[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of the Veterinary Director General for the years ended March 31, 1919, and March 31, 1920.-Hon. Mr. Tolmie.
Fourth Volume of the Auditor General's Report.-Right Hon. Mr. Meighen.
Correspondence relating to the appointment of Sir Thomas White as arbitrator on the Grand Trunk arbitration.-Right Hon. Mr. Meighen.
Copy of Order in Council respecting the .appointment of a manager for the Parliamentary restaurant.-Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 53, to incorporate the Fort Smith Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 51 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Elmor Glossop.-Mr. Copp.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 45 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Henry Coulson.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 46 (from the Senate), for the relief of Elizabeth Alexander.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 47 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Gleaves Doyle.-Mr. Best.
Bill No. 49 (from the Senate), for the relief of Dorothy Mearuel Score.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 50 (from the Senate), for the relief of Henry William Maynard.-Mr. Hocken.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lamb-ton) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 54, to amend the Railway Act, 1919. He said:	This Bill is similar to the one that
I introduced last year.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. ARMSTRONG:: It is coming to a
time when this Bill is looked upon possibly as a hardy annual, but I hope it is coming to a time when members on both sides of this House will appreciate to the full the importance of the measure and will vote to place it on the statute book. The purport of the Bill is to bring boats on our inland waters under the control of the Railway Commission. I have eliminated an important clause in the former Bill dealing with the question of controlling boats on our coasts. This Bill confines the control entirely to boats on our inland waters, and there is in the Bill a clause defining the limits contained in our statutes regarding inland waters. I do not need to tell members of the House that I hope the Bill will receive their approval, and that it will be placed on the statute books during the present session.



FERTILIZER ACT, 1909, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carleton) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 55, to amend the Fertilizer Act, 1909. He said:	It is not proposed by this Bill to make any drastic changes in the Fertilizer Act. This Bill is simply to provide for the better marking of commercial fertilizer which is offered for sale, so that the farmer may know exactly what he is purchasing. It is proposed that the manufacturer of fertilizers shall specify the material from which his different chemicals are derived, also the available phosphoric acid in the contents of his fertilizer. I believe a majority of the fertilizer manufacturers of Canada would be in favour of this amendment, from the very fact that a few unscrupulous manufacturers of fertilizer are putting into their compounds ingredients which are not plant food, such as ground leather, and mustard seeds, which have a large content of ammonia.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 56, to amend the Immigration Act (deportation of undesirable persons). He said: The object of this Bill is to repeal certain provisions of the Act passed by this Parliament during the session of 1919. The most important provision of which repeal is asked is that part of the Act which gives authority to deport, without the form of a trial, persons who are under the law Canadian citizens. This Bill is similar to a Bill which was introduced last year by the Government in the Senate and which was rejected there in committee. At that time I asked the Prime Minister whether the Government would introduce the Bill in . this House, and I was told that the Bill, having failed in the Senate, could not be brought into this House in the same session. This session I have waited until to-day expecting that the Government would introduce the Bill again, and I may add that I would be glad to give way, if they will accept the Bill as their own and proceed with it as a Government measure.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first Motion agreed to, and Bill read the time.	first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: In view of the published announcement that the Grand Trunk railway arbitration proceedings will not be completed on the 9th of the present month, is it the intention of the Government to have the time for completing the award extended?


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: The Government has not decided the question as to the extension of the award. Correspondence is now passing on the subject.



BUILDING TRADES' CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Murphy: Is it the intention of the Government to defray the expenses of the delegates who will attend the Building Trades' Conference, which has been called, I understand, by the Government, to be held in Ottawa sometime within the next month?


Arthur Meighen: I have no information on the
subject, but I will obtain it and let the hon. member know to-morrow.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY-ALLEGED REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Montmorency):: I beg to draw the attention of the House to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Evening Citizen of April 1, in which it is stated, "Railway situation was considered at ministerial caucus." In the course of the article it is stated that extensive assistance, the amount being upwards of eighty million dollars, was asked for on behalf of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Has assistance of that extent been given?


Arthur Meighen: No assistance except what is
in the Estimates.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce) :: I read in the Montreal Gazette of this morning a report of a very able speech delivered by the Prime Minister in Montreal last Saturday. With your permission, Sir, I would like to read the concluding remark and to put a question in connection with it.

The right hon. gentleman is reported to have said:
The Government had taken over the railways not because it wished to do so, but having been forced to undertake the task would give the system a fair trial at least, and if it could not make it a success, someone else might.
The question I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman is whether this foreshadows impending action of the Government in handing over the National railways to private ownership, as the system has evidently not been a success.


Arthur Meighen: The answer to the question is:
No.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY-ALLEGED DEFAULT OF INTEREST

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria) :: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to a despatch from Montreal to the Citizen of this morning stating that the Grand Trunk Railway has defaulted in payment of interest on bonds, and that, according to the language of the telegram, the financial condition of that company appears to be in the air. Is this condition of things true, and if so, what effect will it have upon the negotiations now going on between the Government and the railway company, or will it have any effect at all?


Arthur Meighen: The Government has no information that default has taken place. There are some bonds, interest on which, I believe, is due to-day. In respect of them, and in respect of other subjects related thereto, correspondence has been and is passing, and is not yet completed. When it is completed, full details will be given to Parliament.



CASE OF SMALLPOX ON THE &quot;SCANDINAVIAN&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. O. R. GOULD (Assiniboia):: I have received information from a passenger who was on board the steamer Scandinavian, which recently docked at the port of St. John, that a case of smallpox was found on board. The complainant states to me that all the passengers were cabin passengers, all eating at the same table, and so forth, and that 104 of them were segregated on Patridge island while the rest of the passengers were allowed to go to their

destination. My informant does not protest against the segregation, but he wishes to know why, and from whom, the orders came that allowed some of the passengers to go forward to their destination while the others were detained.


Hon. J. A. CALDER (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: This is the first intimation that I have had that a case of smallpox has broken out on one of the boats. I am not familiar with the circumstances, but I shall immediately make inquiries, and will give a further reply to my hon. friend to-morrow.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. T. LEGER (Kent, N.B.) :: On
the 14th of March an order of the House was passed for:
A copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents, relative to the resignation of Mr. John Sheridan, Indian Superintendent for the North Shore district, in the Province of New Brunswick, in 1920. Also copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents relative to his re-appointment to the said position.
I should like to know when I may expect the papers.


Arthur Meighen: I will look into the matter, and it will be spoken to to-morrow.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Is it true that contrary to the formal promise of Sir Robert Borden in Parliament, at the last session, the civil servants of the Government have been forced to work on Catholic religious holidays, notably on the following: All Saints' Day, Immaculate Conception, Epiphany?
2.	If so, for what reason has the Government acted thus?


Arthur Meighen: In
answer to questions 1 and 2, the assurance given by Sir Robert Borden in this matter is to be found on pages 4259 to 4262 inclusive, of Hansard 1920, Volume V. A perusal of the entire discussion on these pages and especially the perusal of the requests made of the then Prime Minister as regards observance of the Epiphany, Ascension Day, All Saints' Day, and the feast of the Immaculate Conception, would lead to the view that the assurance given following the requests so made was to the effect that pursuant to custom and convention Catholic
95i
civil servants in Ottawa should be at liberty to observe these days by attending church or other religious observances according to the laws of their church without any deduction of pay if the observance should take any of tihe time which they ought to give to the public service. Accordingly, instructions were issued by the ministers of each department that such Catholic civil servants should have full liberty as above set out on such days. A reading, however, of the last reference of Sir Robert Borden to the subject on page 4262 would indicate a possible interpretation that not only should the above privileges be granted but that the entire days should be observed as holidays in the civil service in Ottawa. In view of the fact that the assurance given may have been so understood and accepted, instructions are being issued that, while the law in this regard stands as it does, it be so carried out.


Mr. SEGUIN:: Is it the intention of the Government, in future, to exempt Catholic employees from work on religious holidays, specially All Saints' Day, Immaculate Conception and Epiphany?


Arthur Meighen: This question is answered by the answer given to question No. 1 on to-day's Order Paper.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What are the names of the steamers of the Canadian Government Marine which were in commission up to December 31, 1920?
2.	Where were said ships built and where registered up to and including said date?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: In answer to questions 1 and 2, a list is attached:
Steamers of Canadian Government Merchant
Marine in Commission up to December 31,
1920.
Name of Steamer-Where Built-Where Registered :
Canadian Adventurer, Port Arthur, Ont., Montreal, Que.
Canadian Aviator, North Vancouver, B.C., Montreal, Que.
Canadian Beaver, Collingwood, Ont., Montreal, Que.
Canadian Carrier, Port Arthur, Ont., Montreal, Que.
Canadian Conqueror, Montreal, Que., Montreal, Que.
Canadian Exporter, Vancouver, B.C., Montreal, Que.
Canadian Farmer, Collingwood, Ont., Montreal, Que.
Canadian Gunner, Collingwood, Ont., Montreal, Que.
Canadian Highlander, North Vancouver, B.C., Montreal, Que.
Canadian Hunter, Lauzon, Levis, Que., Montreal, Que.

Importer, Vancouver, B.C., Mont-
Inventor, Vancouver, B.C., Mont-
Mariner, Halifax, N.S., Montreal,
Miller, Montreal, Que., Montreal,
Miner, Trenton, N.S., Montreal,
Navigator, Montreal, Que., Mont-
Observer, Collingwood, Ont., Mont-
Otter, Welland, Ont., Montreal,
Pioneer, Montreal, Que., Montreal,
Planter, Montreal, Que., Montreal,
Prospector, Vancouver, B.C., Mont-
Raider, North Vancouver, B.C., Montreal, Que.
Rancher, Three Rivers, Que., Mont-Ranger, Montreal, Que., Montreal, Recruit, Collingwood, Ont., MontRover, Collingwood, Ont., Montreal, Runner, Port Arthur, Ont., Mont-Sailor, Port Arthur, Ont., Mont-Sapper, Trenton, N.S., Montreal, Sealer, Trenton, N.S., Montreal, Seigneur, Montreal, Que., Mont-Settler, Three Rivers, Que., Mont-Signaller, Collingwood, Ont., Mont-Sower, Port Arthur, Ont., Mont-Spinner, Montreal, Que., Montreal, Squatter, Welland, Ont., Montreal, Trader, Port Arthur Ont., Mont-Trapper, Lauzon, Levis, Que., Mont-
Trooper, North Vancouver, B.C., Montreal, Que.
Canadian Victor, Montreal, Que., Montreal, Que.
Canadian Volunteer, North Vancouver, B.C, Montreal, Que.
Canadian Voyageur, Montreal, Que., Montreal, Que.
Canadian Warrior, Collingwood, Ont., Montreal, Que.
Canadian Winner, Victoria, B.C., Montreal, Que.


PAYMENTS TO JUSTICES RIDDELL AND LATCHFORD
Mr. CLARK (Bruce):: 1.	Has the attention of the Government been called to the evidence given by Mr. R. T. Harding before a committee of the Ontario Legislature that he hdb personally paid out of public funds the sum of $2,000 each to Justices Riddell and Latchford, acting as commissioners in a

Canadian real, Que.
Canadian
Que.
Canadian real. Que.
Canadian
Que.
Canadian real, Que.
Canadian real, Que.
Canadian
Que.
Canadian
Que.
Canadian real, Que.
Canadian real, Que.
Canadian real, Que.
Canadian real, Que.
Canadian
Que.
Canadian
Que.
Canadian real, Que.
Canadian real, Que.
Canadian
Canadian real, Que.
Canadian real, Que.
Canadian
Que.
Canadian
Que.
Canadian
Que.
Canadian real, Que.
Canadian real, Que.
Canadian
Que.
Canadian
Que.
Canadian
Que.
Canadian real, Que.
Canadian
public inquiry in which the said Mr. Harding appeared as prosecuting counsel?
2.	Is the acceptance by these two judges of this or any payment for acting as commisioners in contravention of Section 12 of the Judges Act as amended in 1920?
3.	If so, what action, if any, does the Government intend to take in the matter?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	No.
2.	Section 12 reads as follows:
(1)	No judge shall receive any remuneration in addition to his judicial salary for acting as' administrator or deputy of the Governor General, or for any duty or service, whether judicial or executive, which he may hereafter be required- to perform for or on behalf of the Government of Canada or the Government of any province thereof. Provided that this section shall not affect the right of any judge under the provisions of any statute, Dominion or provincial, now in force.
(2)	Every judge who may be nominated for the purpose by the Governor in Council or the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall execute without additional renumeration any commission or inquiry for which he may be appointed as commissioner under any authority in that behalf exercisable by the Governor in Council or the Lieutenant Governor in Council, including the discharge of the duty of arbitrator in any case in which he may be named to act by the competent authority. Provided, however, that any such judge while acting as commissioner or arbitrator at the nomination of the Governor in Council shall be entitled to his moving or transportation expenses and living allowance at the rate and upon the conditions provided by section eighteen of this Act, and such judge when employed under the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council may be paid by the Lieutenant Governor in Council his moving or transportation expenses and a living allowance not exceeding the amount he would be entitled to under the said section eighteen.
The question is a mixed one of fact and law. The Government is not in possession of the facts, and it is not the practice to answer, nor can the Government take upon itself the function of answering, questions of law.
3.	Answered by 1 and 2.


TOBACCO GROWING
Mr. GERVAIS:: 1.	Have the reports respecting tobacco growing been published in detail in the monthly Bulletin, January 1921, for the province of Ontario and not for the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, why the discrimination?


Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	The area and yield of tobacco in 1920 in the province of Ontario are given in the Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics for January, 1921, by countries and townships, for each variety of tobacco. For the province of Quebec the area and yield is given for the province as a whole and are not distinguished according to varieties.

2.	The estimates for the province of Ontario are as furnished to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics by the Tobacco Division of the Central Experimental Farm. For the province of Quebec the area and yield are as estimated jointly by the Dominion Bureau and Quebec Bureau of Statistics and details by countries and municipalities are not available. The Census of 1921 will collect statistics in greater detail.
Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY


Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Is Mr. Thomas Cawtley, of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, a director of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	Has a private car been placed at the disposal of the said above mentioned director, since his appointment?
3.	If so, what is the name or number of said car?
4.	Is said car supplied with a chef, porter and all necessary supplies?
5.	What has been the cost of said car to the country since being placed at the disposal of the said Mr. Thomas Cantley?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No. On two occasions, for special reasons, Mr. Cantley had use of car of Superintendent at New Glasgow for two trips between New Glasgow and Halifax, and return.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Answered by No. 2.
5.	Answered by No. 2.


ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY
Mr. MICHAUD:: What were the gross earnings of the St. John and Quebec Railway during the last fiscal year?


Hon. Mr. REID (Grenville) :: 


$218,127.54. INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-WORK AT CHARNY AND ST. FOY
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Is there a station called Charny on the Intercolonial Railway?
2.	If so, are any buildings being constructed there?
3.	What kind of material is being used for the said buildings?
4.	Where was the material obtained?
5.	Has the engine house at St. Foy, opposite the Quebec bridge, been demolished in whole or in part?
6.	If so, what has become of the brick taken from the said engine house?
7.	Under whose instructions was said engine house demolished?
8.	Who gave instructions concerning the disposal of the said brick?
9.	Is there any similarity between the brick used in the building at Charny and the brick removed from the engine house at St. Foy?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	See answer to No. 2.
4.	See answer to No. 2.
5.	Yes; in part.
6.	Used in enlarging engine house at Chaudiere, near Charny.
7.	Authorized as a result of decision of management to concentrate all terminal operations of the Intercolonial, Transcontinental and Grand Trunk Railways at one point, viz., Chaudiere.
8.	See answer to No. 7.
9.	The bricks taken from Bridge engine house were used in enlarging Chaudiere engine house, and second-hand bricks were also brought from other points for the same purpose.


APPLE EXPORTS TO GREAT BRITAIN
Mr. McCOIG:: 1.	How many barrels and boxes 01 apples were exported from Canada to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from August 1, 1920, to and including February 28, 1921?
2.	What was the total value of such exports?
3.	What quantity and value of such exports -was of Ontario product?


Hon. Mr. WIGMORE:: 1.	and 2.
Barrels. Value.
August	
4$	36September	
51,558	301,549October	
169,853	1,085,725November	
231.S85	1,449,269December	
237,202	1,507,226January	
310,7S4	1,882,796February	
123,222	737,281Total	
1,124,508	$ 6,963,8823.	Customs export entries do not indicate in what part of Canada exported apples originate.


MONTREAL-QUEBEC PILOTS SUPERANNUATION
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	What is the amount of superannuation paid to former pilots from Montreal-Quebec Division, or to widows and dependents of same?
2.	What is the number of those pensioners?
3.	What are their names and respective ages?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Pensions to Montreal-Quebec retired pilots and widows of retired pilots are paid out of the Montreal Decayed Pilots' Pension Fund, and is administered for the Montreal pilots by the Department of Finance.

Retired pilots receive $350 per annum since 1920.
Widows of retired pilots receive $175 per annum since 1920.
Dependents-nothing.
2.	17 retired pilots,
17 widows of retired pilots,
Total 34.
3.	No record of ages. Names follow:
1.	Widow, Alexis Gauthier,
2.	Widow, Octave J. Hamelin,
3.	Widow, Jean Nault,
4.	Widow, Elzear Bellisle,
5.	Widow, Nestor Arcand,
6.	Widow, C. Lyderic Bouille,
7.	Widow, G. Joseph Dussault,
8.	Widow, Celestin Brunet,
9.	Widow, L. A. Bouille,
10.	Widow, Joseph Chandonnet,
11.	Widow, Onesime Naud,
12.	Widow, George Dufresne, _
13.	Widow, Louis Mayrand,
14.	Widow, Alfred St. Amant,
15.	Widow, Barthelemi Arcand,
16.	Widow, Wilfrid Raymond,
17.	Widow, Joseph Leveille,
18.	Decayed Pilot, Jean Arcand,
19.	Decayed Pilot, Philippe Belanger,
20.	Decayed Pilot, Liboire Perrault,
21.	Decayed Pilot, Gedeon Groleau,
22.	Decayed Pilot, Nere Bellisle,
23.	Decayed Pilot, Narcisse Perreault,
24.	Decayed Pilot, Ulric Groleau,
25.	Decayed Pilot, S. C. Auger,
26.	Decayed Pilot, Ferdinand Labranche,
27.	Decayed Pilot, Geo. Perrault,
28.	Decayed Pilot, G. Teo. Hamelin,
29.	Decayed Pilot, Laurent Gauthier,
30.	Decayed Pilot, Constant Toupin,
31.	Decayed Pilot, Louis Z. Bouille,



INQUIRY RE QUESTIONS

['I wish to move that this motion be discharged from the Order Paper.']
Charles Murphy: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, I would direct the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid), to the fact that when a question appears on the Order Paper the department concerned usually begins to prepare the answer immediately. Question No. 13 has now been on the Order Paper for about three weeks, and so far it has not been answered.


John Dowsley Reid: I made enquiries to-day before coming to the House in order to ascertain the cause of the delay. I am informed by the officials of the department that this particular
[Mr. Ballantyne.J
question requires some little time. They are preparing the answer and will have it ready in the course of a day or two.


Charles Murphy: To-morrow?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot say.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West), moved:
For a copy of all letters, reports exchanged between engineers and officers of the Canadian National railways concerning the demolition of the round house at St. Foy, opposite the Quebec bridge, the removal from that place of a mechanical staff to a place called Charny on the other side of the St. Lawrence river; the proposed demolition of the station on the main line of the Transcontinental Railway at Quebec bridge.
Arthur Meighen: This motion should await the report of a committee which I hope shortly to be able to move the House to appoint. It is a motion for the production of papers that would be in the possession of the management alone.


Mr. PARENT:: This motion has been
standing for about three or four weeks now, and I thought that the Government, by this time, would have had ample opportunity to obtain the information sought.


Arthur Meighen: It is not a question of getting the information; it is a question that affects the whole general principle, as has been debated in the House frequently. If the hon. member will wait, the question can be handled precisely in the same way as all others relating to the same subject.


Georges Parent: Thanks very much.
Motion stands.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: For a copy of all reports, orders, telegrams, certificates of valuation, or any other correspondence relating to or connected with the slaughter of 245 hogs the property of one George B. Alderson, by officers of the Department of Agriculture on or about the 20th day of April, 1920, and for which compensation has been refused by he minister.


Mr. STEVENS:: For a return showing (a) the number of excivil servants now drawing superannuation from the Government and who had contributed for thirty-five years to the superannuation fund, and (b) the amount still remaining in this fund and (c) the amount withdrawn in the years 1918, 1919 and 1920.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: For a copy of all correspondence between the Government and the Board of Trade and City Council and Harbour Commission of Quebec, since the session of 1917, with regard to the diversion of the Northwestern grain trade to New York, the alleged non-fulfilment by the Government of its undertakings with regard to the terminals of the Transcontinental Railway at Quebec, and of the Memorials addressed to the Prime Minister on these subjects.


SCRUTINY OF ESTIMATES-SPECIAL COMMITTEE PROPOSED
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve and Gaspe) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, in order to co-ordinate and expedite the business of Parliament in a more intelligent and practical way, the estimates of the various, departments should, before being laid on the table, be scrutinized by a special committee of the House, where officers would be summoned to appear with plans and reports bearing on each appropriation.


Right Hon ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: This motion relates particularly to the Finance Department, and as this is one day when the minister is necessarily away, may I request my hon. friend to iet the motion stand?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly.
Motion stands.


