; and my hon. friend expressed delight-a' really most inscrutable delight-in the election of a candidate in the county of Elgin who stood for protection on nothing at all. My hon. friend also seeks a working alliance with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), and is very hopeful he is going to get it; he wants from hon. gentlemen angularly opposite nothing on earth but their votes to place him in power; he is ready to accept any candidate-even one of

them-as long as such candidate will support him, it does not matter what his principles or policy are, all those things count for nothing; the only thing that counts is whether the candidate will vote for the hon. member for Prince, the leader of the Opposition. Here is the candidate supported in West Peterborough, and this is the platform that he ran on, supported by the leader who declared throughout his whole speaking campaign in Western Canada that his policy was practically identical with that of the farmer's party- practically identical-that they were both great Liberal movements, both in full accord with these historic principles of Liberalism. I will read some of the "historic principles of Liberalism:"
I am, not and never have been a free trader and' do not support free trade.
"But," says my hon. friend, "may be he just wants a tariff for revenue." That is the camouflage that is often thrown over it. Well, see how he expresses it, if all he wants is a tariff for revenue. He declares that "I will stand by Canada's industry and Canada's labour until the last," in contradistinction to being a free trader. That is one of the "historic principles of Liberalism," fought for in the county of Peterborough, and supported by the hon. member for Queen's and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding) and by the leader of the Opposition. Then he goes on:
You know my record for the last fifteen years, and my policy has been, Peterborough First.
That is not all; perhaps there is something more direct than that. All this is from his own published advertisement, signed by the Liberal committee of the county of Peterborough, and consequently must be in ful harmony with the "principles of Liberalism." Here are a few more specimens of Liberalism:
I believe in the protection of industries-
That is pretty straight.
-and the protection of labour. I believe in a greater and more prosperous Peterborough. Can anyone dispute that belief when it is ex-presssed by a man whose very existence depends on the progress of industry and its consequent results? Mr. Gordon will be one of the first to suffer from the effects of industrial depression brought about by a lower tariff.
I know that is not all, and am sure my hon. friends opposite will have no difficulty at all in seeing how striking is the " issue that divides the electorate of Canada" on
this tariff matter. Here is another specimen:
I stand for the protection of industry, and by that I mean the protection of labour. The standard of living and character of the working home are grand tests of civilization.
Such are the " historic principles of Liberalism" fought for in that county. I ask attention to those matters on the part of my hon. friend from Red Deer and all those who sit around him, whose affections are sought to be entwined by the hon. gentlemen opposite, and who know right well that they exist in his mind as public men for one purpose, and one only-to catch the low tariff vote in certain parts of Canada while he catches the high tariff vote in other parts of Canada, and by the numerical addition of the two tries to exalt himself to power.
This candidate in the Peterborough election declared that I was guilty of conduct unworthy a public man, that the tariff was not an issue, that he stood for protection, and that I would deserve all I might get for being so "shameless" as to obtrude the tariff issue there at all.
Now, I ask this House: Are we to be invited by the leader of the Opposition to dissolve Parliament and go to the country on this issue-because he told us last session it was the great issue, and I do not know what has arisen since-when no human being in this Dominion knows where the leader of the other party is on the issue, and when he is determined that no human being shall ever know? In the Speech from the Throne which we are discussing now there is a paragraph that defines clearly and definitely where the Government stands, a paragraph that states the principle in words that no man can fail to comprehend, a paragraph that in so stating our policy places it exactly where it stands in the published platform of the party. I should like to know how we are to get that issue to the people until my hon. friend does the same. And he has a chance now. May I ask you Mr. Speaker: Has he accepted the chance ? Is there a single hon. gentleman in this House, on that side or on this or anywhere else-particularly among those whom I am addressing now, behind the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark)-is there one single hon. gentleman .here who does not believe that the Leader of the Opposition, instead of accepting the issue laid down in the Speech from the Throne, will now commence a process of evasion and

dodging, a process that he has been carrying on for months in this country? Is there an hon. gentleman in this House who even has a suspicion that the Liberal platform of 1919 will ever be put into eifect if the Liberals are returned to power? Did the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) give any reason for that hope in the speech he made to elect Mr. Gordon in Peterborough? The burden of his speech was just this: I am not quoting the Liberal platform, he told them; I have not a word to say about it; but you remember what was done in 1896-and we will just do the same old thing again. They would do the same thing again as was done in 1896 by the party whose leader declared in Western Canada that his principles were identical with those of hon. gentlemen behind the hon. member for Red Deer.
Now, will my hon. friends angularly opposite but draw the lesson from that? I have never disputed the honesty of the mind of my hon. friend from Red Deer- never disputed it for a moment. On this tariff issue would he prefer to support a party whose position he knows and knows to be consistently maintained, or would he rather support another party whose position he does not know from one week to another, and who, he in his heart believes would put into effect the principles and policies of this Government on the tariff if he were returned to power? I ask him to say, in allegiance to his conscience, which of the two he would rather support. Does he think that in the state of confusion that now prevails throughout this country, where the issue is evaded and avoided and dodged at every opportunity-as it js going to be dodged, if I mistake not, even in this debate-does he think that in these circumstances there is any possibility of a declaration on this issue on the part of the people of Canada?
We are not proposing any departure from the historic policy of this country pursued under this Government, under the late Government, under the Government of which the leader of the Opposition was himself a member. We are not proposing any departure. If we were we would not have the support of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Hon. Mr. Calder)-the one man who, as between himself and the Leader of the Opposition and the members who sit around him, has been consistent on this tariff issue. He is standing where he stood when the Liberal Party were in power on the tariff issue; he is standing just where the member for