QUEBEC RIOTS OF 1918
Georges Parent: That, in the opinion of this House, an indemnity should be paid the innocent victims who during the so-called Quebec riots of 1918 have either been killed or wounded by the soldiers of His Majesty.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege last year to place before the House certain facts which, to my mind, should have j'ustified the Government in paying some indemnity to those innocent victims who, during the so-called Quebec riots of 1918, were either wounded or killed by His Majesty's soldiers. At that time we had from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), certain declarations that led us to believe that the Government would institute an inquiry and give these people an opportunity to state fully and fairly their claims in this matter. Unfortunately, notwithstanding these declarations, no action has been taken, and I am compelled, under the circumstances, to put the matter once more before the House in a different form, and to ask hon. members to concur in the opinion that an indemnity should be paid
to these people on whose behalf I now speak. My motion of last year was one for the production of papers. I moved:
For a copy of all reports, letters, petitions or documents referring to claims for damages on behalf of innocent victims who, during the so-called Quebec riots of 1918, have either been killed or wounded by the soldiers of His Majesty?
This motion was accepted by the Government, and on April 29 the Secretary of State produced the following document:
Sessional Paper No. 140: Thursday, April 29, 1920. Return to an Order of the House of Commons, dated April 14, 1920.
Canada, Department of the Secretary of State.
Answers No information.
I was very much surprised at this answer because, to my personal knowledge, letters had been exchanged between certain persons and the Government, between certain persons and the Prime Minister of the day (Sir Robert Borden), and between certain persons and the Minister of Militia. On the strength of this information I communicated again with the parties interested and I received copies of letters which they wrote at the time to the Government. I know of one man particularly, G. Alfred Mercier, who wrote to the Minister of Militia, and the Prime Minister of the time a good many letters, and answers were received from both hon. gentlemen. I mention this fact, in passing, to show that there was no reason why the Secretary of State of that time should state that there was no information on the subject, when as a matter of fact, a number of letters had been exchanged and certain claims made. The only inference, so far as I can see, is that the matter was considered trivial by the Government of that time. To my mind the matter is not one that should have been treated lightly. A number of persons were killed, persons who were innocent victims, and it is not a case for refusing to entertain the claims that are being advanced. The people of that part of Quebec city suffered a grievous wrong. The wound then inflicted is still unclosed and it will so remain unti^ the Government adopts measures of a remedial character and treats fairly those persons who have suffered so grievously.
I do not intend to repeat at any length the remarks which I made last year on this subject; but in order that the House may have a better grasp of the facts it is necessary that I should refer to some of the more important cases to which, at that

time, I called the attention of the Government. I do not intend to condemn the Government for sending troops to Quebec on the occasion in question. A year ago I said, and I now repeat the statement, that the Government were influenced in acting as they did by special circumstances; they were badly advised by the reports of the men who represented the Canadian press at the time of the occurrence and who gave to this small trouble such exaggeration and such publicity that the Government were deceived with respect to it. I have already characterized the occurrence as "a small trouble." In that statement I am supported by the views expressed by the Quebec Chronicle, a paper which supported the Government throughout that period. The editorial in the Chronicle was written the day following the events referred to, and from it I quote the following sentences :
Assuredly it would be foolish and unfair to allege that the natives of St. Roch's as a whole were guilty of acts of anarchy and we specifically state not only that what has taken place has been "the work of an excited populace," but also that only a relatively small minority of irresponsible youths "were involved".
Influenced by the publicity given to this small trouble troops were sent down to Quebec, and, prejudiced as the troops undoubtedly were, it is a wonder that other unfortunate acts did not occur in addition to those which actually happened. Still the actual events were sufficiently serious and greatly to be deplored. First I would draw attention to the case of Lecours. But first let me state that I will not take the responsibility of affirming that what these men say is correct; I will say, however, that I have no reason to believe they are stating anything contrary to the facts. I took the trouble of writing to each of the sufferers to ask him to put in writing what he had to say. I will first read the letter addressed to me by Lecours, which is dated at Buffalo, N.Y., March 22, 1920:
Mr. George Parent, K.C., M.P.,
70 St. Paul Street,
Quebec.
Dear Sir,-On the first of April, 1918, I was the proprietor of a store situated on the Iron Stairs, Crown street, in which I sold cigars candies, cigarettes, etc. About 10.30 p.m., on the 1st of April I thought in view of the fact that the soldiers were guarding Crown street and the Steps, that it would be well to close my store earlier than usual. I had just put up my blinds and locked my door when a party of twenty-five or thirty soldiers suddenly burst the door and entered. Several of them struck me with their rifle butts on the head and elsewhere and threatened me with death. They took away the money which was in the drawer as well as

several boxes of cigars and cigarettes and broke my window panes. I have already sent in my account to the Militia Department which refuses to pay on the grounds that the city is responsible.
Yours very sincerely,
,	A. J. Lecours,
38 Cottage street,
Buffalo, N.Y.
This letter speaks for itself. I shall dispense with comments except to draw attention to the writer's statement that he has "sent in his account to the Militia Department." If this be true, how could the Secretary of State declare on April 29, 1920, that he had no information concerning the claims referred to in the statement presented by me last year? Are we to presume that both gentlemen are right in their respective contentions?
The next case is the one of Joseph Blouin, and it well deserves attention. Here is what Blouin says in a letter addressed to me:
In answer to your letter requesting details of the wounds which I received during the time of the Quebec riots, and asking me whether I was one of the rioters, I may state that I was not. I was travelling on St. Valier street when I was attacked. I was going home at half past five in the afternoon on Sunday the 31st of March, the day before the riots. I was bayoneted four times. These bayonets penetrated the abdomen and moreover I was struck by the butt end of a riffe on the head to such an extent that my health has diminished fifty per cent and according to my physicians I will be obliged to undergo an operation every two years for the rest of my life. I have given full information to Doctors George Racine and Simard, of the Hotel Dieu, and if I should happen to forget anything, these people will give you the details.
One would hardly believe this statement to be true, yet it professes to state the facts. If it does-and I have no reason to doubt its veracity-I claim that the Government should see to it that this man receives compensation.
I could bring many other cases to the attention of the House such, for instance, as that of J. Alfred Mercier, who has written more than one letter to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Militia, although the then Secretary of State could obtain "no information" concerning his case. There is also the case of Edouard Tremblay, one of the saddest of all and to which I specially draw the attention of the Minister of Justice. I would say more about this young man's case were it not for the fact that my hon. friend from Charlevoix (Mr. Casgrain) will no doubt put up a strong plea in his behalf. I pass over the case of Demeule, Bergeron and Bussieres-[DOT] killed at the age of twenty.

Here we have the remarkable fact that four civilians were killed and not a single fatality happened among the forces of His Majesty. This fact would naturally lead any one to pause and reflect. There is a principle of common law laid down in the Criminal Code which declares that, if necessary, force must be met by force. It is to be found at section 53 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 146. It reads as follows:
Everyone unlawfully assaulted, not having provoked such assault, is Justified in repelling force by force, if the force he uses is not meant to cause death or grievous bodily harm, and is no more than is necessary for the purpose of self-defence.
2. Every one so assaulted is justified, though he causes death or grievous bodily harm, if he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purpose, and if he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
The cases I have put before the House are the cases of men who being practically alone were shot at hy a few soldiers and killed or wounded when there was no reason whatever to think that they had had anything to do with the riots. To prove this I must refer again to the unfortunate case of Avila Blouin. I shall read a letter from him which he is willing to back up at any time that an investigation takes place, if the Government decide to grant one:
Mr. Geo. Parent, M.P.,
Quebec.
Rue Chevrifcre,
Parish of the Sacred Heart,
Quebec, P.Q.
Sir,-I wish to interest you in my case, which I am sure deserves special attention. I was unfortunate enough to be wounded on April 1, during the Quebec riots. I was hit in the right leg, and after two operations, I am obliged to walk with crutches since the leg has been amputated two inches below the knee. I declare upon my honour.that the following is the true story of the events which occurred on the above-mentioned date.
On the night of April 1, after having worked all evening at my garage at the corner of Des-glacis and D'Aguillon streets; this spot is quite remote from the scene of-the riots.
I started for home about 11.40 p.m. On arriving at the Boulevard Langlier I was ordered by two sentries to keep straight on. I had gone but a few steps when I heard a whistle, and I threw up my hands, thinking this to be the most prudent thing to do, since I understood no English. I retraced my steps, in order to make myself understood by the sentries who had just let me pass. Whilst I was in the act of turning P was fired upon and hit in the left leg. The leg was badly injured, and the soldiers wishing to prevent me from getting up, I presume, tied me to a post, in order to bandage my wound. I am under the impression that they were not quite sane, because, instead of
relieving my pain, they hit me on the head and in the face. Soon afterwards they carried me into a private house, and the military doctor gave orders for the ambulance to carry me to the Military Hospital. They amputated my leg without asking my consent or that of my parents, in spite of the fact that I had given them the telephone number of my home. T underwent treatment at the hospital for five months.
My leg was amputated twice, and I consider myself disabled to the extent of fifty per cent.
It is now impossible for me to run a garage, and I have lost all hopes of the future. My incapacity I ascribe to the fact that the operation in question was so badly performed that specialists have advised me that I will find considerable difficulty in wearing an artificial ilmb.
I wish to call your attention to the fact that it would appear from the coroner's' inquest that the officer commanding gave orders not to shoot after eleven o'clock. I was fired upon a few minutes before midnight. I was alone, and if they had any reason to suspect me they might have taken me prisoner, and there was no necessity for shooting.
Yours very sincerely,
Avila Blouin.
I have seen this unfortunate man a few times, and I must repeat, Sir, what I said last year, that his case is deserving of consideration. His daily appearance in the public streets, popular as he was and still is, bearing the evidence of the treatment he received, is no doubt a sore which cannot be cured in a day, but which will be very much alleviated if the Government comes to his rescue in the form of adequate compensation.
I will not specify any further cases. The right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) was good enough last year to say a few words concerning this matter, and from the tenor of his speech I was inclined to believe that he would find some means of indemnifying these persons. I shall quote his words because I want to have them on record. Here is what he said last year:
With regard to that proposition I can at the present moment only say-and I fancy that the strongest supporter of the motion would expect no more of me under present circumstances- that I shall certainly be glad to give consideration to it, and to approach it with a desire simply to look into the justification or lack of justification that may be found for it. Of course, even if one accepted the general proposition as being sound-that general proposition being, as I understand it, that if you assume, on the one hand that that action of the Government was not subject to criticism but was a necessary action in the general interest, and on the other hand, that the particular persons injured were perfectly innocent persons, and that under those circumstances it would be proper to assimilate the injury done to those persons to the damage suffered by individuals whose properties are taken in the general interest, and that therefore proper compensation for those injuries would be justified as being an indemnification to a party suffering by some perfectly proper action necessarily taken in the public inter-

es*-I did not, of course, come here expecting to be asked to pass a final opinion upon a question of that kind, and I can say nothing more except that I shall be glad to give consideration, and to ask my colleagues to give consideration, to the proposition that has been put forward, and to weigh carefully what has in support of that proposition been so moderately and at the same time so clearly put forward. The papers will be brought down.
I have no objection whatever to the conditions imposed by the right hon. gentleman to justify his intervention. I have not thrown any blame upon the Government, except in so far as its mind and its executive powers were permitted to be influenced by wrong advice.
A good deal of harm has been done, innocent victims have been killed and others wounded as I have stated. To point out the animus that existed at the time among the soldiers, I could have mentioned, for instance, the way Father Evain, a priest, was handled by certain soldiers at the very moment he was administering the last rites of the church to wounded civilians. I did not do so because I did not wish to appeal to racial or religious prejudices. I could have related how I myself, just as I was walking home from church on Saturday evening, was told by an officer to follow three different directions at the same time.
I could have said that the first shot fired was the act of a soldier. I could have said all this and a little more, but I do not think the purposes I have in view would be better served if I were to give more details.
One word more, Mr. Speaker, and I shall have concluded my remarks. Last year when a subject similar to the present one was discussed, the right hon. Minister of Justice expressed the view that the demands for redress appeared to come at a very late hour. The reasons for that apparent delay are obvious. When minds were inflamed, when prejudices were running high, it was not the time to present such claims as these. It was considered more advisable to wait until time had shown and proved the injustice committed. To-day Quebec is known, as it should always have been known, as a law-abiding province whose people are lovers of British institutions. Now that the province of Quebec seems to be better understood by the whole Dominion, and when she is declared to be the fairest and one of the soundest of our provinces and our compatriots are regarded as good loyal citizens -as they always have been-it is time to come back and again to claim reparation for the injustice done to them, and I believe that that injustice can only be righted by the Government of Canada as a whole.
[Hr. Parent.]
We have tried to discover who is responsible for the shooting and killing. Some lawyers advised that the city of Quebec might be responsible, and the city was sued for damages, but the court declared that the city was not liable. Other lawyers have advised that the Government of Canada is responsible. In my humble opinion it is a case for the Dominion to deal with. I think every citizen of this country should contribute towards indemnifying the innocent victims who under those sad circumstances suffered so severely.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East) :: Mr. Speaker, I second the resolution moved by my hon. friend from Quebec West (Mr. Parent), and I shall add very few words to what he has said. As to the circumstances which led up to the troubles to which he has referred and the events which occured in connection with those troubles, I do not think it is necessary to say anything. No good purpose can be served by doing so; the issue is one of the past. However, as a result of these troubles innocent victims have suffered, and my hon. friend is right in claiming that these victims are en-4 p.m. titled to compensation. The city of Quebec cannot be held responsible in any way, because they had no latitude in the matter; the military authorities had taken from them the duty of maintaining peace and order; therefore they were no longer responsible. This is the view which has been taken by the law courts, and undoubtedly it is the correct view. Men who had nothing to do either directly or indirectly with those troubles, men who were returning from their work and had to pass through certain streets of the city, were either killed or wounded, though they were connected in no way with the occurrences of that time and were not responsible in any way for them. I submit that under the circumstances the Government and the military authorities are responsible for the damage that was caused. Human life is more important than real estate or property of any kind. When in time of war a piece of property has to be taken for military purposes, compensation is always paid to the owners. I think I may fairly say that even if the military authorities were properly carrying out their functions when these lives were taken, the Government is responsible to those who suffer-even if the military authorities were right; even if what they did served the purposes of the war. I do not think any fair-minded gentleman in

this House can deny that those who suffered under such circumstances have a right to compensation. The Government ought to investigate thoroughly every case, and in all cases where lives were taken or persons wounded, when the persons in question were not responsible in any way for the troubles and had proper occasion for being where they were at the time they suffered injury, the Government owes it to the dependants of these persons, as a matter of honour, to pay to them a fair and just compensation. For these reasons I second with pleasure the motion of my hon. friend.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Montmorency and Charlevoix) :: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, allow me to say a few words on the subject of this most important resolution which is to-day before the House and was already last year submitted to its consideration. I do not desire to prolong this debate and I do not wish to repeat the arguments so ably presented last year and this year by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent) and by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). Let me just call your attention to one of the cases mentioned by my hon. friend from Quebec West, the case of Edouard Tremblay, a young man who was to finish his technical school course in June, 1918. As I said,' Mr. Tremblay would have completed his course at the technical school in June, 1918. He was a son of Mrs. Mailloux, a widow, of Murray Bay, in the county of Charlevoix. At the time of the so-called Quebec riots he was spending his holidays with his family. On April 1 he returned to Quebec and, on the very same day he was shot near Bagot street. He reached Quebec by the Quebec-Saguenay railway at four o'clock in the evening, after supper, he went for a walk with one of his cousins, and it was whilst taking this walk near Bagot street, that he was shot through the leg and elbow and died shortly after. The inquest showed positively that neither of the wounds could have caused death; according to Dr. Marois' own words, at the coroner's inquest: "The wounds were not sufficient, to cause death." In fact, if in this circumstance, there had been available an ambulance, or some one to give first aid, his case would not have proved so serious; this boy would still be living, and helping his mother to earn a living, as it is done in the province of Quebec, and in the county which I have the honour to represent in this House. He was shot about ten o'clock, and it was not until one o'clock in the morning that he was attended to by Dr. Marois himself. Unfortunately, he was
already in a very weak condition, and it was too late. He died the next morning, at eight o'clock, without having recovered consciousness.
Mr. Speaker, I am well acquainted with young Tremblay's family; his uncle, Mr. Arthur Blackburn, is a well-known citizen of Murray Bay, and I have every reason to believe that this young man, who was quietly on his way to see some of his relatives, had in no way whatever transgressed the law or endeavoured to participate in the riots in question. Besides, at the coroner's inquest, where all the facts were proven, no evidence of this kind was given.
I believe that this case, as well as the others which have been submitted to the House by the hon. member for Quebec West, prove clearly that on this occasion there were innocent victims who were either wounded or killed, or who sustained losses. We have but to look back to our history to find that there have been other such disturbances. In 1837, for instance, after many appeals and great difficulties of all kinds, the government had to acknowledge the claims put forward by the respresenta-tives of the people, and if I remember well, an Act was passed by Parliament by which a compassionate allowance was granted to all those who had sustained losses during the rebellion of 1837. What is happening in the different countries of the world? Take those countries, for instance, which are not as civilized as our beautiful Dominion of Canada, countries where disturbances and riots recur from year to year; such, for example, is the case in Mexico. A press despatch from that country, which I read in an English paper, the other day, says that General Obregon, who has just assumed the direction of public affairs, is endeavouring to re-establish order and peace, and one of his first measures will have for its object to compensate the rebels who have suffered from any loss whatever, those who have been wounded or whose relatives have been killed. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if a country like Mexico takes into consideration the fact that there may have been losses of life or of money, and if such a country is ready to compensate even those who have caused the rebellion and have taken part in it, there is all the more reason, in a case where quiet and peaceful citizens like the victims of the Quebec riots-case which has been submitted to Parliament by the hon. members for Quebec West and Quebec East-as well as in the case which I have just mentioned myself. I think that the Government should accede to the re-

quest of the hon. member for Quebec West and adopt this resolution. This would only be a fair measure, a measure of equity, and at the present moment, it would be a good policy on the part of the Government. I therefore appeal to all members of the Government, and to those who support them, to vote in favour of this resolution.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to congratulate the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent), upon the persistence with which he has brought forward this question during the course of this Parliament. It was my pleasure last year to follow the hon. gentleman when he explained in such a clear manner the claim of the wounded and of the dependents of the killed in the famous Quebec riots. Having listened, last year, after his clear exposition, to the answer given to him by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), I came to the conclusion that the Government, immediately after the session came to an end, would investigate the whole matter. I find, however, this session that nothing whatever has been done. The question, apparently, has been treated in a light manner; it seems to me, at all events, that the subject has been discarded, as it were, by the Minister of Justice as being of insufficient importance to engage the close attention of the Government. These riots are more or less a family affair, I mean a Canadian affair; they are one of the regrettable legacies of the war. The war, indeed, in Europe, has amassed any amount of miseries, and it would be expected that that should be the case, because the continent of Europe was the actual theatre of the operations of the war. The miseries that have been accumulated in Europe, it will take, probably, centuries to repair. The Treaty of Peace has endeavoured to repair the damages and losses suffered during the war as between the allied nations and the enemy countries; but as my right hon. friend is well aware, the Treaty of Peace has not, in any instance, attempted to repair any damage or inconvenience that might have been caused by one country to its own resortissants, as my right hon. friend would say. It remains the duty of the government concerned in each country to see that, if any damages or losses have been suffered by some of their Nationals, they should take the proper step to right the wrongs that have been caused.
IMr. Casgrain.]
It is not my intention to rehearse the different cases which have been cited by the hon. member for Quebec West, but I think the House will be unanimous in coming to the conclusion that the relation of facts as presented by that hon. member is impressive; in a word, the situation is like this: You are a peaceable citizen; you are going from the place of your occupation to the place of your residence or domicile; on your way home, you meet an attack on the part of His Majesty's soldiers, although you are in no degree guilty of any offence; as a result of this attack, which may not have been absolutely voluntary on the part of the soldiers, but which may have been a result of their orders, you suffer a disability, or you incur death. This, in short, is what happened. If it is not so, let the Government find out. Can the statements made by the hon. member for Quebec West be sustained by evidence? This is the whole question. If those statements can be sustained, who amongst the hon. members who sit in this House would deny the right of those who suffered to be indemnified in some degree? This argument appears absolutely clear to me. This is not a provincial question; I am not drawn into this debate by the fact that the riots have taken place in the city of Quebec, with which I am, perhaps, better acquainted than any other city in Canada. That the same things occurred in the sad situation that developed some two years ago in the city of Winnipeg, had any of the Winnipeg citizens suffered injury or death from the action of the soldiers of His Majesty in their efforts to re-establish order, my position and my contention would be absolutely the same. This is not a question of provincialism, nor of race, nor of politics; those conditions must be put absolutely out of the mind of every hon. member. The principle appears to me to be right, that, if the soldiers of His Majesty have committed a wrong, the Government, the Parliament, the country as a whole, must right the wrong.
There is more than the question of principle involved. What about the question of national interest? Is it not of paramount importance in Canada that the most modest citizen be firmly convinced that, if he or she, suffers an injury from the constituted authorities, reparation will be made? It is, I think, of much concern to us also that this sentiment should prevail in Canada

amongst all citizens, regardless of their situation. I will not press the point any further; but I would urge the right hon. gentleman who presides over the Department of Justice to institute an investigation into this case in order to find out whether the statements of the hon. member for Quebec West are well founded, and if they are well founded, the question is then one of honour, one of equity, and more than that, one of national interest, as I tried to demonstrate a minute ago. I shall say no more on this subject except to congratulate again my hon. friend from Quebec West (Mr. Parent), and to commend to the House his persistence and tenacity of purpose in bringing this case before Parliament. In doing so, he is serving not only his electors, but Canada as a whole.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I am sorry that I was not present at the opening of this debate and so missed hearing my hon. friend from Quebec West (Mr. Parent). I was otherwise engaged in attempting to convince the Government that in order to avoid further claims for compensation something should be done to prevent the rocks from falling on the inhabitants of another portion of our city. However, I listened with considerable attention to the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and to the other members who have taken part in this debate, and I heartily concur in what they have said.
Without entering into a discussion of the causes, either proximate or otherwise, of the famous Quebec riots, I think we all agree after hearing the evidence so ably presented by the hon. member for Quebec West that there were undoubtedly a large number of innocent victims of these riots. So far as a case of which I have personal knowledge is concerned, a gentlman who lives in my constituency was, at the time he was wounded, walking along the street at some distance from the scene of any riot or trouble. He was a member of a family which had given several sons to the war, one of whom had been killed at the front, so his sympathies, if any, would most assuredly not have been with people of a riotous or rebellious disposition.
We have, on the other hand, this point of view to take into consideration. Hon. gentlemen will remember that at the time of the riots the whole country was very much stirred up. We had flaming head lines in the newspapers from coast to coast,
which seemed to indicate that in the city of Quebec an actual state of warfare existed. Naurally, the soldiers sent from outside points-and a large number of them came from other provinces-were somewhat influenced by these inflammatory reports. I am in a position to state that a large number of these soldiers were raw rcruits, that some of them had never had Ross rifles in their hands before the evening on which they arrived at Quebec. Some of them even-and I can give authority for this statement-had received Ross rifles and had been issued with ball ammunition for the first time in their lives only ten minutes before they marched to Jacques Cartier Square in the city of Quebec. A large number of them, in shooting, I have no doubt, acted contrary to the orders which they had received. Taking these things into consideration, the state of mind in which these raw recruits must have found themselves, the reports which they must have heard, their obvious inexperience in the handling of dangerous weapons and placed in such a situation as they were, I think, without in any way imputing any blame to the soldiers themselves, that some blame must attach to those that sent them there. If, as will no doubt be urged by hon. gentlemen opposite, there were no other troops available, that does not in any way help the case of those who are of the opinion that no compensation should be paid. We have here, at any rate, on the facts of the case, shown that there was some negligence on the part of some one in authority, that certain well behaved citizens were injured, and some unfortunately killed. We have it that all precautions in the way of sending experienced men were not taken, and we have the inflamed state of public opinion at that time. So it seems to me that a case for compensation for the victims has been made by the hon. member for Quebec West, and I think the Minister of Justice would only be doing simple justice to the victims and their families if he would give this matter more serious consideration than he has hitherto given to it. He would at the same time, as my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) has said, be confirming in the minds of the citizens of Canada that opinion which they have always had, and which they should have, that for any damage to which they have been subjected on the part of any one in authority they should be fully and amply compensated.