Shelburne and Queen's (M. Fielding) intends to stand and said in Peterborough he would stand if the Liberal party got into power. The difference between him and them is this, that in the meantime he is not pretending to stand somewhere else whenever it suits a constituency so to pretend; that in the meantime he is not seeking an alliance with men whose principles are diametrically opposite, by camouflaging his own. That is the difference between the Minister of Immigration and hon. gentlemen opposite.
Right now, they have an opportunity to show the people just where they stand on this issue. Are they ready to abide by the platform of 1919? If they are, let this session not go by, let this debate not go by, until hon. gentlemen stand up squarely to the Speech from the Throne and tell the people of Canada that that is so. For such can be the only issue if a dissolution of this Parliament takes place.
My hon. friend tells us that we are usurpers, and all the rest of it, because we are holding power. Do you know what he has started already in Western Canada? Do you know the tactics pursued1 by his press-and a most subservient press it is? Why, they are declaring in those provinces to-day that if Parliament is dissolved at this time it is a "sharp trick" on the part of the Prime Minister. Does my hon. friend know that? If this House is dissolved, they say, at this time, before the western people are placed in a position by a redistribution bill to have their voice in the policies of this country; if we take the step of dissolving Parliament, it will be a sharp trick on the part of the Prime Minister. This is what the press of the West says, a press supporting my hon. friend. Well if they say that before we dissolve, what do you think they are going to say after we do? Do you think "sharp trick" would at all compare with the language they would use then? Why, from one end of the coun- [DOT] try to the other there would be a roar of protest from the Liberal press-in which the Leader of the Opposition would join,
I have no doubt-on the ground that we had robbed the electorate of that country of their due voice in Parliament; that we had stifled it for five years merely to catch a chance verdict of the people. Let the leader of the Opposition look at the columns of the Calgary Albertan, a paper that supports him to the hilt-and let him see there a challenge to me to dissolve Parliament and deny the West their rights. I invite

the attention of hon. gentlemen angularly opposite to these facts. Do they want the West represented by a fraction of its proper and due representation in a Parliament that may last for five years? Do they think it is better to do that in order to get a verdict on the tariff issue in the state the tariff issue is in to-day by virtue of the manipulations of hon. gentlemen opposite? Does my hon. friend from Red Deer think it is worth while? Now, I would like him to say.
The West will be undoubtedly entitled under the census to from ten to twenty-five -no one knows how many more seats in this Parliament. If this House is dissolved before redistribution that representation is denied. If this House is dissolved nothing can be gained except a confused and utterly uninterpretable verdict on the tariff issue that can get no government anywhere and can be a mandate to no Government at all. Indeed, there can be no result whatever except the return of at least one consistent body to this House, large or small, and the deception of both wings of the other body. That is the only verdict that could be given under the conditions that obtain to-day. Consequently, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that under the circumstances that obtain now; under the conditions of public policy and the discussion of public principle that to-day obtain by reason of the statements and speeches of public men, the clear duty of this Government, for the present at all events, is to carry on and to carry out its policy so long as a majority of the members of this House repose confidence in the Administration.
That duty we intend to perform. That duty through three and a half years we have sought to discharge. I do not think that in the history of Canada any other government has more zealously held to its programme, more clearly, definitely and determinedly sought to carry out the mandate upon which it was elected, to discharge all the duties of government. In doing so, it neglected its party affairs and, indeed, by some of its policies, though they were in the public interest, shattered its party organization from coast to coast. That has been the record of this Government. From now on until the dissolution of this House we intend to pursue the duty that we have pursued until now. The course that we pursue will be submitted to this Parliament elected by the people of this country, and while we enjoy the confidence of the representatives of people of this country
we do not intend to shrink from our course or to be stampeded from it by the declamation of the leader of the Opposition.
My last word is this. In the past few months since I have had the honour to discharge to the best of my ability the responsibility that now is mine, I have missed no opportunity to obtain from the leaders of hon. gentlemen opposite specific and clear statements of their position on the issue which they say should be submitted to this country for decision. I regret to say that I have failed. In the speech from the Throne that great paramount issue and others as well are placed before this House for discussion. The position of the Government on that great issue is unmistakably clear and the opportunity is given to hon. gentlemen opposite, of all shades of opinion and from all parts of the country, to be equally frank in their statement of their position. Let them first discharge that duty and, until they do so, let them not say that there is sufficient issue for the country to decide.
On motion of Mr. D. D. McKenzie (Cape Breton North and Victoria) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of right hon. Arthur Meighen, the House adjourned at 9.20 p.m.
Wednesday, February 16, 1921.