Mr. HORATIO C. HOCKEN (West Toronto) : My hon. friends opposite have spread a good deal of salve over this incident in respect of which they are asking compensation for men who were injured. What they are asking is practically a pension for rioters, for men who were on the streets, in the midst of a riot, after they had been warned by General Lessard that they should not be there. Nobody can claim, by any stretch of the imagination, that men injured under such circumstances have any legal right to compensation. If I understand the arguments put forth, one of the men lost half his earning power, and therefore his demand will be for a fifty per-cent pension. This man, who was injured in a riot at home when this country was being urged to raise a sufficient number of men to support our troops at the front, was with his friends rioting on the streets of a Canadian city. My hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) says that this is a family question, a Canadian question. No, Sir, it is a French Canadian question, for in no other part of this country was there anything of the kind. There was unanimity everywhere else in support of our men at the front. The men who refused to be warned and went out and joined in a riot of this kind at the most critical time in the history of our country and empire have no right to come to this Parliament and ask for an indemnity for wounds or any thing else that they suffered. They went there deliberately; with their eyes open, they engaged in an unlawful assembly and if they have suffered any loss it should be made up to them, if by anybody, by either the province of Quebec or the city of Quebec. The people of the other ' provinces of Canada, who contributed so enormously in men and in money, and made such tremendous sacrifices to save this country from the Hun, should not be called upon to contribute in the slightest degree to indemnify men who played the part of rebels at that critical period in our history. There is no moral right, there is no legal right. I cannot imagine how any man can bring a question of this kind before Parliament. It is probable that it will be brought up in the House year in and year out until we have a Government supine enough to heed the plea; but I cannot conceive of a Parliament composed of men such as are here to-day passing this motion. To my mind it would be a disgrace if this motion were carried. It would arouse among the Great War Veterans throughout

the country, as well as among people who have suffered so seriously through the war, a sense of resentment that would be expressed in no uncertain manner against any Government or any party that would be gulity of an act so entirely without justification.


Henri Sévérin Béland: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question?


Mr. HOCKEN:: Yes, sir.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Did you say that the
hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent), was asking the Government for compensation for rioters?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I say that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Well, I deny that entirely.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You are wrong.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I say that these men
had been warned, just as though the mayor of the city had read the Riot Act. They were warned by proclamation to keep off the streets. They refused to obey the proclamation, they went into the crowd, and if they suffered under those circumstances it was entirely their own fault.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Do you still claim that they were rioters?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I claim that they were among the rioters.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Oh, "among".


Horatio Clarence Hocken: They had no right to be among the rioters, because they were warned by public proclamation not to go out.


Charles Murphy: It was not my intention to intervene in this debate, nor do I purpose taking up more than a minute or two. I merely wish to draw attention to the free and easy way in which the hon. gentleman who has just concluded (Mr. Hocken), ignores the crux of the matter brought before the House. In characteristic Toronto fashion he misrepresented the statements made by my hon. friend from Quebec West regarding the merits of this case. My hon. friend from Quebec West read a number of statements from the survivors in whose behalf compensation was claimed. As I recall the cases that were cited, they were either those of men peaceably engaged in their places of business, or going peaceably through the streets on their way home after business. One man in particular-I think, the man whose case was first mentioned by the hon.

member for Quebec West,-told about his premises having been entered by men wearing the uniform of soldiers, and of the attacks made upon him in his store. Yet, in the face of the evidence submitted through my hon. friend in connection with that case, the hon. gentleman from Toronto (Mr. Hocken), bulks all these people together and refers to them as rioters who were on the streets when they had no business to be there. How does he make a man a rioter who is attacked in his place of business? But that is the characteristic Toronto style of dealing with facts.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Hear, hear, but they are not all like that; I know.


Charles Murphy: Then he went on to
allege that these people went out in the streets and joined in a riot. Now, listening attentively to the evidence submitted by my hon. friend from Quebec West, I did not hear the name of one man mentioned who had joined in a riot. Each of the men injured was wounded while engaged in some peaceful occupation, or while proceeding quietly along the street. My hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), mentioned a matter which I do not recall having heard in any of the preceding discussions of this unfortunate incident. He mentioned that the military authorities had superseded the civil authorities on the occasion in question and had taken the administration of law and order into their own hands. If that be the case, then I submit that that fact alone would afford my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), and the Government of which he is a member, a ground for action, if nothing else did. In any event, in view of the interpretation sought to be placed upon the incident by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken),-an interpretation which, during this week or the following week, will be blazoned forth in large print on the front page of the newspaper with which the hon. gentleman is inseparably associated-I submit that it is a duty which the Government owes it to the people to perform,-I say this with all due respect, and without any desire to dictate to my right hon. friend at all-to see that the evidence bearing on this incident shall be fully elicited in some formal way. When that has been done, I am sure Parliament and the country will be satisfied with whatever action may follow afterwards.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If ever there was a
question before Parliament which should be approached calmly and dispassionately, and without any party feeling, it is a question of this character. We as British subjects pride ourselves on the fact that every man who casts his lot and his allegiance under the British flag shall always have a square deal, a fair show, and an impartial trial, if there is anything to be tried. I think, therefore, that this high court of Parliament would make a mistake if it approached any case before the full facts were available in a proper and conclusive form, so far as they can be made conclusive in a matter of this kind. The facts set forth by the hon. member for Quebec West impressed me very much, and I was shocked to find that such a thing as described, could take place in this Canada of ours. We all have a high sense of the liberties of the subject, and we should be able with good reason to declare that every man, woman and child can at all times, at any hour in the day or in the night, move about in any part of this country, and particularly on the streets of a city of the size of Quebec, without the slightest fear of molestation in any way. That is a fact which we are apt to take for granted. Now, if it is true that in the city of Quebec some time during the war assaults were made on peaceful citizens, that men's shops were broken into, business interfered with, goods practically stolen, and those in charge of business places assaulted, then that is a matter for investigation; and if, as a result of inquiry, it were found that these things did- actually take place, there are only two courses of action:	Somebody should pay
those who lost their goods, and the criminal responsible should be brought to justice and treated in accordance with the nature of the crime of which he might be found guilty. The fact that a man is wearing a uniform, and is permitted to carry a gun, does not relieve him of criminality in this country if he does anything wrong which he is not ordered to do. As I understand the law, the military power of this country can only be called to the aid of the civil authorities in a certain way, and when conditions are such that the civil authorities are no longer able to mantain order. If conditions of that kind arise in Canada proper orders are given, and the Minister of Militia orders out a certain number of troops to the aid of the civil authorities. If that happened in this instance then, as I understand it, that military force was subject to the orders, discipline and direction of the civil

authority in the city of Quebec, and that authority is responsible for anything that may have ensued from the issuance of those orders. But if a body of men, sent into the city of Quebec by the Dominion, had broken away from authority, I would be disposed to think that the Government and Parliament, as the central authority to which those men are subject, would be liable, I would say in a general way, for anything done by those men contrary to law. The matter is one that should be fully inquired into and the facts properly placed before Parliament. I would regret indeed if any province or an individual from one province or another, should, for one moment, try to stir up trouble over this matter. The facts should be investigated by some properly constituted court whose findings, when presented to Parliament, would not be questioned. I would submit to the Government that if any inquiry is to be made it should be conducted by parties regarded as highly competent, and absolutely removed from any partisan or other influence that would cause them to make any report but such as would be in absolute conformity with the facts. That having been done, I trust this Parliament would rise to the occasion and treat the case on its merits. The impression should never be allowed to go forth, whatever the reason might be which created the situation, that our citizens might be assaulted with impunity, and some of them killed, without the proper authorities taking cognizance of the matter and doing something to compensate the sufferers for the depredations that were committed. Such, I am sure, will not be permitted here. No person, I am certain, will ever be allowed to say, with any degree of truth, that he was not treated fairly and in an absolutely just manner by the authorities of this country.


Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: It is a matter of some regret to me that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland), followed in like manner by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent), should have assumed that this matter was treated lightly by the Minister of Justice, and that it had not received the attention, and had not been looked into. I only have to say in that regard that both gentlemen are entirely mistaken.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We are glad to hear it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: After the discussion of last year when I intimated that I would look into the matter, I received some three

claims. These did not include a claim for the breaking into of anybody's shop, nor if my memory serves me, a claim on behalf of a man named Mercier, who was mentioned. In regard to those cases I understand there was an inquiry made by the Militia Department, at least I am so informed. Touching the three cases that came before me I was at pains, so far as my time and capacity enabled me to do so, to look into the law on the question, and I also had the law officers of the department do the same, and I reached the conclusion-the conclusion is one, I am satisfied, that hon. gentlemen opposite who are lawyers, if they also will look into the matter, will inevitably come to-that there can be no question of legal responsibility in the matter. We may as well lay that feature aside at once, and put it out of the question. I venture to say it is perfectly clear. Where the military authority intervenes, the soldier, because he is a soldier has not any more right than any person else to use unnecessary force for the maintenance of peace. If he does more, and it is a wrongful act, he has his responsibility for it; but there is, as a matter of law, I do not hesitate to say, no legal responsibility upon the Crown. I said last year I was impressed with the argument made by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), and which I think was supported by other hon. gentlemen, in which it was sought to establish an analogy between the case of the expropriation, for public purposes, of a man's property, where the principle is recognized that it implies an obligation of compensation, and the case where-without imputing blame to anybody-a man's life is taken by an operation necessary for the public good. I must confess that I have not been able to find anything to support that proposition; so I think we have to approach this question-I at all events am forced to do so-accepting of the position that I am not face to face with a legal claim, with a claim susceptible of being legally established or maintained by a court. Hon. gentlemen are exceedingly sympathetic with the persons whom they represent as affected, and who they represent to be absolutely innocent people. Of course, I do not suppose it would be suggested that if that assumption were not sound there could be any question of discussing from any point of view a claim advanced by people who themselves were guilty of taking part in the riots that required to be suppressed or of unduly exposing themselves with knowledge; but the

case, I take it, is put forward upon the assumption that the people concerned were absolutely innocent victims. Even assuming that to be so, we are not face to face with a claim enforceable in law, at all events I can find anything nothing to justify that view.
As I have said, hon. gentlemen opposite are exceedingly sympathetic with the sufferings of these people and, if the facts are as they have been representing them to be, I can quite understand the existence of that sympathy. But my hon. friends are in position to indulge their sympathy to the full; I am not. Whatever might be my sympathy-and assuming perfect innocence on his part surely I would sympathize with a person, who, without fault of any kind, unfortunately lost his life, or was subjected to grievous injury; under the circumstances I think I would sympathize as fully as hon. gentlemen do-I have a duty to perform-and my function is to advise as to the legal responsibilities of this Government. Now I did, as I have said, go into this matter and I had my law officers go into it, and I have before me their report which confirms the only conclusion I was able to arrive at myself. So, clearly, I at all events have to take that position, and I do it with a very considerable degree of confidence that I am not mistaken.
We are not face to face with a question of legal responsibility. Then the question arises, how far are we to go? I have to remember when I am listening to this very impressive appeal to sympathy from hon. gentlemen, that it is not an appeal to me for payment of my own money; it is an appeal for payment of the money of this country. Now, am I or are hon. gentlemen themselves entitled to ask, because of their sympathy with people who have no legal claim against the Government, that the moneys of this country should be paid to those people in compensation of injuries sustained? It is not the only case where in law and in justice damage may be suffered and nobody be responsible for it; hon gentlemen, I suppose, are all perfectly familiar with what is often described in very barbarous Latin as damnum absque injuria. So far as this Government is concerned while these people may have suffered damage, and may be quite innocent sufferers, there is no wrongdoing established on the part of the Government, and that is absolutely essential as a basis of legal responsibility.


Mr. BE  LAND@: That is the doctrine that the Crown can do wrong.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Crown has no responsibility for the wrong-doing of its individual employees. If you acknowledged any other principle there would be practically no limit to the possible liability of the Crown. Assuming it could be established that the soldiers were in some respects at fault, those particular soldiers, of course, have their responsibility. If the officer commanding unlawfully ordered certain things to be done, he has his responsibility. But you cannot pass that off onto the Crown. There are cases, of course, where a Government, acknowledging no responsibility, does feel justified in granting what are called compassionate allowances. But let me point out in that connection that the city of Quebec is not the only city where difficulties arose which gave rise to complaints by reason of the action of soldiers. We had such claims emanating from people in the city of Calgary amounting to very considerable sums.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Was that during the war?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend from Toronto does not appear to know about that.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: They were not rebelling against the authority of the Crown.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Those complaints referred to soldiers breaking into some man's shop. I do not know that there had been any previous rioting on the part of the citizens concerned. We had to take the same position in regard to all these claims, that they were all governed by the same general principle. Perhaps it is not necessary for an hon. member to say it, but of course a question of this kind cannot be made a question as between provinces or races or classes; there has to be one law and one rule for everybody.
Now, under that law, unfortunately there are cases of suffering and damage in different parts of the country. In regard to all such cases I and the officers of the department who are advising this Government as to its liability have to advise in accordance with the law as we find it, and I think it will be readily understood how dangerous it would be for us to undertake to view cases from the compassionate standpoint. It is not the function of a lawyer at all events to be compassionate-indeed, some wicked people say that in order to be a good lawyer one should have a bad heart and a good stomach. I do not know whether I meet those two requirements or not and whether the badness of my heart is as



great as it ought to be to make me a good lawyer, but it is undoubtedly true that, acting as the adviser of this Government, it is not possible for me to allow any sympathetic feeling to influence my advice. As I said when this matter was brought up last year, I was very much struck by the suggestion of the possible analogy between the case of the expropriation of a man's property and the case where a Government doing something for the public good does incidentally, through its employees or officers, deprive some one of his life- an analogy which would justify from the legal standpoint the granting of compensation. The best examination that I have been able to make has led me to the conclusion that that analogy cannot be sustained.
Eliminating absolutely the question of legal responsibility, and treating the appeal as based upon considerations of commiseration, I have to remember that all my colleagues have not had the advantage of hearing that appeal, and while I cannot, in view of what I have said, do otherwise than oppose this particular motion, I shall be glad to bring to their attention what has been said this afternoon.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I have followed this debate with some interest. If from the purely legal point of view there is not in the judgment of my right hon. friend a case for compensation of the victims of the Quebec riots, I believe that when we consider what is called in law the res gestae, there is good ground for at least a compassionate allowance to those victims. I have not the cases at hand, but I believe if my right hon. friend will delve into the precedents of the Department of Justice under the Union of the two Canadas he will find that at the time of the Gavazzi riots in Montreal, compensation was given by the Government to the victims of the military on that occasion. If my memory serves me well, my right hon. friend will also take up Justin McCarthy's "History of Our Own Times" and peruse the chapter dealing with the Gordon riots in England, there he will find that the Home Government compensated some of the victims.
Let us take a case which is probably more familiar to my right hon. friend, a case in which the Crown came
5 p.m. to the rescue of men who had no legal claim for compensation. I refer to the case of the squatters at Fox Bay, on Anticosti Island. These squatters

had been on that island, and that particular part of the island, for many years, but Anally the owner' of the island demanded that they be deported; that the squatters leave the particular place where they had located. There was not one tittle of evidence that the squatters were entitled to any compensation. Yet the Dominion Government-and I believe the law officers of the Crown advised accordingly-decided that the squaters should be compensated in some way. As a matter of fact, the squatters did leave the island of Anticosti and were given by the Department of the Interior letters patent in respect of lands in the West in order to compensate them for the semblance of title which they imagined they had by virtue of their having for many years lived at Fox Bay on the Island of Anticosti. My right hon. friend was impressed last year by the appeal which was made by my hon. friend from Quebec, on the ground that there was some similarity between the cases brought forward by my hon. friend and cases of expropriation. I believe that the case of the squatters of Fox Bay should have some influence on the final decision arrived at by the Government in this matter. It was not a question of law; it was a question of equity, of fair play-of British fair play, I might say to my hon. friend from Toronto West (Mr. Hocken). It was a question of compassionate allowance. I find that on several occasions this Parliament has ignored the strict letter of the law and voted sums of money on the ground that there was occasion for granting compassionate allowance. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to come back to the particular events which took place in 1917, and in reverting to that phase of the discussion I wish to be as moderate as I can. It is not necessary to rekindle old fires; I believe we are all anxious to have peace not only in this wide world, but more so in our own country, Canada. My right hon. friend will remember that the cause of this whole trouble was the announcement suddenly made that we were to have compulsory military service. Are you going to blame very seriously the young men of this country because they at first resented the application of that law? Of course, every man must obey the law of the land. But, Mr. Speaker, it is the privilege of the young men of my race to be very logical. My right hon. friend will admit that the French mind is generally logical. The young men had been told-indeed, a solemn pledge had been taken before Parliament

and before the country-that there would be no compulsory service in Canada; that enlistments would be under the voluntary system. But suddenly this was changed. We live in a free country, Mr. Speaker. We rejoice in the fact that we have free political institutions, and naturally it was the privilege of the yeomanry to criticize and to protest. The young men of Quebec criticized and protested, and they were not alone in doing so; other men in other parts of the country criticized and protested. And if finally that feature of the political situation in 1917 was accepted in other parts of Canada, you well know, Mr Speaker, and every conscientious member of this House well knows, that it was because the promise was made to these young men of Ontario and the West that they would not be conscripted; that the law would apply only to the young men of the province of Quebec. Sir, it is too soon yet to begin writing the history of the war, but When that history comes to be written, I make bold to say that the historian will give justice to whom justice is due. I was telling my right hon. friend a moment ago that, one must remember the peculiar circumstances of the application of the Military Service Act; one must take into consideration what the criminalists call res gestae. Let us remember the inflammatory speeches delivered throughout the whole country, the incendiary writings published broadcast, the appeals made on all sides, for and against. Let us bear in mind-and this has been admitted since-that the people of the old city of Quebec are a law-abiding and liberty-loving people. All of a sudden, on the very day when the churches of that city were packed full of pious people, the Ontario soldiers appeared and began tramping in the streets. Remember that it was on Holy Friday in the city of Quebec, a God-fearing city, if there is one on this continent, that regiments sent from Ontario started marching. Poor soldiers! They were doing their duty as they knew it; they were obeying the orders as they were given to them. Who will ever believe that the soldiers, who came from Ontario to restore order on Holy Friday in the city of Quebec, did believe in their heart and soul that there was any order to be restored in that city on that particular day? But, elsewhere, there were men anxious, indeed, to send soldiers into Quebec during that period of inflammatory speeches throughout Canada, in 96J
order to serve the political ends, we know. The situation in Quebec, I say to my right hon. friend, on the morning of Holy Friday in 1918, is on a par with the situation prepared, abetted, concocted by other agitators, at the time of the raid on the Guelph Novitiate. We all know for what purpose that raid was organized, and all liberty-loving Canadians were humiliated by what happened on that occasion.
My right hon. friend says that no compensation can be given under such circumstances. It has been stated that law-abiding citizens, who were not rioters, lost their lives, that others lost property. I have in mind a case which came up before the criminal courts of Montreal, where young men were brought under the criminal law before their peers because they had threatened to destroy by dynamite the residence of Lord Atholstan at Cartierville, near Montreal. The Department of Justice must have been represented when that trial took place. At all events, my right hon. friend will remember that it was established before Mr. Justice Pelletier, a4nd the twelve jurors, that the chief, the star witness of the Crown was a man by the name of Desjardins and that that man had received money from the Department of Justice. It was also proven that Desjardins received $25 and acted as "agent provocateur."


Pierre-François Casgrain: He was bonded by
them and defended by their attorney.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The man was employed. That he was employed as an "agent provocateur," is another statement, and that certainly is not true.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will ask my right hon. friend-I am sure he is speaking in good faith-to read over the evidence in that case. He will find that Mr. Justice Pelletier, one of his former colleagues, who presided over the assizes, was so dumbfounded that he at once adjourned the court. Read his address to the jury. Later on, this man Desjardins was arrested, and he was bonded by the Crown. Later on again he was found guilty of highway robbery, or I do not know what other crime, in the district of Hull.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Defended again by the Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He was defended by one of the Crown's attorneys, I am informed.


Pierre-François Casgrain: It is true.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He was sentenced to jail or penitentiary, and he is now out under ticket-of-leave. Is that a fact or not a fact? If it be true that jailbirds of that ilk were employed and paid by the Department of Justice as "agents provocateurs" for political reasons of the lowest and meanest order, is there not ground at least for the innocent victims of the Quebec riots to claim a compassionate allowance from the Government? "Oh," the hon. member for Toronto West says, "the whole country would revolt against such an idea." I do not expect that this year or next year or the year after, the victims of the Quebec riots will be indemnified. It takes some time, even in British countries, for justice to be achieved; in some countries there is no hope for justice, but under the British flag, as I read history, justice is sure to triumph. Some day, Sir, when there is a better feeling between the various races and provinces in Canada, the victims of those riots and their families will be indemnified.
Canada has passed through other crucial tests in the past. Our forefathers passed through the rebellion in Upper Canada, in Lower Canada. The forebears of the hon. member for Toronto West were not slow in exacting from the Crown, after 1837 and 1838, an indemnity for the Loyalists, and the indemnity was granted by a majority in Parliament. Years went on, and went on, and finally a patriot from Upper Canada, by the name of Robert Baldwin, took office. He allied himself with Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine. They brought peace, harmony, order, into the country, and in 1849, under the Baldwin-Lafontaine government, the families of the rebels and some of the rebels themselves were indemnified for losses incurred during the rebellion. There were some protests at the time. The Hockens of the day bet fire to the Parliament Buildings in Montreal.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I think the hon. member must realize that his remark is hardly Parliamentary.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let us say, the Orange Sentinels of the day set fire to the parliament buildings in Montreal. They even treated with very scant respect the person of the Governor General of the day, Lord Elgin. I have myself seen in England, in the family of Lord Elgin, a big stone which was found in the carriage of His Excellency after he left the Parliament buildings in Montreal. It was exhibited somewhere in London-a souvenir of the

loyal Sentinels of 1849. Some day too there will be a bill of indemnity to cover the damages inflicted on innocent victims of the Quebec riots, and people will then realize that the so-called riots were caused first by agents provocateurs in the pay of political agitators and secondly by the swaggering and bullying attempts of some very superior people to dominate a minority; The young men were only exercising a right by protesting against a law which they had been promised by the Prime Minister would never be enacted by this Parliament, Sir, we owe it to our dead in Flander's fields to put an end to all these causes of friction. They did not fight, they did not die, to let people like my hon. friend from West Toronto fill the air with their song of hate in Canada. They fought and they died so that their fellow-countrymen, of both races, might hereafter replace the song of hate by a song of love.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice, when he has time, and is far from the sinister influence now around him, will again scrutinize closely the cases which have been so ably brought before the House by my hon. friend from Quebec West, and I have no hesitation in saying that I believe his better judgment will be in favour of a compassionate allowance for these unhappy victims of the so-called Quebec riots.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough) :: I did not intend to say anything on this question, but it appears to me there is one phase of it which my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice has not yet considered. The claim was made, I understand, against the city of Quebec that the city was responsible for the disorders at that time, that the city was responsible for the protection of the property and lives of the citizens. The claim was disallowed in the courts, I am told, because the civic authorities of Quebec were not in charge of keeping order at that time. That function was transferred from the city of Quebec to the military authorities. The Government at Ottawa took the very unusual step of passing an Order in Council for. that purpose, notwithstanding the fact that the civil authorities had not asked for any assistance from the military authorities.
I have here the Order in Council. It is somewhat lengthy, and I do not intend to do anything more than read a paragraph or two to illustrate the point I am trying to make. The Order in Council is dated April 4, 1918, and reads in parts as follows:

Whereas on the 28th day of March last the opposition of a large number of the population of the city of Quebec to the enforcement of the Military Service Act, 1917, and the regulations thereunder, broke out in open violence and serious riots ensued on that day and on subsequent days in which the rioters destroyed the office of the deputy registrar appointed for the District of Quebec under the said Act, and moreover caused great damage to other property, and threatened further damage, and it became necessary for the restoration of order, the protection of property and the preservation of the King's peace that these riots should be suppressed by military authority;
And whereas at common law it is the duty of a military officer with the troops under his command to interefere-when such interference is necessary, to put down riot, insurrection or civil disturbance ;
And whereas it is provided by the Militia Act that the active militia of Canada may be called out on active service in aid of the civil power upon requisition of the civil authorities, and the King's regulations and Orders for the Militia contain certain directions for regulating the exercise of command and disposition of the troops upon such occasions;
' And whereas notwithstanding that it was necessary as aforesaid for the preservation of the peace and to repress rioting that resort should be had to military force the civil authorities of Quebec made no requisition for the calling out of the Militia and the Officer Commanding therefore, acting manifestly in the general interest and for the protection of the public, and by direction of the Minister of Militia and Defence assumed the responsibility to command and direct the operation of the troops for the protection of life and property and the restoration of the peacein the city of Quebec. Now it appears that the military authorities intervened and took the city under their own protection, turning aside the civil authorities from looking after the property and lives of the citizens and the maintenance of peace and order. Consequently it follows that the military authorities should feel themselves responsible for what took place. If they had kept their hands off altogether and thrown the burden on the civic authorities, it would be another matter, but their interference at that stage and their taking upon themselves the duty of maintaining order in the city, puts the case in a different light. How did they perform tha't duty? The very men who were entrusted with the preservation of order in the city were the ones who committed the offences. As my hon. friend from West Quebec told us this afternoon, a shop was looted by soldiers wearing the uniform of His Majesty the King, and directed by officers of the Militia Department-the very men who were entrusted with the protection of the lives and property of the citizens of Quebec. Surely the responsibility is upon the Government, and not upon the city of Quebec, to compensate the people for the injuries that were done by these soldiers who did not perform their duty at that time. That was the decision of the courts, I understand, and I think the decision was right under the circumstances.
My right hon. friend the Minister of Justice says there is no legal claim. This is not put forward, I understand, as a strictly legal claim. It is a moral claim, and the practice in this Parliament, this High Court of Justice, has often been to entertain moral claims as well as legal claims. The claim of the city of Halifax was the moral claim. They had no legal claim upon us to furnish millions of money to compensate the victims of the disaster in the city of Halifax in December 1917, but the Government recognized that the disaster arose out of the war and that innocent victims in the city of Halifax had suffered great damage, and the Government stepped in and voted a large sum of money to compensate them.
I wish to draw that fact to the attention of my right hon. friend, not because the case is exactly the same, but because it disposes of the point made by him that he can deal only with cases of legal liability. We are not pressing for his attention in this case on any ground of legal liability. The question is as to whether it is just and right on the part of the Government to refuse to entertain these claims, seeing that they were responsible at the time for order in the city of Quebec and that the damage was done by soldiers in their service. This must not be forgotten. The men that did the damage were our soldiers, wearing our uniform, and directed by our officers. A case cited by my hon. friend from Quebec West seems to me to be a very serious one of hardship. The man in question was walking past the sentry. He did not understand English, although, when ordered to stop, he evidently realized the nature of the command and held up his hands. What more could he do? Nevertheless, a rifle was discharged and he was wounded, losing one of his limbs. Surely there is no excuse for that, if the facts be true. Whether they are strictly true or not is something that this House is not in a position to decide; it is a matter for my right hon. friend to find out. I understood from the minister's speech that he had made some investigation, but he did not tell us the results. He did not say whether these men injured in Quebec were in any way guilty of participation in the riots that took place in that city. That is a vital question. If they were not in any way connected with the riots, then I submit

that they have a moral claim for compensation. Of course, if they were associated with rioters and were making a disturbance, resisting the law, they would have no claim for compensation. But that appears to me to be the crux of the claim, and my right hon. friend did not tell the House whether he had discovered that they were guilty of any misconduct or not. I trust that this question will be considered on its merits, and considered with a view to doing justice to the victims of the riot. The cases put before us by the hon. member for Quebec West were clearly stated. We must put aside any question of legal liability, and I do not think that my hon. friend intends that the subject should be considered by the House as involving any legal claim. It is simply a matter in which justice ought to be done; as I have said, it is a moral claim. I hope that no discrimination will be made because of the fact that this trouble occurred in the city of Quebec. The case should be dealt with as though the incident had taken place in Toronto or in any other city in the Dominion.
Motion negatived on division.


THE CASE OF SERGEANT-MAJOR N. BRUNELLE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. RODOLPHE _LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve and Gaspe) moved:
For a copy of all papers and correspondence concerning the application to the Board of Pension Commissioners of Mrs. Brunelle, widowed mother of the late Sergeant Major N. Brunelle, No. 62068, for a pension.
He said: I shall be very brief in presenting the case of the widow Brunelle. She is the mother of Sergeant-Major N. Brunelle, who enlisted in the 22nd Battalion, on December 4, 1914, and was discharged on May 21, 1919, being medically unfit owing to chronic bronchitis. He was examined at the North Bay district office of the Pension Commissioners and was awarded a pension of 25 per cent. I may say, en passant, that this young man, who enlisted at the beginning of the war and served until 1919, was awarded a decoration on the battlefield. He was 26 years of age at his death. After his return to Canada, he died on July 3, 1919, at Swastika, in northern Ontario, by accidental drowning.
Henri Sévérin Béland: How long was that after he had been discharged from the army?


Rodolphe Lemieux: He was discharged on May 21, 1919, when he was given a pension of 25 per cent.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Disability?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, and he was drowned on July 3, 1919. It will be seen that he did not long enjoy the pension granted him. When he was found after the accident a coroner living at a great distance from Swastika was summoned and held an inquest which, I may say, was all on hearsay evidence, for no one could say how the accident had occurred, except that it was during a very hot spell of weather when this young man and some companions took a bath in the river. In some way Brunelle got beyond his depth and was drowned. His mother is a widow. She is in poor in health; in fact she is absolutely helpless, being obliged to go from house to house, looking for work. She has two young daughters to take care of, and within the past few weeks, one of them, unfortunately, was nearly killed by a street car in Ottawa. So that this woman is altogether helpless. I appeared on her behalf before the Pension Commissioners and stated that in view of this man's disability and the fact that he had been incapacitated on the battlefield, the presumption was that he came to his death because he was not strong enough to cope with a situation in which a man in ordinary health would have been safe. He was sub-normal. I was referred, of course, to subsection 1 of section 11 of the Act which reads as follows:
The Commission shall award pensions to, or in respect of members of the Forces who have suffered disability in accordance with the rates set out in Schedule "A" of this Act, and, in respect of the members of the Forces who have died in accordance with the rates set out in Schedule "B" of this Act, when the disability or death in respect of which the application for pension is made, is attributable to military service.
My contention is that this death, caused by an accident, is above all chiefly attributable to the military service of the unfortunate Brunelle. He came back from the battlefield with twenty-five per cent less of his fighting power, and therefore I contend that his mother should receive the pension with which, if he had been alive, he would have helped her. It is a very sad case, and I hope the Government will instruct the Committee on Pensions to report in favour of so amending the Act as to enable a case of this nature to be dealt with by the Pension Commissioners. I wish to inform the House that the coroner's inquest has revealed nothing which should prevent the mother of this young Brunelle from receiv-

ing a pension. His death resulted from an accident in the river, and the presumption in law is, that if he had been in the physical condition in which he was before he became incapacitated on the battlefield he would certainly have been able to escape that fatal accident.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The minister
under whom the Pension Commissioners act, in liason with the Government, is not at present in his place. The case as stated by my hon. friend is largely one that appeals to the sympathy, but he has also stated that the Pension Commissioners do not find that it comes within the law and they, of course, have to strictly administer the regulations according to the law. The pensions that have been arranged, even with their conditions and limitations are, I think, on a very generous scale-


Rodolphe Lemieux: No doubt about it.


George Green Foster: ^but there will always be cases, even outside of that generous provision, which seem to involve very great hardship and appeal to the sympathy of individuals who become acquainted with them. It is, I suppose, absolutely impossible to frame a law which will cover all cases. I do not understand that my hon. friend finds any fault with the Board of Pension Commissioners, who have acted according to their rendering of the law and the regulations made thereunder. My hon. friend, however, as I understand, asks that they may be instructed to apply for amendments to the law, which would cover a case like this. I am not quite sure that that would be a wise procedure; but it might be possible that cases of this kind should be taken into account by the committee of the House which at present is sitting. I do not understand that my hon friend has presented this case to that Committee, but it would seem to me to be a fair method of procedure to bring it to the attention of the chairman. However, my hon. friend has placed his case on Hansard and I will call the attention of the proper minister to it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I may add just a word to what the minister has said. I am only sorry that the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn), who is the chairman of the Pensions Committee, is not at present in the House, because, he perhaps, more ably than myself, could have explained the better course for my hon. friend to
have followed. The case that the hon. friend has cited is a pathetic one, and there are a number of others that are similar. The Board of Pension Commissioners are confronted with almost innumerable cases of that kind; but that Board is a tribunal unlike any other in Canada-there is no appeal from it, it is a sovereign Board. It is only fair to add that the Pension Commissioners, so far as I have been able to judge, always give the benefit of the doubt in exercising their discretion, and it is, I think, a fair Board. It is customary, however, in cases such as my hon. friend has outlined, to refer them to the Pensions Committee. That committee have appointed a sub-committee-called the "special cases sub-committee"-which deals with all these peculiar and pathetic cases which may be brought before them. I need not mention the names of the hon. members who compose this sub-committee-they are eminently qualified for the position-and I understand that the Board of Pension Commissioners in a case like this would abide by the recommendation of the sub-committee supported by the committee as a whole. I would therefore advise my hon. friend to report the case to the committee, and it will be dealt with in due course.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I certainly will accept the advice given by my right hon. friend the acting leader of the House, and my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland). I think indeed, that as the special committee are sitting during the session they would have no objection to hearing whatever complaints are made by the families of the soldiers. In the present instance, I wish to emphasize, that I do not find fault with the commission; far from it; they have treated me with the utmost courtesy and have taken a good deal of their time in going over the whole record. I spent a morning with them, and they were absolutely fair in their dealings with me. But, as the right hon. gentleman (Sir George Foster) has stated, here is a case which just touches the edge of the law and yet cannot come within the law, because the law itself is not elactic enough to cover it. However, every one will admit the hardship. Here is a man who was disabled, receiving a pension of twenty-five per cent; he is drowned in the river; there is no coroner's inquest to speak of except to view the body and say that it was found in the water. Is there not a legal presumption, Mr. Speaker, that this man was drowned because he was not able

to look after himself as presumably he would have done had he been fully normal? [DOT]He received his pension in the month of May, the drowning accident took place in the month of July. He was the only support of his widowed mother. Now she is penniless and left with two young girls, one of whom is crippled as a result of an accident on the street railway in Ottawa. And yet the Pension Commissioners tell me that the law cannot provide for such a case. I accept the advice of my hon. friend from Beauce-I will appear before the committee with widow Brunelle.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.

Rodolphe Lemieux: For a copy of all Correspondence exchanged between the Canadian Government and the Serbian Government concerning the expulsion of Dr. Burnham[DOT] and his Hospital Mission from Montenegro.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the old parliamentary struggles between the King and the Commons the Speaker could not leave the Chair before the grievances of the people were ventilated. I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that you would not, as was the case with the Speaker in ancient times, often acting as the agent of the King, force the House of Commons to vote supply before the grievances of a fellow Canadian were redressed.
I wish, this evening, Mr. Speaker, to present the case of a fellow Canadian. I do not know him personally, but I do know that he is a brother of a gentleman who for years was a member of the House; I refer to Mr. Burnham, former representative for the county of Peterborough. It is as a fellow-Canadian that I present Dr. Burnham's grievance to my right hon. friend the leader of the House of Commons and to the country.
First of all, who is Dr. Burnham? I am informed that he is a graduate of Manitoba University; that he was for years a distinguished medical practitioner in the city of Winnipeg; that he was a brilliant surgeon, and that he has published books bearing upon the line of work which he has pursued, books which are well known in the scientific world. When in 1914 the

Great War was declared Dr. Burnham happened to be on the ocean on a trip round the world. True to his traditions and to his love of the Mother Land, Dr. Burnham immediately decided that he should serve in the ranks. Accordingly, he interrupted his trip and boarded a ship at San Francisco-
I believe it was the Ortiga. I may mention in passing, that after proceeding some distance the Ortiga was chased for several days by the famous German raider Emden. However, he landed in Europe, offered his services to the Allies, and being a surgeon and most anxious to give his services, as did our gallant friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) in Belgium, in hospital work, he was assigned to a hospital in Montenegro at a place called Plevna. Not long afterwards, as war was raging most intensely in that district, he was with thousands of others driven from Montenegro in the great Serbian retreat, where thousands were lost and he himself nearly perished. He managed, however, to escape and subsequently served continuously during a year on the Western front. Then he was sent to Salonika and there put in charge of a relief hospital, in which post he remained until 1919, giving most excellent service. In that year, being somewhat exhausted and his health failing, he returned to Canada on leave of absence, and proceeded to his home in Winnipeg. I may say that for his gallant service on the batlefield and in the hospitals and relief missions he received several decorations. Having returned to Winnipeg, where he had a host of friends, he started to organize a Canadian war hospital. He had seen with his own eyes the desperate situation to which the Serbians, the Montenegrins and the Albanians had been reduced and he knew by experience what efficient service could be rendered if a Canadian war hospital could be organized. His efforts met with a great measure of success. Not only did the citizens of Winnipeg subscribe large sums of money to the object, but municipalities in Manitoba and in other western provinces contributed generously. In 1919 he again left for Serbia and Montenegro, and made his headquarters at a place called Dulcigno. He was in charge of relief work there for several months until his activities were interrupted by the Serbian authorities.
I do not intend to read all the letters written by Dr. Burnham or the controversial letters exchanged between the Serbian consul and Dr. Burnham's friends. I will simply recite the grounds of complaint which have been urged by Dr. Burnham

himself, and the House will judge whether under such circumstances the Government is not justified in taking action in order that the grievances of Dr. Burnham may be redressed. In a letter dated December 13, 1920, Dr. Burnham states as follows his grounds of complaint against the Serbian administration:
As officer-in-command of the White Cross Mission-
It is a Canadian organization.
-I have to complain of the Serbian administration as follows:	,
(1)	That the Mission was under constant
police surveillance.	*
That is Serbian police surveillance.
(2)	That without known reason, two nurses were ordered to appear before the authorities at Antivari. Bearing in mind the painful experience elsewhere described the order was ignored.
(3)	That the Serbian authorities sent and order coupled with a police threat, to open the White Cross magazine for examination.
(4)	That in my absence, members of the staff were ordered before the Serbian authorities and terrorized.
(5)	That they seized material shipped into the country for the relief of the inhabitants, that the cases were opened and when released did not contain the quantities cited in the'invoices.
I may say that this material had been shipped largely from Canada, consisting of contributions from Canadians.
(6)	That they seized the boat whereby material was conveyed from steamer to port, and that although the boat had been leased from the owner, the White Cross never afterwards had the use of it.
(7)	That I was ordered before the Serbian Government at Antivari who made threats against the Mission and stated that it was no longer safe to remain in Montenegro.
(8)	That shortly after the Serbian Governor came to Dulcigno and again summoned me. In the interview which followed Lekitch repeated former threats and concluded by ordering the Mission out of the country. On being requested to put the order in writing he refused.
(9)	That on August 17, while waiting for the departure of the steamer at Antivari I was arrested by order of the Serbian Governor in the presence of one hunderd people on the quay, and
(10)	That I was sent under guard of a soldier with rifle and bayonet to the Hotel Marina where I was detained four hours.
(11)	That in consequence of the foregoing I was compelled to return on foot to Dulcigno where I arrived after midnight in an exhausted condition, having walked fifty-twTo miles during the day with the thermometer standing at 85 f. at midnight.
(12)	That on the departure of the White Cross Mission for Albania, the Serbian authorities refused to allow the transfer of the stores and material belonging to the Mission.
He states in the same letter:
I have compiled accurate case reports of people in the number of 2,152 who availed themselves of the medical services alone. No further evidence is necessary to show that no reliance whatsoever can be placed in the statements emanating from the Serbian Government respecting affairs in Montenegro.
The letter is signed:
F. W. E. Burnham.
Sir, I am not concerned with political agitation which may exist in Serbia and Montenegro; I am not concerned at all with the quarrels which are too evident between the two above-named countries; but one must not forget that the Dominion of Canada was an ally of both Montenegro and Serbia from the beginning until the end of the war. There is, it seems to me -and it is a fact indeed-in the comity of nations, even as between enemies on the battlefield, a protection for Red Cross and such like. A fortiori is there a protection as between allies fighting and dying for the same cause? We have been told repeatedly, during this session and, indeed, during the last few years, that Canada is a nation. Not later than two or three weeks ago, when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) was defining what the new Act meant in speaking of a Canadian national, we were told that Canada was a nation; that before long, as soon as it pleased Canada, she might have consular representation, even an ambassador in the neighbouring republic. I should like to test this evening the statement made by one prominent member of the Government and know from the leader of the House (Mr. Meighen) if Canada is really a nation. There is one statement which certainly cannot be discounted-Canada is a member of the League of Nations and, therefore, Canada, whether a nation or not, but a member of the League of Nations, is certainly concerned with her nationals, not only at home, but especially abroad. Even if Canada were not a full-fledged nation, shall I be told that this Dominion, the premier Dominion of the British Empire, my native land, will stand for the humiliations, outrages and indignities inflicted on Canadian nurses and a Canadian surgeon doing work to serve a humanitarian cause, and that under the flag of one of her Allies?
I have to take exception to the statements which have been made by the Serbian consul against Dr. Burnham. He has written to several newspapers denying the statements made by Dr. Burnham, and even accusing him of political intrigue in the performance of his duties in Montenegro.



Mr. Speaker, I resent the insults of a foreigner, even though he be a consul, against i fellow-Canadian of the standing of Dr. Burnham, who, to serve the cause of humanity, to relieve the sick, the poor, and the oppressed in those distant lands, left everything behind him and consecrated his life and his talents to that purpose. I say that the least the Government should do is to ask the Serbian authorities to recall their consul who has libelled in the press the good name and the good faith of Dr. Burnham.
Another point I wish to emphasize is that until an investigation has taken place, and until the statements of Dr. Burnham which I have just quoted have been proven false, and, if sustained, until an apology and reparations have been made, the Government of this country, through the League of Nations, should prevent any Red Cross funds coming from Canada or the British Empire from being apportioned in favour of Serbia. To give you, Mr. Speaker, an idea of the spirit which animated Dr. Burnham let me read the last sentence of one of his letters:
Thus we close the first chapter of the activities of the Canadian White Cross in the Balkans. We look back without regrets. To retrace our steps would be to .do exactly the same. We throw in our lot with the poor, the sick and the oppressed. It was for them that this fund was organized. We resolutely set our face against injustice in every form. To have chosen differently would have been easier, but would not have been the policy of the White Cross or in harmony with the spirit of the people of Canada.
You have in that sentence the ring of honesty, and I ask that the Government investigate the complaints which I have just recited-that Canadian nurses were terrorized, that the materials sent from Canada were seized, that the surgeon and his staff were prevented from continuing their work amongst the poor and the sick, and that finally they were all ejected from the country. I say it isAhe duty of the Canadian Government to investigate this case and to see that justice is done.
I do not wish to be more historical than necessary, but let me recall to my right hon. friend the leader of the House a case which in many respects, is parallel to the one I have just mentioned. I refer to the Don Pacifico case when Lord Palmerston, then Minister of Foreign Affairs, despatched the British fleet to the Piraeus' in order that-the Greek government might compensate Don Pacifico for the losses sustained. It was stated at the time that Don Pacifico had very poor antecedents, TMr. Lemieux.]
that he was British, but of foreign origin, and that he had fyled a very extravagant claim arising out of the riots which had taken place in Athens, the capital of Greece. Here is the answer of Lord Palmerston:
The rights of a man depend on the merits of the particular case; and it is an abuse of argument to say that you are not to give redress to a man because in some former transactions he may have done something which is questionable. Punish him, If you will-punish him if he is guilty, but don't pursue him as a pariah through life. . . . "Oh, but," it is said "what an ungenerous proceeding to employ so large a force against so small a power!" Does the smallness of a country justify the magnitude of its evil acts? Is it to be held that if your subjects suffer violence, outrage, and plunder-
That is the case in the present instance.
-in a country which is small and weak, you are to tell them, when they apply for compensation, that the country is so weak and small, that we cannot ask it for compensation? Their answer would be that the weakness and smallness of the country makes it the more easy to obtain redress.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat the question I put a moment ago: Is Canada a nation? I say that if she is not a fully-fledged nation, she has at least acquired certain titles of nobility during the last great war. She is the premier Dominion of the British Empire, and if we cannot as a Dominion within the four corners of the British North America Act assert our rights and protect our nationals abroad, we still have the old British flag, which protects every British subject wherever he is to be found in the four quarters of the globe. I should like to quote what Lord Palmerston said in the case of Don Pacifico in perhaps the most eloquent speech of his life. In his famous peroration he says:
I therefore fearlessly challenge the verdict which this House, as representing a political, a commercial, a constitutional country, is to give on the question before it; whether the principles on which the foreign policy of this country has been conducted, and the sense of duty which has led us to think ourselves bound to afford protection to our fellow subjects abroad, are proper and fitting guides for those who are charged with the government of England, and whether, as the Roman in the days of old held himself free from indignity when he could say Civis Bomanus sum, so also a British subject, in whatever land he be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England shall protect him against injustice and wrong.
I repeat, Sir, that if the Canadian Government feel that they have not the power to redress the legitimate grievances of Dr. Burnham and the noble nurses who were subjected to such humiliation and indignities at the hands of Serbian officials, they

should draw the attention of the Foreign Office in London to the matter, and, through that channel, obtain justice for these British subjects. It was my privilege some years ago to be in the city of Rome. It was in the year 1909, and on that occasion I witnessed some very grave riots that took place in the Eternal City. These incidents occurred after the execution in Spain of a Spaniard named Ferrer, and the anarchists of Europe being of the opinion that this act was unwarranted and that the governments of the Continent should rise up in arms against the government of Spain. In many of the cities on the Continent, in Paris and in Rome, the Spanish Embassy had to be guarded not only by the police, but also by the military authorities. In Rome, the anarchists for a few days seemed to hold sway; there were general strikes, and riot after riot raged in that great city. I happened one day to visit the Superior of the Canadian College in Rome on a well known thoroughfare, the street of the Four Fountains. That college is under the jurisdiction of the Sulpician Fathers, who, as the House knows, are amongst the oldest French religious orders, together with the Jesuits and the Recollets, to have done missionary and educational work in this country. That institution in which our young men pursued their theological studies is under the direction of the Sulpician Fathers. In that year the Superior was a distinguished Canadian from St. Hyacinthe. The Canadian College is not far from the Spanish Embassy, and was consequently very much exposed to the anarchists and rioters who were passing back and forth in the vicinity. I asked the Superior whether he was not a little too exposed and did not fear for the young priests and students who were under his charge. He pointed to the British flag and replied: "With that flag flying I fear nothing." Sir, it seems to me that under the protection of the British flag, as was so eloquently said by Lord Palmerston, Dr. Burnham, whom I do not know, and who has no other claim upon me than the fact that he is a fellow Canadian, should receive justice. His staff of devoted nurses who were subjected to persecution at the hands of the Serbian Government should also be accorded, through the instrumentality of this Government, the protection which is the right of every British subject.


Arthur Meighen: The motion of the hon. member
as it appears on the Order Paper calls merely for the production of certain documents, being correspondence exchanged between the Canadian Government and the Serbian Government concerning the expulsion of Dr. Burnham and his hospital mission from Montenegro. Of course, to the production of the correspondence no objection can be made. But the hon. member in his address has assumed that the treatment of Dr. Burnham by the authorities in Montenegro, or in greater Serbia, has been such as to cast upon the Canadian Government the obligation of calling for atonement or redress, either through the Foreign Office or on our own initiative, from the offending government. I did not put myself in a position to argue, in view of the way the resolution reads, whether the presumption upon which the hon. member has based most of his address is correct or not.
Speaking from recollection, without having recently brought my mind to the facts, I am aware that some correspondence has taken place, and I believe that the Foreign Office has been consulted with regard to Dr. Burnham's complaint concerning his treatment in Montenegro. If I recollect rightly, Dr. Burnham came back to Canada, having already conducted some work in Montenegro in the earlier years of the war. I thought his return was earlier than the hon. gentleman mentioned; I was under the impression it was about 1917. So far as the Government was concerned, its only connection with him was to assist him in securing reduced passage back to carry on again the work in which he was interested there. Montenegro, it seems, is to be, subject to certain delimitations, a part of Greater Serbia. Within the confines of Montenegro a party has arisen whose purpose is to resist its incorporation in Greater Serbia, and who carry on there a political agitation, if indeed they do not go farther, in order to make effective that resistance. Dr. Burnham's troubles are claimed to have arisen from the fact that he espoused the cause of the minority in Montenegro and became involved in political agitation there. Whether that is true or not, I should not like finally to say; but, at all events, troubles have arisen in connection with him and correspondence has taken place. If that correspondence, when brought down, discloses that there has been any failure or default on the part of the Government in looking into the merits of the complaint made, or in seeking redress if the merits of the complaint are

established, then, of course, it will be time enough for the House to take action.
I was intensely interested in the address of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), and, what is more, I was exceedingly pleased, not only with its substance but with the enthusiasm with which the doctrines propounded by the hon. gentleman were set forth. The hon. member asked me, as head of the Government, to say whether or not this country is a nation, and, if it is, whether or not it purposes to assert the attributes and rights of a nation in respect of the claims of one of its citizens wronged in far away Montenegro. Well, I have no hesitation or doubt at all in answering the question. Canada unquestionably is a nation, and something more than a nation. It enjoys a status and rights in the world beyond those which other nations of its strength and age enjoy. Canada is as well, a member of the great British Commonwealth of Nations, and as such is in the position to assert such authority as its own strength, and moral status entitle it to assert; but, also, the authority of the Motherland and of that entire League of Nations known as the British Empire, if their concurrence in our position is obtained.
It was, however, interesting indeed to hear this position taken up and espoused by the hon. member for Maisonneuve, a member of the Liberal party in Canada; and particularly interesting was it to hear him refer to that famous debate in the British Parliament on the Don Paeifico claims, to hear him quote from the speech of Lord Palmerston, and point to the doctrine which that speech contained as the proper motto for Canada to adopt in her march among the nations of the world. I remember reading that speech. It has been referred to time and again, not only in this country but in general literature, as expressive of the extremely Imperialistic attitude of the British Tory, as jingoism of the highest type. And I recall at the moment the reply of Mr. Gladstone, delivered early in the morning after Lord Palmerston had spoken, in which the old statesman described the speech to which he had listened; in which he described the spirit that it embodied; in which he said that this high and mighty Imperialistic attitude which Lord Palmerston had assumed, was typical of the old Roman statemanship, and was expressed in those lines of the poet:
Oh Rome 'twas thine alas with awful sway To rule mankind and make the world ohey,
Disposing peace and war thine own majestic way.

Whatever may have been the rights of Don Paeifico, it was claimed to be doubtful at the time whether they were great enough, or fundamentally strong enough, to warrant the intervention of the British Fleet. But if the example of the British Government in the Don Paeifico case is to be followed by Canada, it undoubtedly can only be followed if this country maintains not only the name but the attributes of a nation- unless, in a word, we maintain that strength behind the word of Canada which will enable us to speak with substantial authority. I commend the address of the hon. member for Maisonneuve, I commend the doctrine that he has espoused tonight, I commend the spirit with respect to the mission of this country which evidently animates him, to all hon. gentlemen around and behind him, and especially to his leader who, only a few months ago, moved in this House that we should strip ourselves of naval and military strength and leave ourselves powerless. The mere word of any country does not go very far without any strength behind it.
Now the hon. gentleman-on the assumption again that a wrong has been done a Canadian citizen, a wrong that the courts and civil authorities of the State that is supposed to have done it have refused to redress-asks us to invoke not only the power of the Foreign Office, not only any authority that Canada may exert of herself, but, as well, to invoke the influence of the League of Nations, and if need be to see to it that any moneys that might come to Serbia from the reparation that Germany is required to make are withheld from Serbia pending atonement for the wrongs done by her to Dr. Burnham.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I had reference to the
Red Cross funds, not to reparation funds.


Arthur Meighen: I thought the hon. gentleman spoke of "reparation funds," anyway he suggested that moneys be withheld from Serbia. I am not apprehensive that it will be necessary to go to that length. In fact I have not yet been convinced-I have not the papers before me because I did not know that the hon. member intended to do more than move his resolution-that wrong has been done. I do not think, at least, that there is information now in the Department of External Affairs to warrant the Government in assuming that there is cause for specific intervention. If the papers disclose that there has been cause, and that intervention has not taken place, then, of course, the time will come for Parliament

to speak its mind. I am not convinced that the papers will disclose such cause, nor am I sure that the papers will not disclose quite the opposite. However if it be found that there is something in the complaint that Dr. Burnham has made, and which the hon. member to-night has pressed on the floor of Parliament, then it may be altogether proper that we should invoke the assistance of the Foreign Office and it should be possible to secure such redress as will be appropriate to the wrong done. I do not think the matter will need to go to the length indicated in my hon. friend's address. Let me repeat that the subject has not been neglected; I know that communications have passed; I know that some information has been obtained; and I think it will be found that there has been nothing in the way of neglect on the part of the Department of External Affairs.


Charles Gavan Power: Before this debate closes I would like to add a word in support of the statement of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve. The facts in connection with this case were, I think, first brought to the attention of the Canadian public by Mr. Arthur G. Penny, the Editor of the Quebec Chronicle. I may say for the information of the House, Mr. Speaker, that the Chronicle is not a newspaper which could by any manner of means, be accused of having tendencies other than those of the most orthodox Conservative kind. For a considerable period the Quebec Chronicle carried on an agitation, if I might so term it, on behalf of Dr. Burnham, and on reading its article we come to the conclusion that in so far as we are able to obtain confirmation of the facts placed before us, Dr. Burnham a Canadian citizen, a colonel in the Canadian or the Imperial army, and a brother of an ex-member of this House, whilst carrying on a work of mercy in a foreign country was subjected to certain outrages and indignities. It would appear from his statements-and they have not as yet been contradicted, though more than six months have elapsed since they were first made to the Canadian people-that our fellow countrymen and women were terrorized by some petty Balkan bureaucrat, that goods and money sent by Canadian citizens to help the starving, the oppressed and the miserable in Europe were taken and used for other purposes, and that finally one of our own ex-soldiers, a man who bears a high reputation in Canada was forcibly ejected from Serbia. His mission was backed by the funds of individual citizens ,of Western Canada, by municipalities throughout the Dominion and even by provincial governments, and moreover Dr. Burnham went overseas, if not with the authorization of the Dominion Government, at least, as admitted by the Prime Minister, with its knowledge and consent. The only answer we get when the matter is brought on the floor 9 p.m. of the House is that some time, sooner or later, we may obtain
redress.
Perhaps I am one of those who have placed too literal an interpretation on the language used in this House and outside by hon. gentlemen who have represented us both at the Imperial conferences and at the meetings of the League of Nations when they said that we were a nation, for when they said that I thought they meant we had the attributes of a nation and that our citizens were not to be insulted with impunity by any petty sovereign or bureaucrat. I understood, as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister said, that we were more than a nation-though I am not quite prepared to be so enthusiastic as he about the reason why we are more than a nation. He stated we were so because we belonged to the Great Britannic commonwealth, and being backed as we were by this grat commonwealth we would not have the slightest difficulty in having our rights and privileges respected by other nations. The history of our boundary relations with the United States has not given me any great confidence in the value which my right hon. friend places in this alliance. However, taking his word for it that we have increased the value of our nationhood by such an alliance, and by recent events in Europe and elsewhere, I cannot understand how it comes about that we must wait for months and months until some petty clerk in the British foreign office decides that probably one Canadian might have been insulted by a ruler of one of the Balkan States. It seems to me that it is the duty of the Canadian Government and the Canadian people to protect our citizens where-ever they may be.
Although I do not join in the enthusiasm of my right hon. friend from Maisonneuve and Gaspe with regard to the words used by Lord Palmerston in the Don Pacifico debate, and although I do not agree that we should go about the world with a chip on our shoulder blustering about our rights and our powers and shouting Civis Britannicus sum, I do believe that if we are to place any value on our citizenship we should

have the means of being able to protect our nationals. I do not think anyone in this House would ask the Government to declare war on Serbia, for there are other measures which can be taken, financial and economic, and strong diplomatic pressure could be brought to bear. Then, as my hon. friend from Gaspe said, there is the League of Nations. That League, I understood was formed for the protection of the small as well as the great nations. How well these small nations have been protected would be a question perhaps for further discussion. For instance, how well the doctrine of self determination has been upheld in the case of this same little country of Montenegro would be a question which the League of Nations might very well ponder.
However, this is the point which I think should be taken up by this House. If a British subject is proud of being able to say he is a British subject in whatever part of the world he may be, and if being a British subject implies protection in every way, so should the title of being a Canadian national. I would not say, like my hon. friend from Gaspe, Civis Britanni-cus sum; I would say Civis Canadensis sum. Our men have made Canada so well known in the world that she is no longer a stranger. And I would ask that the Government make such representations as would lead the world to understand that our nationals cannot be insulted and outraged with impunity, however far they may be from their native land.


Mr. C. W. PECK (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). The hon. and gallant gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Power) I think rather assumed to send our fleet into the Adriatic. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Maisonneuve with great interest, and he certainly spoke temperately and with dignity. I think we should first do what he asks for, that is, investigate the charges. He did not state that the charges were true, he simply asked the Government to take measures to investigate them. In that he is entirely right. All I can say is, if those charges are true, it is a case of base ingratitude on the part of Serbia, because this young nation plunged into the war with the greatest courage and chivalry to uphold, among other things, the rights of small nations, and particularly the rights of Serbia, who was the first pation to get us embroiled in the war.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, although I am not a swashbuckling imperialist and though I do not go round, as the hon. and gallant gentleman said, with a chip on my shoulder, I think we may rely upon the right hon. gentleman who is the head of the Government in this country, if he discovers that injustice has been done to a Canadian citizen, to be the first to uphold the cause of the nation with that dignity and firmness which are characteristic of him. It is a very good occasion upon which to let the whole world know that the rights of Canadian citizens must be respected everywhere. The Government should take every step necessary to the fullest investigation of this matter and adopt such measures as the facts seem to warrant.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, as the seconder of the motion I feel that I should like to say a word or two on the subject. I am not quite satisfied with the enthusiasm, if it could be called enthusiasm at all, with which the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) dealt with this motion. We should all be of one mind in regard to the matter brought to our attention by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). We have to accept the word of a British subject until conclusive evidence to the contrary is presented to the House or to some tribunal inquiring into the matter. A British subject has made certain statements; they are presented to the House by the hon. member for Maisonneuve, and I for one accept for the time being those statements as being correct. If they are correct, they certainly require a most thorough investigation and it is for the Canadian people, both on their own behalf and as part of the great British Empire, to give Montenegro or any other country strictly to understand that Canadian subjects are not to be treated unfairly with impunity.
Now, the answer that we received from the Prime Minister to this motion is a fling at the Liberal party, an attempt to belittle the Liberal party and to tell us some things that we ought to know if we have such big notions concerning ourselves as British subjects or as Canadians or as members of this Parliament. I did not think, Sir, that there was any possible way by which the right hon. gentleman could get around to that attitude in connection with this motion. As the hon. member for Skag-way has said-


An hon. MEMBER:: Skeena.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Peck) will pardon me for not remembering for the moment the name of the constituency which he graces and honours, as he does the whole of Canada. I thought that the case was presented with fullness, with dignity, in a manner quite free from the slightest degree of political bias. But my right hon. friend says it would be well for the hon. member who proposes the motion to look around him and see what sympathy he is getting from his own side of the House; that it would be well for him to inquire into the history of the Liberal party and see what they have done to make Canada a nation or to maintain her in that position. Well, I would ask the right hon. gentleman where the party to which he belongs stood in 1882 when we were called upon as an integral part of the Empire to send troops to the Soudan, where they were much needed. Wh'at was the answer of Sir John A. Macdonald? "Not a dollar, not a ship, not a man; let England fight her own battles; we have nothing to do with them." That was the answer of Sir John A. Macdonald, and not a man was sent; a few Canadian voyageurs went on their own responsibility. That was the attitude of the Conservative party in 1882 when it was at the zenith of its glory and headed by the biggest statesman it ever had.
What was the attitude of the Liberal party when the South African war broke out? That was the second opportunity which this country had to show what it wanted to do as a part of the British Empire. I need not recite to you, Sir, the attitude that was taken by that great statesman, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was at the head of the Liberal Government at that time. Instead of saying to the British Empire: "Not a man, not a dollar! Sir Wilfrid Laurier said: "The last man, the last dollar; everything that we can do to support the Empire in this crisis." That was the first great step taken by Canada along the lines that we are now discussing, the first great event in connection with which Canada was brought prominently in contact with the affairs of the world. And is my right hon. friend to tell us that we should look around; that we should examine our history and see what our antecedents have been as citizens of Canada and as subjects of the British Empire? Speaking for myself, I take no slurs from the right hon. gentleman as to my relationship with the
British Empire or the British flag. I am just as strong in that regard as he is, and that is true of everybody connected with my family during the last two or three hundred years. I therefore do not take kindly to anything coming even from the Prime Minister which tends to reflect in the slightest degree upon the attitude of the Liberal party in this respect.
About the time when I came to this Parliament, in 1904, a case occurred which was somewhat analagous to this. A small sailing schooner, having on board some natives of Nova Scotia, had been improperly seized at a port of Uruguay; the vessel was confiscated, and the men lost their furs and their money. The first word that I said publicly in this House was to ask Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his government to look after the interests of those men away down in Uruguay with their schooner and their furs confiscated. What happened? The government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier appointed a commissioner, conferred proper powers upon him, and sent him to Uruguay. A full investigation was made, and he returned and reported conditions to the then government. The Republic of Uruguay was obliged, through the British consul there, to make compensation for the schooner and the furs which they had confiscated. There was a case in which we did something along those lines. There was no hesitation about the matter; there was no speech-making on the part of the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier; his government immediately went to work and redressed the grievances of those men.	.
All that we are asking for in this case is that proper steps should be taken; that we should not be governed by the correspondence that has reached us from Serbia. That correspondence is tainted and coloured to suit the views of the people of that country. I would not be satisfied with this correspondence. I presume they have a consul in Great Britain, and Great Britain has consuls in that country. If this matter cannot be handled through Canadian avenues, the British consul in that country should be called upon to inquire into the matter and report, and in that way we can get at the facts without the high colouring that may be given to them through this correspondence. The Prime Minister should make a more pronounced deliverance on that point, and not say that he is simply going to wait; that he will give another reading to this correspondence, and that if he is convinced by the correspondence that has been received from the defendant in

this case, he may do something to redress the grievances of Dr. Burnham. I am not quite satisfied with that. I think a little stronger statement should be given, so that Canadians, wherever they may be, may realize to the full that they have behind them at home a people, a Parliament and a Government always keenly on the lookout to see that they are properly safeguarded and protected in both their persons and their property.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker-*


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Before the hon. gentleman speaks, it is my duty to inform the House that he is about to exercise his right to close the debate. Therefore, any other hon. gentleman desirous of speaking to the motion, should do so now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to thank hon.
gentlemen on both sides of the House who have supported the principle involved in this motion, and I hope that means will be taken to hold an investigation to find out whether or not the grievances of Dr. Burnham and his nurses are really deserving of our attention, as I have no doubt they are.
Before taking my seat, I wish to tell the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) that he is quite in error if he believes that I am animated by any jingo spirit in proclaiming "Civis Britannicus sum." If my hon. friend will read my remarks in Hansard to-morrow, he will see that I have said .that, if Canada is really a nation, she can, through her own channels, obtain redress in the present instance, but if there is no possibility, as we have no foreign office or foreign minister ourselves, of Canada obtaining justice for one of her nationals, John Bull is always at the old stand and, as for one hundred and fifty years we have lived under the British flag, we may still invoke the protection of that flag so that one of our fellow-Canadians may be protected against any humiliation, indignity or outrage abroad. That is what I said. It is true that we have in Canada the Department of External Affairs, of which I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) is the minister, ex-officio. If my right hon. friend will take this matter in hand, will investigate it and see that justice is done, as I have no doubt he will if he has that authority, I shall be the first one to proclaim that Canada is really a nation, or at least on the way to become a nation. But, meanwhile, if it is impossible, through that channel, 
through that machinery, to obtain justice for one of our nationals, I look to the British Foreign Office to redress the grievance of one of our citizens. By doing this I am not parading in the highways and byways with a chip on my shoulder; I am simply talking common sense and speaking the language of a good Canadian.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Rodolphe Lemieux: For a copy of the special report made by Dr. Burnham on the treatment by the Serbian Government of the Canadian Hospital Mission in Montenegro.
He said: What I have just said on the former motion, applies to the present one, and I wish the two to be linked together.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Casgrain:
That, in the opinion of this House, an up-to-date steamship service should be established between Murray bay situated in Charlevoix County and Tadoussac in Saguenay County.
Pierre-François Casgrain: I am ready to proceed with this motion; but the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) asked me to continue it until next Monday because he was unable to attend tonight. I would, therefore, ask that it stand.
Motion stands.


PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
Mr. J. A. SEXSMITH (East Peterborough) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, in order to give each voter an equal share in the representation, some system of proportional representation should be adopted, and that a special committee of this House should be forthwith appointed, charged with an enquiry into the different systems of proportional representation, with a view to recommend one of these for adoption.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this resolution to the House, I do so with considerable timidity, because I realize there are, perhaps, members as well as many other people who look upon proportional representation as something new or somewhat of a fad. I would say to any one who may hold those ideas that it is not new and that to-day every country in the world, that has responsible government and an electoral system such as we have in Canada, is seriously discussing proportional

representation. I sincerely hope that something may be done in order that we may secure in Canada a better electoral system than we have at present. I trust this subject, that has to do with the national interest and that is something of much greater importance than the success of any party, may be freely and fully discussed from an unbiased and non-partisan standpoint.
The chief evil of our present system is that large and important sections of opinion are left unrepresented, and the end of all political reform should be to secure to these important sections their due and fair share of representation in this House. In speaking of the single member mode of representation, I do not think I can do better than quote from one of the most outstanding statesmen in Great Britain to-day, the Right Hon. Arthur James Balfour. Speaking before the Scottish Conservative Club, in Scotland, he said:
Everybody who has watched the actual course of a contested election in a constituency where parties were evenly balanced knows perfectly well the monstrous power which is given to a very small minority to exact a pledge from the candidate, not that he should support this or that great policy, but that he should help their small and particular interest.
I know of nothing which is more corrupting both to the electors or to the elected than that process, and, although I have fully seen the difficulties which attach to what is commonly known as minority representation, it surely is an extraordinary criticism upon our existing system that, while a small handful of interested people, can turn an election one way or the other on their own personal issue, huge minorities like the minority of the Unionists in Scotland are utterly and grossly unrepresented. We give every privilege to the little knot of people in the individual constituencies: we ignore the great mass who under our existing system 'find no representation at all comparable either to their numerical strength or their public spirit or to any other quality which makes them useful, able and independent citizens.
Those are very strong words from one who I am sure every hon. member of this House will regard as a great authority. I look upon his words as a very strong condemnation of our present single member electoral system
Looking over our election returns in this country, I find that we have large majorities grossly unrepresented in this country. I should like, if time permitted, to go over all the provinces of Canada and give to the House the results of elections during the last decade or two under our present system. In the province of Quebec, for instance, in the general election of 1900, fifty-seven Liberals and eight Conservatives were
elected. The fifty-seven Liberals secured 133,566 votes, and the eight conservatives 103,253. The average number of votes required to elect one Conservative was 12,907, while the average number of votes to elect one Liberal was 2,344. Thus one Liberal vote had the value of six Conservative votes. Under proportional representation thirty-seven Liberals would have been elected instead of fifty-seven and twenty-eight Conservatives instead of eight.
Take the election of 1904 in the same great province. Then fifty-four Liberals were elected, and eleven Conservatives. The fifty-four Liberals secured 144,992 votes, and the eleven Conservatives 111,550. The average number of votes required to elect one Liberal was 2,636, and the average number of votes required to elect one Conservative was 10,141. A Liberal vote had the value of four Conservative votes. Under proportional representation thirty-nine Liberals would have been elected instead of fifty-four and twenty-six Conservatives instead of eleven.
In that same election of 1904 we find that in the province of Nova Scotia 56,526 Liberal votes were cast and eighteen Liberal members elected, and that 46,131 Conservative votes were cast, but not one member was elected. In the same year practically the same condition obtained in the province of British Columbia.
In 1908 in the province of Quebec we find the results were very similar. The Liberals secured. 162,176 votes and elected p4 members, while the Conservatives secured 115,579 votes and elected 11 members. The average number of votes required to elect one Liberal was 3,003, and the average number of votes required to elect one Conservative was 10,144. One Liberal vote had the value of 3 Conservative votes. Under proportional representation 38 Liberals would have been elected instead of 54 and 27 Conservatives instead of 11.
These examples should be enough to convince any man in this House that any electoral system that allows such a condition to prevail where it is impossible to elect a Parliament that will properly reflect the opinion of all the people, which is one of the main principles of responsible Government, cannot possibly make for the welfare of our country, and I believe it is the duty of this Parliament, which is about to make a new redistribution of seats, to see that such a condition should



no longer prevail. Should we fail to improve it, in my opinion, this Parliament will have failed to do its duty towards the people.
If we look over conditions in other countries we find them very similar where the same electoral system prevails, and in passing I may say that every country in the world that has responsible government has practically the same electoral system of single member constituencies. We find in Great Britain in the general election of 1874, and these are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Balfour and many other British statesman are looking very seriously at the present system, which is absolutely unfair, the Conservatives had a majority of 50 in Parliament although the Liberal vote polled was 1,400,000, against a total Conservative vote of 1,200,000. In other words, although the Liberals in that election polled 200,000 more votes than the Conservatives, the Conservatives having a majority of 50 in the House, the Parliament of that great country was elected and served on a minority vote.
Again, in the British election of 1906, the ministerialist group had 56 per cent of the votes polled and elected 72 per cent of the members, while the Conservatives had 44 per cent of the votes polled and elected 28 per cent of the members. The unprecedented ministerial majority of 256 should have been the safe majority of 68.
I have selected only a few outstanding cases but I could give many further examples if time permitted. In the United States in the Oregon election in 1896, the Republicans, with 55 per cent of the votes, elected 83 members to the Legislature, while the Democrats, with 34 per cent of the votes, elected 7. It required 4,499 votes to elect one Democrat, and 619 votes to elect one Republican. The Socialists and Prohibitionists, with 11 per cent of the vote, were unrepresented. I have been unable to secure the returns for some of the other provinces of Canada, but I am told on pretty good authority that the present Government in British Columbia secured only 37 per cent of the vote polled.
We have an example in Toronto to-day of a Government carrying on with a very small minority vote. Now, in regard to the by-elections in East Elgin and West Peterborough, I have not a word to say about the men that represent these ridings. They are no doubt good representatives, but they failed to secure a majority of the total votes polled. Is it fair, or proper, or democratic that we should suffer to
[Mr. Sexsmith.}
exist an electoral system that allows such a condition of things? The principles of democratic government, by the people and for the people, are well established in the minds of citizens, but in my opinion they have failed jto work out in practice. For example, in the election of 1904, when the great question of building the Grand Trunk Pacific and the National Transcontinental railway was the main subject before the people of this country, what was the situation? That was the question on which the election was decided, and I think it is fair to assume that all those who voted Conservative at that time were opposed to that railway proposition. In the province of Quebec, under our electoral system, 54 supporters of the proposition were elected and only 11 opponents, whereas, under proportional representation, the respective figures would have been 39 supporters and 26 opponents. In other words, had the election of 1904 been conducted under the proportional system, Quebec would have elected 26 opponents to the proposition instead of 11, and 39 supporters instead of 54, or a difference of 15 supporters fewer and fifteen opponents more. In the good province of Nova Scotia, 46,000 electors did nqt secure one representative; they did not secure a voice in the House at all, although they had within 10,000 of half the vote. The Liberals elected 18 supporters and the Conservatives, who were at that time opposing the measure, failed to secure one representative. I am convinced that had the election been run under the proportional system, and had the people's minds been properly reflected in the House, that ill-advised and ill-considered railway proposition would never have been put through and Canada could have gone along and developed on safer and saner lines. '
Now, the spirit of democracy requires that an equal share of representation shall be given each separate elector, and not that the direction of government shall be entrusted exclusively to one class or party. The first duty of a democracy should be to respect the rights of its citizens. Ever since the earliest days of responsible goy- ' ernment, and you may go back centuries in the history of the great British nation, when the first representative government was formed, and follow it down to the present day, there has been a steady development until we have our present great system of government. But in the earlier times only a very small coterie of people had the franchise, and from those days

until now the masses have been clamouring for the extension of the franchise. Why did they want the franchise? It was because, in all those years, there was a feeling that the people did not rule, and they believed that if they had the vote they would have sufficient power to control government, and would really have democracy. The franchise has been extended until, at present, almost every adult in the great British Empire has the vote. Yet, notwithstanding this universal application of the principle, the people have been unable to control government sufficiently to see that the different elements of the nation have a fair and equal share in the councils of the country and, may I say particularly, in its inner councils.
A short time ago a thoughtful editorial appeared in the Ottawa Journal. It pointed out that from 1896 to the present day not one farmer from the great province of Ontario had ever been taken into the Cabinet; not one had ever been taken into the inner councils' of the nation. I ask, in all fairness and sincerity: Is there a man in this House who could say that in that great and important class in the province of Ontario one man could not have been found with sufficient ability to warrant his inclusion in the Cabinet? I say that there is not an honourable gentleman who would dare stand up on the floor of Parliament and so aver. Yet fifty per cent, we may say, of the people of the province of Ontario, so far as the inner councils of the nation have been concerned, have been disfranchised. Wonder has been expressed at the farmers organizing and going into politics. Well, Spencer says that self-preservation is the first law of nature, and I look to my right to-night and see there the nucleus of a farmers' party. I have heard that party variously called the Agrarian party and the Farmers' party, and there is not a man in this House who has more respect for the farmers or the agrarians, by whichever name you choose to call them, than I have. There is no man in this House who has fought the battles of the farmers longer and more strenuously than I have done, or who is more desirous to see them get their right and fair share in this country. But I must say that if the Farmers' party of to-day aims at becoming the sole governors of the country, then I cannot endorse any such ideal. If, in the past, the people from the urban centres have been governing, that is no reason or excuse for the farmers now to say that because they have perhaps a majority of votes, they will retaliate and elect a government to run the country, and that the people of the cities and towns will have to submit. No. This is a great country, stretching -from the Atlantic to the Pacific, with millions of farmers, and room for millions more, and millions of citizens in the great and glorious cities of Canada, of which we are all proud, and room for more; and if the Agrarian party desire to serve the best interests of the country, then, instead of seeking to become the governors of the country, they should be willing to join hands with others in the direction of affairs.
If I had my way, I would dispense with all parties, and that is not a conclusion which I have reached only to-day; it is probably some ten years since I saw the advisability of it. I would elect a Parliament of sensible Canadian citizens to come here and deal with the questions of the country on their merits, and not from any party standpoint or party bias; and for the farmers to come as a separate class and say: "We are going to make an effort, if possible, to seize the reins of power, and to govern the country," is an attitude which I cannot support. When a man elects to become the representative of one class he then, to my mind, ceases to be a representative and becomes a delegate. Professor John R. Commons, professor of political economy in the University of Wisconsin, has said "That one man of wealth has the influence of a thousand farmers, storekeepers and labourers." Well, with my experience I would be inclined to think that in some instances you might multiply his estimate a thousand fold.
We are living in a democratic age, an age, I trust, of advancement, but a time of unrest-even dangerous unrest-a time when people are dissatisfied with the old order of things. So many strange evils have sprung into life that one is bewildered. On the one hand we find unusual concentration of wealth in the control of a few; on the other, a growing restlessness and frantic attempts at organization on the part of the wage-earning class. I believe the Government should have an important place in solving these contradictions, and I believe that the remedy lies in the adoption of a proportional representation system in elections.
Let me quote what Lord Robert Cecil, an eminent man in public life in Great Britain, says. At a luncheon held in the House of Commons, London, England, on November 3, 1920, Lord Robert Cecil, speak-

ing on proportional representation, uttered the following words:
I am satisfieid, that propirtional representation has never been more important that it is at the present moment. We are faced all over the world by an attack on what may be called the world order,-a general challenge and dispute on the presupposition of which the whole of our civilization and society is based. It is a time when democracy as a system of government and as a system of social organization is going to be tested to its uttermost, and the machinery which expresses democracy will be overhauled by no friendly critics, to see whether it really does justify the claim it makes. In this country, we have for many years, been aware of a growing criticism of representative institutions as they actually exist. We know that some of our most cherished institutions no longer keep the position in the public reputation that they did half a century ago, and the additional danger exists now, that not only are there those who criticise our institutions, but there are those who desire definitely to set up a different form and method of governing the country which many of us, at any rate, think would lead us straight to anarchy.
It is a time when it boheves all of us who believe in democracy and in stability to look carefully at the foundations on which our institutions are based and to do our utmost to see that they really are based on the only foundation on which democratic institutions can be based, namely, a true accord with the expressed and determined will of the people. It is for that reason that, to my mind, proportional representation has an added importance at the present time.
At the same meeting Colonel L. S. Amery, Under Secretary of the Colonies said:
We are only beginning to realize-the general public I mean-that methods of election influence the whole character and structure of the political life. We have plenty of object lessons before us, both in the present and in the past. I was reading the other day the life of my first political chief, Lord Courtney, and I was impressed with the far-seeing grasp he showed, forty years ago, of the inevitable results of applying the old political system of election to the Irish problem-and he endorsed his belief by sacrificing his political position.
I believe that half, i-f not the whole of the appalling problem with which we are faced to-day is a by-product of an unfortunate system of elections which created artificial divisions and exaggerated them, when the important thing was for the men of moderate views to get together and find a real solution. If we had had proportional representation, forty years ago, a solution might have been found of the Irish problem then on the lines of moderate men of all shades of opinion, drawing together on common ground.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the different systems of proportional representation. That will be the work of the committee, if appointed. However, I may say I agree with Colonel L. S. Amery when he expresses the belief that, had proportional representation been
TMr. Sexsmith.]
adopted forty years ag'o ip the British Isles, a solution might have been found of the Irish problem. Our present system does not encourage unity of the Canadian people, which is so necessary for the well-being and general advancement of our country. It rather encourages the opposite. At election time we find Quebec talking about Orange Toronto, and Toronto talking about French Quebec, which, I think, does not make for unity. Does any man tell me that that mode of conducting elections is to the advantage of this country? Personally I cannot see it. In place of drawing our people closer together we, at election time, indulge in picayune methods in a constituency where a man can use " the glad hand " and resort to all the evils that may be attached to a corrupt election to try to secure his return. In a word the idea seems to be "Anything to get votes." We have to acknowledge these things because we all realize that they take place. Instead of talking in Montreal about Orange Toronto, and talking in Orange Toronto about French Quebec, we should, as some one has well said:
Be noble, and the nobleness
That lies in other men-sleeping but not dead-
Shall rise in majesty, to meet thine own.
There are many countries in Europe that have adopted proportional representation, and some countries in the British Empire where the system is in vogue. I do not deem it necessary to outline the conditions which exist in those countries, and the success which has followed the adoption of that system, but. I want to refer to a few cases in our own country where proportional representation has been tried. The system was tried in the city of Winnipeg a short time ago, during the Provincial election, and I now wish to quote the opinion of the Hon. Thomas H. Johnson, Attorney General of Manitoba, as to how it worked out.
Mr. Johnson wrote:
I feel I can truthfully say that I have not now, and never have had, a single regret for the efforts made by me, personally, in connection with the introduction of this reform in our election laws. The proportional representation system gives a more truly representative legislature than the system of single member constituencies. Everything claimed for it in the literature which we used, and with which we are familiar, was clearly accomplished. The electors of Winnipeg had no more difficulty than usual, and the counting, nothwithstanding the great number of candidates, forty-one in all), came off without a hitch of any kind.
I now wish to quote the opinion of another gentleman Mr. W. J. Tupper, K. C.,

a Conservative member of the Manitoba Legislature, who wrote:
In my opinion the test that proportional representation underwent in this city during the late provincial election, was successful. As I understand the system, it is intended to give representation to all parties in proportion to their numerical strength. The result of the late election showed that the minority parties in the city of Winnipeg received representation i-n accordance with their voting strength. It however, did not favour independent candidates, as you will have observed.
I may say that the success of the system seems to me to depend upon the effciency of those in control of the counting. We were fortunate in this province to have exceptionally able men in charge and 'the result is, no doubt, in a great measure due to them.	,
The mayor of Winnipeg, Mr. C. F. Gray, wrote:
I might say that I followed the application of this new system of election with keen interest and the results have satisfied me that it is the best means of ascertaining the wishes of all sections of the electorate. I look forward to its successful application in the forthcoming municipal election in the city of Winnipeg.
The Manitoba Free Press, in its issue of July 7, 1920, commented editorially on the election, as follows:
Winnipeg, it may be ventured, has put proportional representation upon a Canadian political map. The test the new system has successfully passed through in the recent Manitoba election is the last thing needed to demonstrate the practicability and merits of proportional representation. Its extension to the rural constituencies in Manitoba is assured, and its ultimate adoption of all elections-civic, provincial, and federal-may now be looked on as inevitable. In Winnipeg the test was classic, and proportional representation won with flying colors.
I have some other comments here which perhaps are worth puting on Hansard:
Some of the advantages of the new system are very apparent. In the first place, proportional representation eliminated the excitement and bitterness from the election campaign; the knowledge that each party could only get its fair proportion, and no more, of the available seats made the old-time stategy and electioneering useless-
That is worth considering, Mr, Speaker, if nothing more.
:-it also saves thousands of dollars which would have been spent in pushing individual candidates, and it enabled the electors to approach the ballots with a calmness of mind which gave them an opportunity to cast their votes with the greatest possible understanding and intelligence. The trifling number of spoiled ballots is an eloquent testimonial to the fact that the electors were cool and clear-headed when they went to the polls.
The leading fact, however, is that the result of the ballot has worked out with mathematical exactitude to the desired end ; the elected candidates represent in accurate proportion the
voting strength of the parties in the city; no votes were lost, and the voter who saw that his first choice had been defeated, knew that his vote was not extinguished, but passed on to his alternate preference, and that in the final results he had secured his correct proportion of representation.
I know there are those who think that proportional representation favours little cliques and independent candidates, but the results so far have proved the direct opposite.
Now, Mr. Speaker, after giving this question considerable thought I feel that something should be done to secure for this great country a better election system.
Last year we spent weeks of
10 p.m. valuable time trying to pass an election Act. Yes, we spent weeks trying to build barbed wire entanglements, if I may so express myself, around the polling booth so that the individual elector might be allowed to cast his vote without danger of its being switched or stolen. We acknowledge the principle of one man one vote, or one elector one vote, but we allow in our system of distribution the direct opposite. What would be thought of a government or of an individual member of this House that would introduce a bill giving the electors in one district six votes and those in the adjoining district one vote? What chance would a bill of that description have of adoption by this House? But that is exactly what has happened in some of our electoral districts, in every election for the last twenty years. In one district one Conservative vote might be worth five or siv Liberal votes; in another district that I have referred to in the province of Quebec, at one election, one Liberal vote was worth six Conservative votes; and in the province of Nova Scotia 46,000 Conservative votes out of a total of 103,000^-1 am speaking in round numbers- did not secure one representative in this chamber, while 56,000 Liberal votes elected eighteen representatives. While the Government of that day might have been elected by a small majority, still I look upon that as very significant because that is the year, 1904, when the great railway question which we are encumbered with to-day was before the country. There is not an hon. gentleman within sound of my voice who would hesitate for a minute in condemning any attempt that might be made to grant to our citizens in one district one vote and to those in another district five or six votes,

but that has been the result of our elections during the past year.
Say not it matters not to me My brother's weal is his behoof.
For in this wondrous human web If your life's warp, his life is woof.
Woven together are the threads And you and he are in one loom For good or ill, for sad or glad,
Tour lives must share one common doom. Then let the daily shuttle glide Wound full of threads of kindly care That life's great lengthening web may be Not only strongly wrought but fair.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us, is to my mind, well timed. The public is seriously considering this question and is intensely interested in it. It has received much study and is receiving more study. Such experience as we already have had in Canada with this system has been very satisfactory. I think the time for the introduction of the resolution is also well chosen because of what some people call the present political unrest, but which I prefer to call a political awakening.
People are doing their own thinking now as they have never done before in the world's history. There are extremists among labourers and among advanced thinkers, but we have always had extremists among thinking men and women. We must decide how we shall treat our extremists. In olden days they had a way of their own-those in authority adopted the plan of putting extremists to death as the handiest and most expeditious plan available; later on the plan of imprisonment was substituted; and in still later years Englishmen adopted the plan of allowing the extremist to shout himself hoarse in Hyde Park. The world mildly applauded- the heroic action of the Englishman, but hesitated about following his example. The world moves and the extremist is no longer satisfied with being allowed to air his view in the public parks. He wishes to be given the opportunity of expressing his views in the legislative halls of his country, and the idea is gradually gaining ground that where the extremist has any considerable backing he should have that opportunity, and that the only *safe course is to give it to him.
The best citizens are always drawn to

wards the under dog, and their sympathy always goes out to those who appear to be oppressed. They want to see every one have a chance, and the old plan of suppressing the extremist is no longer work-
able. The main result of suppressing the extremist was to get a new and bigger crop of his kind. We may kill or imprison the idealist, but we cannot kill or imprison the ideal. There is a law above the law of man and wiser than the law of man, which prevents that.
With education even so general as it is in our land, the only safe way is to give every encouragement to those having advanced thoughts to give expression to their thoughts, whether they be right or wrong. Public parks served their day as places for that expression, but to my mind election days and legislative halls are the proper times and places for their expression in our day. In the public parks there is no satisfactory method of answering the soap-box orator, but in this House all new ideas can be met under the most complete rules and regulations and in such a way that those new ideas will be subject to the acid test. They will be set before the public with their strength and their weakness clearly exposed to the public gaze. Each argument will be publicly met by those well qualified to meet it. All new ideas will be exposed to coldblooded public scrutiny, and I have sufficient faith in the public to believe that the general result will be that new ideas that are worth while will survive and in time will be put into effect, while those ideas not well founded will die. I doubt if there is any better place in Canada than this House in which to give effect to sound ideas and to kill unsound ideas. Carlyle, referring to the French Revolution, speaks of "truth clad in hell fire." It rests largely with this House to say how the new ideas of our day, be they true or false, shall come to us. It is largely ours to say whether they will come to us clothed in the garments of peace or dressed in the lurid garments described by Carlyle.
I do not think our extremists in any particular line are so numerous as some people suppose. They must be fairly numerous before they can get representation in this House even under the most democratic plan of proportional representation, but if extremists in any particular line are sufficiently numerous to obtain representation in the House under that plan, then I believe it is for the benefit of the country that they should come here and air their views in a place where those views can be properly met. Let me repeat that I believe if their views are well founded they will survive and eventually conquer, while if they are not well founded they will die.

This surely is as it should be. I believe vve should arrange that in all our cities, at least in those which are entitled to more than one representative, the constituencies should be grouped together and each elector should only have one first vote, being entitled to give second and further choices, where necessary, to other candidates. This would enable any group of people to obtain representation, provided they are sufficiently strong to be entitled to representation. In time, as the plan is worked out, it may be well to provide for the grouping together of a considerable portion of thickly peopled rural sections under the same plan. Possibly at present it might be well to try it out in cities where it can best be worked out, and in rural communities where we have only one member for each constituency we should have provision for a second choice where there are more than two candidates.
The hon. gentleman who moved this resolution has suggested that a committee should be appointed to go into the matter. That is certainly the proper course. There is no need of going into the details here or of elaborating any argument as to how the plan should be worked out. I have no doubt that a committee would be prepared to consider all phases of the question, not only the matter of proportional representation in grouped constituencies, if you like to use the term, but also the matter of transferable votes in single constituencies.
The hon. gentleman has said something with regard to the experiment in Manitoba. I suppose the House generally is aware that in the last local election in Manitoba provision was made for the working out of proportional representation in the city of Winnipeg. The city was granted ten representatives arid they were elected under proportional representation. In the country nothing of the kind was provided; no provision was made for transferable votes. Now, let us see how the different plans worked out. I refer again to the Free Press of July 5 last. The three groups which had any large representation in Winnipeg were Labour, Liberal and Conservative. Besides the candidates for these groups there were eleven Independent candidates, each representing, I suppose, some new idea of his own. The fear is sometimes expressed that some faddist or other might by means of this plan be elected to Parliament, but the Winnipeg experiment does not justify any idea of that kind. In Winnipeg, according to the Free Press figures, which, no doubt, are correct-they were published
some days after the election-the votes cast as first choice were 42.5 per cent Labour, 30.4 per cent Liberal, 13.7 per cent Conservative, and 13.4 per cent Independent. You will notice that the Independents had nearly as many votes as the Conservatives, but it must be remembered that the Conservative group was one group where as among the Independents there were anywhere from six to eleven groups, so to speak; there were eleven candidates. As a result of the voting, four Labour candidates, four Liberals and two Conservatives were elected. It might be said that only one Conservative and one Independent should have been elected, land perhaps, another Labour candidate. But I have given a reason why the Independents were not elected-it is simple enough: because they were a lot of dissociated groups; none of them had sufficient backing among the people of Winnipeg to entitle them to represent the people of Winnipeg. The Conservatives had sufficient backing; they had that whole group of 13.7 per cent. Had anyone known the total number of Conservative, Liberal and Labour votes and endeavoured to give to each group the representation to which it was intitled, he could not have done it more fairly than was the case as the result of this election by proportional representation. It is true that there were less votes per member for Conservatives than in the case of any other group and considerably more votes per member for Labour than for any other. Had they elected, say, one more Labour candidate and one less Conservative, the inequality would have been very much greater. As it is at present, you have about one Labour representative for a little over ten per cent of the vote and one Conservative representative for a little less than seven per cent of the vote. Had you changed that, had there been one more Labour member and one less Conservative member, the disparity would be still greater. Labour would have one representative for a little over eight per cent, and the Conservatives would have one for thirteen and a half or nearly fourteen per cent. So you see a fairer result could not have been obtained amongst the parties.
We come to the other question of transferable votes in single constituencies, and there is little enlightenment to be thrown on that by the Manitoba situation. In Manitoba no provision was made in the provincial election for transferable votes in single constituencies. As is liable to be the case in Canada for some time at least,

there were more than the two old groups; there were additional groups. I have from the Canadian Nation figures given of the results in spme of those constituencies, which figures show that many of the elected representatives were minority candidates. It is not, however, fair to say of those men that they were not entitled to their seats, because they obtained the seats under the plan that was established, the only plan on which they could be candidates. No blame, therefore, attaches to them; the blame is on the system. In Brandon, the Labour candidate secured election by 2,007 votes, while 2,648 votes were cast against him for the two nonLabour candidates, so that he was a minority candidate. In the electoral division of Emerson 989 votes elected a Farmer representative, while 1,681 Liberal and Conservative votes were ineffective. In Manitou constituency 1,085 votes elected a Conservative candidate, while 1,927 votes for Liberal and Farmer candidates were wasted, or nearly double the number. In Rock-wood the elected candidate obtained 978 votes, rendering ineffective the 977 votes, or one vote less, for another candidate, and 638 votes for a third candidate. That is, the elected candidate received only 978 votes, while 1,615 votes were cast against him. As I have said, there is no fault attaching to the candidates in that case; they obtained their election under the only system which was available.
We have at present in this House three members elected from constituencies in Ontario against whom the taunt is sometimes hurled that they are minority representatives. The fact that they are minority representatives is not any fault of theirs; it is the fault of the people generally and the fault of this House and of our plan of election. They offered themselves as candidates under the only system available, and they were duly elected under that system. It is very unfair to them that any one should be in a position to claim that they are minority representatives. If we wish to avoid the possibility or even probability of minority representatives in this House, we must adopt the principle of allowing the elector more than one choice, that is, where there is more than one candidate. It is quite plain that, for some time at least, we shall, in our politics, be divided into groups, and we should make our electoral machinery suit changed conditions. There is very little doubt that in the next election three-cornered and even four and five-cornered fights in single constituencies will take place, and it is our duty
['Mr. Thomson.] _
before the next election to provide legislation which will properly meet changed conditions and enable the electors to have complete say as to who shall represent them.
We hear the complaint made by leaders of the present Opposition that the opponents of the Government will be divided and will be fighting against one another in such a way as to weaken the effect of anything they decide to do. On the other hand we hear complaints from leaders and supporters on the Government side that there is danger of unfair understandings and arrangements amongst the leaders of the Opposition groups, and that this will militate against the Government. The way to overcome these dangers, if such exist, is to adopt the principle under discussion, where every elector can exercise his choice to the full limit.
Something has been said by the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Sex-smith) with regard to the action of the farmers in forming an organization of their own. I do not think he was quite consistent with what he said before that; I think he rather contradicted himself. Let me, however, say this to my hon. friend, that I think he must admit that he has never seen in this group anything that would justify him in supposing that we want to make this group exclusive. The farmers generally do -not want to form an exclusive political organization; they do not want to be exclusive; they do not want any class to rule. In fact, the main reason of their organization is their objection to class rule. We have had class rule in Canada since Confederation, and we want to do away with that. We have a platform on which we believe that members of every class can stand, that every honest man who wants fair play can stand. Therefore, we stick to that platform. Perhaps I am getting a little out of order; but if so I am only following my hon. friend who spoke before, who was also out of order. We ask for proportional representation amongst other things, so that my hon. friend is with us there.
Personally, I would like to see our law so framed that every opportunity will be given to the electors to decide who shall be their representatives. I realize that the leading issue in the next election campaign will be the issue between a customs tariff, probably somewhat resembling the tariff we have at present, on the one side, and a very low tariff on the other. I need not say where I stand on that question. Still, if the maiority of the people of Canada desire

to retain a protective tariff such as we have at present, or even a higher tariff, they have an absolute right to such a tariff, and notwithstanding my own preference, I wish them to have it. They have the right to rule, and they have the right to decide what should be done. I may believe their course a mistaken one, hut I must grant them the right to make their own mistakes.
I trust this resolution will be adopted by an overwhelming majority of the members of the House, and that it will be followed by immediate and effectual legislation.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac) :: Mr. Speaker, I did not arrive in the chamber in time to hear the opening sentences of the speech of the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Sexsmith); but I think I was in time to hear the greater part of his speech, and I may frankly say that I was very much impressed with many of the arguments which he presented. I have had the privilege of sitting in this House with the hon. member for East Peterborough for a number of years. I know he never advocates anything unless he is absolutely sincere, and he is always very careful in his accumulation of facts and always logical in his presentation of them. I find myself, however, in this position in regard to the resolution before us. Very frankly I confess that I have not given this subject the careful study which has undoubtedly been given to it by the hon. member for East Peterborough and by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson). I find myself then in a position of being ill-informed as to, perhaps, the benefits of this proposed system over our present system. It may he, as these hon. gentlemen urge, that the system of proportional representation, such as is proposed in this resolution, would he vastly superior to the system which has prevailed ever since Confederation, and I am conscious of many defects in that system. I am not sure at the present moment that the system suggested would be better than our present system, with all its difficulties, and that brings me to the objection which I find in the resolution as proposed. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, in order to give each voter an equal share in the representation, some system of proportional representation should he adopted-
Let me stop there. Now if I vote for this resolution, then perforce I am voting in favour of adopting some system of proportional representation, and speaking for myself alone, I have not sufficient information at the present time to convince me
that such a system would be superior to our present system. It is true that the resolution goes on to suggest that a special committee be appointed to gather information in regard to proportional representation with a view to reporting to the House, but I would feel I was in a much better position to cast a vote in regard to proportional representation if I was provided with the information which this committee is supposed to gather than I am now, when the information has not been gathered and presented.
If that part of the resolution were eliminated which asks me to vote in favour of a system of proportional representation, and the resolution merely asked me to support the appointment of a connhittee which was to gather information in regard to proportional representation, I would freely vote for it.
I shall not take up time discussing the subject further, for the reasons I have already given. I do not feel competent to discuss the subject on its merits. I have [DOT] not given it careful study, and I think it is of sufficient importance to warrant hon. members of this House giving it careful consideration. I should like to hear the opinions of hon. gentlemen who have been longer in public life than I have. I should be very glad, indeed, to hear the well-considered opinion of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), for instance. He has been a long time in public life and no doubt has given the subject some consideration; whether or not he has gone deeply into the question it is for him to say. Frankly, Sir, I feel that I am not qualified to discuss this matter on its merits. I also feel that I have not sufficient knowledge of the system of proportional representation to enable me to vote for a resolution declaring in favour of it.


Mr. G. W. ANDREWS (Centre Winnipeg) :: The outstanding fact to my mind with regard to proportional representation is that it is here now. It is here in this House. It is in the Ontario Legislature, it is in the Manitoba Legislature, and in British Columbia. Proportional representation is in every place where they have held an election in recent years. The people of Canada are not satisfied with the old system, and they have split themselves into groups, not as the result of proportional representation, however; and if groups we must have, for Heaven's sake let us have intelligent groups. Perhaps the most useful contribution that I can make

to the debate, coming from Manitoba, where the question is no longer an academic one, but where the system has actually been tried, will be to give a few facts with regard to the. trial that was made of the system there during the last election. In the first place, it was tried in Winnipeg alone, and with this extraordinary result, that in Winnipeg we have a group of three parties only, Labour, Liberal and Conservative, whereas in the outlying parts of the province where the old system was in force, we have a group of five, Liberal, Farmer, Conservative, Labour and Independent. It will no doubt be interesting to the House to ascertain how this occurred. I have some figures here which I shall not read at length, but which with the permission of the House I shall place on Hansard, after quoting briefly from them. I have here the actual returns of every constituency in Manitoba, the number of votes polled, the number of candidates, and the results. In Brandon, for instance, where my old friend, General Kirkcaldy was running as a Conservative, he polled 1,245 votes. My old friend, Mr. Clements, a Liberal, polled 1,403 votes, and Albert E. Smith, the Labour man, polled 2,207 votes. This is a fair sample of a modern election where more than two candidates are running. It happens to-day, Mr. Speaker, quite often, I think, that we not only do not have majority representatives, but we have minority ones and this is a fair case in point. In Emerson constituency, the farmers elected a member with a vote of 989. The Government polled 756, and the Conservatives, 925. The man who was elected with 989 votes had against him 1,600 votes of people who did not believe in his policies. It has sometimes been said that if it had not been for proportional representation there would not have been so many groups in the Manitoba House. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall read a letter from the Executive Council in Winnipeg.
I am in receipt o your letter of the 23rd ult., with respect to the recent Manitoba elections and I am enclosing herewith the list of the candidates and the votes polled for each in each' constituency In the Province of Manitoba.
I cannot understand how the newspapers are possessed with the idea that proportional representation is responsible for the reduced majority of the Norris Government, as the vote in Winnipeg did not show this by any means. I have given as near as possible the party affiliations of each candidate, but until the House meets it is difficult to accurately state how some of these will line up.
Had proportional representation been in force throughout the whole of the province there is 
no question in the world but that the Norris Government would have received a much larger representation.
One point I want hon. members to realize, is that we are not having groups because of proportional representation, but in spite of it. I think most of the ground has been covered in this debate. A point, however, that presents some difficulty is: What are you going to do in single-member constituencies? Most men feel that it is impossible to group the outside constituencies, and frankly I am of that opinion. Our areas are too far-flung to do it. As a result of the election in Manitoba there is a Bill before the Manitoba House at the present time, and it has passed its second reading, for the purpose of carrying out the idea of the single transferable vote in every constituency in Manitoba. This does not mean group constituencies, but if there are more than three candidates the elector will be given a first, second, and third preference. For instance, if there are three men, one a Conservative, one a Liberal, and one a Farmer, I, being a Liberal, would probably vote for the Liberal. Now, the majority is the majority of the votes cast at the election. Supposing 14,000 votes are cast; half of that would be 7,000, and one over that would be the quota required to elect a member. Now, I vote for the Liberal, and if he has sufficient votes in the first round to elect him, that settles it. If not, it is proposed to drop out the low man and transfer his votes, according to the preference of the votes. Probably, in the next case, I would transfer my vote to the Farmer if my first choice was not elected. These votes are transferred in accordance with the expressed desire of the voter; so that, as a matter of fact, no vote is lost, and it is impossible to have a minority candidate returned. The man who does come back must have at least a majority of one.
I was very much interested the other day, when the debate on patronage was before the House, to hear the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Edwards), suggest that the patronage should be given to the sitting member. I wonder what he would do in a case like Emerson, where the sitting member represented 900, although approximately 1,680 people had voted against him. It is entirely possible under our present system that we may have a House, after the next election, unless there is a change, representing about one-third of the people of Canada. That is quite possible. To-day, this proposal is right in

line with practical politics. It is no longer a matter of academic debate, and I do sincerely trust that the Government will appoint this committee. I agree with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that if the mover of the resolution could recommend the appointment of a committee without committing us to some definite form of proportional representation, it would he very much better. I will vote for it in any case, because it is a right thing; but if this suggestion were adopted I think it would be in the better interests of all concerned. With regard to the figures which I have, with the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I would place them on Hansard. The statement gives the names, the number of votes and the number of candidates in every constituency. In some constituencies there were as many as five candidates running. I think that this table would be of general interest to members of the House, and it would be well to have it on Hansard.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the hon. member would be better advised to read the list:	It is only in rare and exceptional
cases that documents are permitted to be embodied in Hansard without having been read, and I have never known instances in which this was done in a debate on private member's day. While I regret that this is so, nevertheless it is the fact, and I think it would be well, in the interests of proper procedure, for the hon. member to conform to the rule and read the list.


Mr. McMASTER:: May I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker? If this is a very long statement the reading of it may take up considerable time. This is an extremely important debate, and while the statement may not strike hon. members on its reading, yet in printed form the facts would catch
the eye, and I have no doubt that they would be of interest. I suggest, Sir, that it would be helpful to a proper consideration of the subject if the document were allowed to be placed on Hansard.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is only a question of principle. It is the duty of the Chair to direct-the attention of the House to the rule, which is very clear and well defined. However, under the circumstances, I have no objection to submitting the question to the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the tabulated statement submitted by the hon. member (Mr. Andrews), be inserted in Hansard without being read?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


George William Andrews: 
James Alexander Calder: Mr. Speaker,
in view of the discussion which we have had, it seems to me that probably the debate might be shortened if I intimated to the House briefly the decision which the Government has reached with regard to this important question. As every member

is aware, there has been for some years past very 'considerable discussion throughout the country with reference to our present method of securing representation in the House of Commons and to our various legislative bodies. Whether we may agree-with it or not, there is undoubtedly a large mass of public opinion to the effect that our present method of selecting representatives to our legislative bodies is not all that it should be. I do not propose at this stage to enter upon a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the present system. I am rather inclined to the view that the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), fairly well represents the views of the House; that is, that most of us have not given as close and exhaustive study to the question as we should.
I doubt very much whether the House at this time should be called upon to express an opinion upon the broad principle as to whether or not we ought to adopt some method of proportional representation. I think we shall be in a better position to give a verdict on that question a little later in the session, if the course suggested is adopted, namely, that the whole problem should be referred to a special committee of the House, and that every means be taken to get the fullest light possible upon the subject. That is what I would desire myself. While I have followed the discussions that have taken place throughout the country, and particularly in the press, during the course of the last few years, I must confess that I have not that full knowledge of the whole problem that would enable me to cast an intelligent vote. Let me give a simple illustration. I intended when the member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) was speaking, to ask whether or not, in the case of the city of Winnipeg, where proportional representation was adopted for the last election, every voter was required to vote for ten candidates. That I was not sure of; I do not know. I understand they had but one constituency for a population of about 225,000 people, that in that one constituency they elected ten members, and that during the course of the election they had something like over forty candidates running. In the case of Vancouver, I think they had something like fifty odd candidates running in that one constituency. One thing that bothers me-and I think it is very essential in providing for any such system-is that in the case of an election method of that

kind an individual, in many cases apparently, must be voting for a principle rather than for a man. Because I can conceive that in an election such as they had in Winnipeg it would be almost physically impossible for candidates to become acquainted with thier constituents, or for constituents to get to know their candidates, by reason of the size of the constituency and the multiplicity of candidates, and particularly where an election is arranged in a comparatively short time as it was under the Manitoba law.
Another thing that troubles me-I am merely mentioning this at the present time -is that I see difficulties in adopting one principle of representation for urban communities, and another system for rural communities. Now there may be good reasons for that. However, I do not wish at the present time to enter upon a detailed discussion of the features of the system either pro or con, I simply throw out this suggestion:	The whole subject is one
worthy of the very fullest consideration of this House, and Parliament should take means whereby it may obtain the very best advice and the very best evidence it possibly can on the subject. In so far as the resolution itself is concerned I think the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) pointed out what may be called a defect, and that is that the House should not at this stage be called upon to vote upon the principle of the resolution. For that reason it has therefore been suggested that the motion should be amended, and I propose to move an amendment so as to bring about that result. Accordingly I beg to move:
That all the words after the word "House" in the second line thereof be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
A Special Committee of this House should be appointed to consider the subject of proportional representation and the subject of the single transferable vote-
Which is a very different thing, as I ununderstand it, from proportional representation; both subjects should be considered-
-and the desirability of the application of one or the other, or both, to elections to the House of Commons of Canada, and to report thereon to the House, and that such Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses under oath.
If that amendment is acceptable I think, before the House meets to-morrow, we will be able to arrange for a committee that will be satisfactory.


Mr. F. L. DAVIS (Neepawa) :: I do not intend spending any time upon a discussion of the question. I merely wish to refer

to the use in the amendment of the term "the single transferable vote." This has generally referred to the Hare System of Representation, and I think perhaps the amendment would be clearer if it was phrased in this way "the single transferable or preferential vote" as doubtless that is what the Minister of Immigration' has in mind.


James Alexander Calder: I have no objection to inserting the words "or preferential vote."


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette) :: At this late hour of the night I shall not impose a long speech on the House. However, as I take a deep interest in this matter of proportional representation, or the method of transferable votes, or any other system which might have for its object the improvement of the existing system of election, I think it my duty to say a word or two upon the present resolution. At the outset I congratulate the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) for introducing the amendment which he has brought in. I understood on the reading of the resolution as originally drafted that it was a committal on the merits of the issue. But now I gather that the only question that should be dealt with by the House at the present time is, whether or not this question is important enough to justify the House in appointing a committee to consider it. Therefore I think it was wise to omit that part of the resolution which was a committal on the merits of the issue, and simply leave before the House the question of whether or not a special committee should be appointed.
One might ask what is proportional representation? To the man who has not made some study of the question, proportional representation, might, perhaps, mean a revolution in the electoral franchise. I must say, Sir, that in my opinion proportional representation means nothing of the kind. Proportional representation, to my mind, is purely and simply a mile-stone on the road of political evolution and reform. The electoral franchise is rather a new invention in the lives of civilized nations. One has not to go very far back in history to find the origin of the electoral system. Civilized nations had existed for many centuries before the popular electoral franchise was given, or invented, if I might use that term. The development of a popular electoral franchise was gradually accomplished, first in Great Britain then in
the United States, and finally in all the important countries of the world. Like every other improvement, or every other device, it has developed by degrees. The first systems were crude and very antiquated and also unjust to the people, but by degrees these systems have been improved, and to-day the system of proportional representation is nothing more or less than an improvement upon the present plan which has defects-a fact, no one can deny. If, for instance, one should only look back through history for the last five years one will readily find that the electoral system has been changed and modified in many countries of the world. Take our own country alone. Is it not true, Sir, that in the last five years more changes have been wrought in our electoral system and our electoral laws than there surely were in the fifty years that preceded this period? The object of proportional representation is to see to it that the wish of the elector be given effect to. It has been demonstrated by the mover of this resolution, and it is known to everybody in this House that the present system is defective in that it does not give effect to the wishes of the elector. Especially is this true when in a single constituency there are several candidates representing different groups. I will not go into details, but en passant I might point out the fact that at the next general election it is common knowledge that there will be in the field the candidates of four parties-the Unionist party, the Liberal party, the Agrarian party and the Labour party. Now, taking a single constituency in which four candidates are running, each representing one of those parties, is it not true that in many cases the successful candidate will not be the man who will represent the majority of the electors? The hon. member for Winnipeg who took his seat a few minutes ago pointed out the same circumstance in another form. I think it is sufficient to bring that defect before the House to convince every hon. member of the necessity of a change in our law.- Needless is it for me to say that in each and every case the man elected should represent the majority of his electors, and if we come to the conclusion that a different result might follow under the existing law, I think it is the duty of Parliament to change that law in order to give effect to the will of the electorate. Proportional representation, Sir, although relatively new, is not an entirely new system. I find

that proportional representation has been in effect in over ten .countries, including Galicia, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, two or three of the Balkan States, and Brazil. Further, wherever the system has been given a fair trial it has never been discarded, which speaks strongly in favour of its merits. The hon. member who introduced this resolution quoted many instances in which flagrant injustice has been done to the electorate. I might perhaps add to the long list. Indeed, if one should go through the results of parliamentary elections in this and other countries the book which I am now holding in my hand would not be large enough to contain all the examples of the dire injustice to the electors on account of the present system not being as effective as it should be to give proper expression to the will of the electorate. While the hon. member was speaking there came to my mind two instances which are 11 pan. familiar to us and which occurred in the Federal elections of 1917. In those elections the country west of the Great Lakes elected only two Liberal members. Is it to be supposed, Sir, that under proportional representation more than two Liberal members would not have been elected there? The answer is obvious. Taking my own province, sixty-two Liberals were elected as against only three Unionists. Is it reasonable to suppose that the Union party could not have secured more than three seats if proportional representation had been in operation? I do not believe it, I am sure of the contrary. Therefore, we have on the one hand in the West the Liberals deprived of that representation which they should have had; and, on the other hand, in the province of Quebec we have the Unionists deprived of the representation which they should have had. And these are typical of other cases that could be cited.
Now, proportional representation to my mind is only an expression qualifying a proposed change in the present electoral system. The change might also come under the form of transferable votes for single constituencies, or under any other form. But at all events, as was clearly demonstrated by the hon. Minister of Immigration, it is certainly a reasonable and just reform, and the House owes it to itself and to the country that a special committee be appointed to consider this question very thoroughly and report thereon to the House, . and then every member will be able to care-
[Mr. Denis. 1
fully study that report and be able to express an enlightened opinion on the subject.
I will not attempt to enumerate the many advantages which in my opinion would follow the adoption of proportional representation, but I might bring to the attention of the House one point which was raised some time ago by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) when speaking on the address, in substance he said that in the Old Country, England especially, when a man has become a national figure, whether it be in one party or another the people will support him at the polls and almost invariably that man will be returned to Parliament as often as he desires. We know that history supports that statement. In this country, where politics are not so well developed as they are in the older countries, and where perhaps the political sense is not as keen, we often see men of the highest integrity and unquestioned ability defeated at the polls. Well, whatever party such men belong to it is always a loss to the country when they fail to secure re-election. When men have made their mark in Parliament, men of the type we have in this House, I do not care to what party they belong, my opinion is that such men have become an asset to their country and should be encouraged to remain in public life. Under the present system we have seen time and again our best men defeated simply because the electors have not had the advantage of voting under a system of proportional representation.


Andrew Ross McMaster: They could be put in the Senate.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The resolution as amended simply asks that a committee be appointed. Taking into consideration the fact that this question is a most important one and that members on both sides seem to be most anxious that it be debated at length, I think it is only proper and right that the resolution as amended should carry and that a special committee to investigate this matter should be appointed.


Mr. JOHN HAROLD (Brant) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed by the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder). I feel that the Government are to be commended for the stand they have taken with regard to the request that a committee be appointed to consider this important question. I am not an enthusiast, nor have I been entirely won over to proportional representation, but being a so-called minority representative, I have given

the matter a good deal of consideration. One point to which I should like particularly to refer is the desirability of having the transferable vote in the single-member constituency. In our own constituency the representative in the provincial House is a minority representative; he did not secure fifty per cent of the vote in the riding. As I took part in a three-cornered contest, the same thing resulted, the vote being about 2,100 out of a total of 5,400. Now we have to face the situation which confronts us. We are going to have in many constituencies throughout the country representatives of three or four different groups of thought and we should consider in what way the laws should be changed so that the best representatives can be selected from those constituencies. From my experience I would say that the adoption of the transferable vote would lead to a much better condition in such constituencies from the standpoint of fairness and honesty in elections. Considerable influence would be brought to bear in such cases to have certain candidates withdrawn in order that a combination might be effected against some other candidate. On the other hand, we know from experience that influence would also be brought to bear with a view to bringing out certain candidates in order to split certain votes and to elect the one whose success was desired by those working for such an end. If every group is perfectly free, without the exercise of any influence, to put its representative in the field, a candidate's election being impossible if the sentiment of the majority of the people is not beind him, a much more desirable state of affairs in regard to elections in such cases is brought about.
I understand that the present Government in Ontario polled the smallest number of votes of the three parties that were running. They themselves recognize the weakness of their position and have quite consistently pressed that some change be made in order that a similar condition might not again prevail. We are experimenting with proportional representation in the provinces and the municipalities. It seems to me that this Parliament should proceed very cautiously in respect to any proposed changes; we had better profit by the experience of those who are already carrying on experiments. Furthermore, >
one trial is not going to tell the tale. Sometimes a new thing is taken up enthusiastically; many people are interested in making it a success, and it proves to be a temporary success. But we have to keep in mind the necessity of having a strong and stable government and at the same time of changing our electoral machinery from time to time so as to take care of any abuses that arise through the changes in the opinions of the people such as their desire to form '' themselves into different groups. The Government have, I think, correctly interpreted public opinion in this matter. I have every confidence that the committee which is to be appointed will come to a wise decision, one that would prove to be a benefit to the country at the next election.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to let this occasion pass without extending a word of commendation to the Government for granting the committee asked for in the resolution moved by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Sexsmith). Let me say at once that I am in entire accord with the principle of proportional representation, and that it has my hearty support. It is a principle that has long since passed the experimental stage. It is a significant fact that those European countries which have adopted it and applied it in their legislative system are to-day perhaps the most orderly countries in the world, and are among those subject to the least political disturbance. The system has prevailed in Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Sweden for many years and has operated very successfully. There is very good reason for that; for it is simply an extension of the principle of representative government.
In 1916 the British House of Commons, the mother of parliaments, arranged for a Speakers' conference to consider this among other matters of reform in their electoral system, and that Speakers' con-* ference, composed of the most representative men in the British House of Commons, brought in a unanimous report in favour of the application of the principle of proportional representation in the conduct of elections in the United Kingdom. It is, therefore, not a question of experiment; it is a principle which has been tested and tried and the operation of which has been proved to be successful.
Reference has been made to-night to the experience of Winnipeg in the last provincial election. I have talked to many representative men in that city, and without exception, irrespective of political affiliations, they are strong in their commendation of the principle as it was actually



worked out in the last provincial election in Manitoba. I am heartily in accord also with the application of the system of preferential voting in single-member constituencies. My hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Harold) has referred to the fact that we have quite a number of groups, shall I say, seeking representation in this House. In a constituency where three or four candidates are running it may very well happen-indeed it is almost certain to happen under our present method-that the successful candidate will- represent the minority of the electors in the constituency. That, indeed, was the case in the election held in East Elgin last autumn and in the election later held in Peterborough. By the application of the principle of preferential voting in single-member constituencies that difficulty can be overcome and the representative finally selected will be the representative of a majority of the people in the constituency. I was much impressed indeed with the remarks of my hon. friend from Joliette (Mr. Denis) and I endorse the arguments he advanced in favour of this reform. I am glad the Government has granted this committee; I trust it will investigate the matter fully, and I would offer this suggestion to the committee, that has not yet been appointed, but will be, according to the statement made by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), that it might be a very appropriate and useful thing if all the members of this House would hear the principles underlying the system of proportional representation explained by some of the gentlemen whom, I am sure, the committee will call before it to give evidence. I wish, in closing, to express my strong support of the principle, and I trust the work of this committee will result in the system being adopted by this House.
Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford) Mr. Speaker, for fear it might be presumed that every member of the House is in favour of proportional representation, I think it is well that one should say a word or two against the proposition, and at the expense of being considered singular, I am going to risk the operation and say that, in my judgment, the recommendation that this House should endorse such a principle as proportional representation is, to say the least of it, folly. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) has named ten countries, I think, in which he says proportional representation has been in operation for several years. With all due deference to the countries that he named,

I do not think they can show anything to Canada or to the British Empire ~ about government. I take the ground that proportional representation is entirely unsuitable to the British system of government, which is that the majority of the people should rule. I cannot see that proportional representation is. going to bring that about by any manner of means. Proportional representation is a help to group and class systems, both of which are most undesirable to be introduced into this country. I say that with all deference to my hon. friends opposite who may not agree with me on that. I was informed, within the last few minutes, by a western man-and I think he was telling me the truth-that only recently the Farmers' party themselves in the West tried out this system in their own convention, and they we"re obliged to abandon it as being too cumbersome even in electing their representatives in their own meeting. Perhaps the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) can tell me whether or not that is true. I have every reason to believe it is.


Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: Will the hon. member kindly tell the House what province in the West that happened in?


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I cannot tell my hon. friend the province, but I can get the information and let him have it in the morning. The gentleman who gave the information is within the confines of this building, and I suppose it is a matter of common knowledge that in one of the western provinces within the last few months the farmers tried out this system in their own convention and they w'ere obliged to abandon it because they found it cumbersome and unworkable.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If I might be permitted to interrupt the hon. member for a moment, because I am quite sure he does not wish intentionally to get astray, his statement is altogether wrong. The system has been applied in those conventions; it has worked out successfully without any question of doubt whatever, and it has not been abandoned anywhere.


William Foster Cockshutt: If that be the truth -and I am bund to accept the statement of the hon. member for Marquette-I say: So much the worse then for the common-sense of the farmers' organizations. I thought they knew better than to try their own physic on their own bodies, but apparently they did not. Proportional representation is at present being con-

sidered in the Ontario House by a committee similar to the one proposed, and the riding from which I come is proposed to be one of the victims. That is one reason why I feel particularly strong upon this question. One of the selected constituencies upon which the physic is to be tried consits of the county of Brant, containing two members, the county of Oxford, containing two members, and the county of Waterloo, containing two members. Therefore, I examine the system in the light of what I know about elections and about those particular constituencies. In the first place it is desirable that a community should know the men for whom they are voting. Is that not desirable? It cannot be done in six Ridings. A candidate is hardly known in his own Riding until he has run in two or three elections. Perhaps it is well that he is not known too well. That may be; but whether it be the case or not, it is an axiom of British procedure at any rate that a candidate should be a local man; that his character and ability should be known; that he should have some stake in the community and that he should he a man in whom the people have confidence. In six Ridings that is not possible. Futher, supposing a vacancy occurs by death or because of malpractice in elections; what happens? The successor has to run in six Ridings to be elected. Supposing a man in one Riding was selected as a minister of the Crown; he would have to run, and be elected, not in his own Riding, but in six.
In other respects proportional representation is a most cumbersome and undesirable system; it will advance the class system and the group system. I understand that in Medicine Hat a paper has been established recently by the Non-Partisan League formerly of North Dakota, who have moved into Canada. They have bought up a paper there, if I am credibly informed, and they have proposed eight classes to run in the coming election. It is a great mistake for the people of Canada to break up into eight classes. I want to see a party run, that will run on a policy for the general advantage of Canada. That will be my policy; and I think I can show, in just a few words, that it will be possible for forty-five per cent of the vote in Canada to be given on a platform that was for the general advantage of Canada and that that party should not succeed, and that the seven other groups, by buying certain privileges from one another, can make a working arrangement by which seven different fads will be bought up and paid for at the expense of
the people, and thus fifty-five per cent of the vote will be controlled, and forty-five per cent, which was a solid vote for the general advantage of Canada, will be side-tracked under proportional representation. That is quite possible; it is quite probable that it will be done. We know from time to time a group is ready to sell out if it can get its price, its price would be some fad that it has set its mind upon, and it is ready to sacrifice all other interests for the advantage of this one particular fad that is selected by it as being the most important thing at issue in the present crises. The British system has grown up under a thousand years of parliamentary reform. We have the British system in Canada; they have it very largely in the United States, and I say with all deference to the ten countries my hon. friend has mentioned, that they cannot show any one of those three countries, Great Britain, Canada and the United States, anything about up-to-date responsible government.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They are adopting it in
Great Britain.


William Foster Cockshutt: I do not think so,
and I do not think the hon. gentleman will live to see the day that it will be adopted in this House, unless such a calamity should happen as that a certain group should get into power, and I do not think that will happen. If we are going to investigate all the fads that are proposed, we should at the same time send to this committee the recall, the referendum, the initiative and all those fads that have been copied from certain parts of the United States and brought into our western country. Let us make a clean breast of it and a clean sweep. I would be in favour of a representative committee properly appointed, investigating proportional representation, because I believe such a committee would kill it.
I say the House would in a way be stultifying itself if after this committee brought in its report the House turned it down, which possibly would be done, a consummation devoutly to be wished. In my judgment the proposition should not be entertained by whatever committee may be formed. I do not think our time should be spent in following up these various fads, and certainly they are abroad in the land at the present moment. This is a time when ordinary old-time common sense cannot get a place, but has to make way for every kind of fad proposal for,hampering the people and bringing in laws for the sake of multiplying them, instead of for

the advancement of the people. As I said in the House recently, I would far rather hand my name down to posterity as a man who had prevented noxious laws from getting on our statute books than I would be known for having introduced ten or twenty or fifty laws of very doubtful character, and whose utility would be disproved as soon as put in operation. There is too much of that kind of legislation altogether, and I for one think that this House should not lend itself to this proposal even to the extent of appointing a committee.
Though not many have so far spoken, and perhaps nobody else will speak in this House on this occasion against this proposition, I believe I am speaking the view of a very considerable number of members of this House when I say they have absolutely no use for proportional representation. In fact, a western man told me that there are 257 varieties of it, which is 200 more varieties than there are of Heinz pickles, so this is a pretty pickle-257 varieties of proportional representation! I understand that in Winnipeg it took over one week to find out who was elected under proportional representation. Is it desirable to keep the public in suspense that time, to keep the home fires burning and the brass bands and the processions waiting for a week before you find out who is elected? I understand that proportional representation has been abandoned in certain parts of British Columbia that had it in a municipal way. I understand that in Calgary, where it is in operation, the people-at any rate, those I have had an opportunity of speaking with-have absolutely no use for it. Others who have tried it are all nearly of the opinion that it should not be introduced into Canada to any great extent.
I want it distinctly understood, Mr. Speaker, that so far as I am concerned I do not oppose the committee, because I think they will do their duty, and if they do, they will kill this proposal and all the other fads connected with it. We will their get down to business and go ahead on the good old British system, which says that the people shall rule. What I want to see in this country is a proper redistribution of seats, so that one man will have one vote and one woman one vote, and so that one vote will have one value to elect. If that is done, a great deal of evil we are now labouring under will be removed. In some constituencies it takes 50,000 or 100,000 people to elect a representative, and in others only 13,000 people; I think everybody knows the constituency where the 13,000 people live. It is questions of that sort
[Mr. Cockshutt.}
that we should be studying. I would vote to have a committee on a question of that kind at once, so that when a redistribution of seats is made it will be on the basis of population, on the principle that a certain number of votes has a certain value, whether those votes go to my hon. friends opposite or not. I do not want favours for any party. I say that the old British system that has been tried out and proved to be good for generations should not lightly be set aside because some new fad is being introduced into Canada from countries that cannot show us anything about liberty, good government, or stable organization. I understand that some of these governments change over night, that a certain group may be here to-day supporting the Government, and to-morrow jump to the other side because they have been bought up by some particular fancy, or some particular idea that may be entirely undesirable. The result is that they sell out, and the Government goes down over night. Many countries of Europe change their premiers and their cabinets almost every twelve months, and some much oftener. That is a most undesirable thing to encourage, and therefore I say that if this committee is going to kill this fad I will certainly vote for the committee. I do not believe any committee can investigate the question without killing it, and all the attendant fads that go with it. They are all in line, and are brought in largely by the same people. The referendum, the recall, the initiative, and all that sort of trash should be all buried together by this one committee, and if they will do that, I will certainly hold up both my hands for appointing it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I had not intended to intervene in this debate but the remarks made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Cockshutt) with that intense, genial and enthusiastic Toryism which marks his every utterance, make me feel that I would like to say just a word or two. He reminds me of that Irishman who followed the advice: whenever you see a head, hit it. Whenever a new idea comes up my hon. friend takes a crack at it. "It's a new idea," he says, "away with it." The hon. member has referred to the old British system. I am always somewhat doubtful of the logic of a gentleman who leaves aside reasoning on the instant to appeal to patriotism, and here not only the

logic of the hon. gentleman is wrong, but his history, because the old British system was two knights from a shire and two burgesses from every borough. They did not have a single-seated constituency, but a double-seated constituency, which gave in a somewhat meagre and attenuated form a degree of porportional representation.
My hon. friend also talks about the initiative, the referendum and the recall, as fads from the United States. My idea was that the initiative and the recall had their rise in Switzerland, not in the United States. Certainly the referendum had. He also says: I want to have our party get the votes to which it is entitled; I want every voter to have a vote of equal value; and he referred to the fact that some constituencies in this country are very much larger than others. I agree with my hon. friend; there are some a great deal larger than others, and that constitutes an unfairness for which, of course, members who represent the smaller constituencies are not responsible. They cannot get more votes than there are in the constituencies, but if they get three-fifths of the votes Which were cast in the last election, as the member who now modestly addresses this House got, my hon. friend should be perfectly well satisfied.
Let me just say this: Our parliamentary institutions are on trial. I do not think even the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Coek-shutt), if he would sit down and carefully study matters, would say that our present single-seated constituencies give a just result. For instance, in the election of 1904, the Liberals in Nova Scotia cast about
56.000	votes, and the Conservatives, for the Conservate party was then called the Conservative party, without trimmings, got
46.000	votes.


Mr. COPP:: It was well trimmed that time.


Andrew Ross McMaster: So well trimmed that the Liberals came back with the whole 18 seats. Although the Conservatives in Nova Scotia had polled within 10,000 of the votes polled by the Liberals, they had no representation in this Parliament at all. Now does my hon. friend think that was fair to the Conservatives of Nova Scotia? I do not think he does. Of course, my grief at the situation was not as great as his,
but I say it was not a square deal to the Conservatives of Nova Scotia, and did not properly represent the voters of Nova Scotia, whether Conservatives or Liberals. Then, in the election of 1911, the same thing happened again, only here the boot was on the other foot. In the British Columbia elections the whole seven Conservative members were elected with about 25,000 votes while the Liberals, who had 16,000 votes, elected none at all. I do not think that is fair representation, and our present system does not give that equality of voting which we all desire. Is it reasonable or right that to-day in this House the province of Ontario should have only some eight Liberals? Is it fair that, in federal matters at any rate, for the last twenty of twenty-five years, the great city of Toronto has never had a Liberal representative? It is not fair; it is not right; and when there is such unfairness, it seems to me that we should cast aside our disinclination even to consider what is new and should say, after all:
That men may rise on stepping-stones
Of their dead selves to higher things.


William Foster Cockshutt: Is the hon. member desirous that proportional representation should be introduced into Quebec and all other parts of Canada?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Oh, of course. I am a Liberal, and I want only fair play. In the last election, the public sentiment of Quebec was such that even under proportional representation I doubt whether there would have been any great difference in the number of men returned. But [DOT] under ordinary circumstances, during the last few years, the single-seat system has tended to overemphasize the Liberal representation of Quebec and similarly to over-emphasize the Conservative representation of Ontario. That has been the tendency of the singleseat system, and it is a bad thing. Anything that causes the Canadian people to divide on religious, or racial, or sectional lines is a great mistake. The only lines on which our people should divide are lines of political opinion. As Mr. Asquith said, in speaking of proportional representation, there should be no substantial strain of public opinion unrepresented in the House of Commons. It is true we may have to make some changes in our practices in Parliament; it is true we may have more groups than we have now, although I am not sure about that. But the fundamental principle is that people should have the right to rule through their elected representatives and a

system of eleetion should be devised and put into practice which will bring into the House of Commons the strains of public opinion in the same proportion, or as nearly as possible in the same proportions as they exist in the country. It seems to me that no one, whether in favour of this system or not, could object to the proposal made by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) that we should have a committee. I am sure this will appeal to the members of the House. There is Biblical authority against refusing to examine any proposition. If it be of good it will succeed, and if it be of evil, then in the long run it will fail. I heartily support the amendment, and I trust that all members of the House will unite in at least examining into the question.


Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (Perth S.):: Like some of the previous speakers, I feel that I ought to apologize for taking up even a few minutes at this time of< night; but, with the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) I should not like this opportunity to go by without saying a word as to what I think on this question. I am very much in agreement with the hon. member for Brantford on this subject. I believe that in the discussion to-night, and perhaps in the discussion generally on the question of proportional representation, the fact is lost sight of that we are endeavouring to substitute not only a different method of conducting elections, but also, unconsciously perhaps, to substitute a different method of government, for what has been the practice in the British Empire for many years. There is no system of election that is perfect. Proportional representation is not perfect, as is evident from the fact that there are, as some one has said, 257 varieties of it. My study has led me to believe that there are 300 varieties and none of them is entirely satisfactory. That also is evident from the fact that no two countries, at least so far as I know, have adopted the same system; each has a system varying from that of any other country. But I desire to get back, as the hon. member for Brantford did, to the good old British system. Ridicule it as we will, criticize it as we may, endeavour to substitute for it anything we choose, we cannot ignore the fact that the British system has built up the greatest Empire the world has ever seen, and that under that system the people of Great Britain have proven themselves the best governors that the world has produced. Not only has their own country been better

governed than any other country, but their colonies and dependencies have enjoyed the same good government. The British have been more successful in colonizing the world and in governing their colonies than any other nation has been. That, to my mind, is pretty good evidence of the value of the system of government which they have been practising. But not only has this system proven its value in the British Empire, but the greatest Anglo-Saxon nation of the world, outside of our empire, the United States, practically uses the same system, with the exception that its executive is independent of Parliament, while in British countries the executive is really part of Parliament and subject thereto. Under the party system of Great Britain, it is essential that there shall be a strong executive. In Britain and in Canada the duties of the government are not only administrative, but legislative; the governments of these countries govern as well as administer. If the only function of government were to administer, then I would admit that proportional representation might very well be used. But where Parliament and the Government must govern, it seems to me that it is absolutely necessary that the Government shall have a good strong majority so that they may not be dependent on any clique, or group, or set of men for their support, relying only upon those who consistently support them in their general policy. We have heard a great deal to-night about the evils of the present system and members being elected by minorities. Under the proportional representation system every elected member is a minority member.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No.


Michael Steele: You cannot elect a member under the proportional representation system by a majority vote. The number of votes required to elect a member in each of the constituencies under proportional representation is found by dividing the total number of votes Cast by a number one greater than the number of representatives required.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Plus one.


Michael Steele: Yes; one greater than
that number; so that any member elected by that system must be a minority representative. Some criticism has also been made of the single member constituency. But one advantage of the single member constituency is that it provides one of the very things which advocates of proportional representation demand: it gives minority

representation; if not representation to the minority in that constituency it gives representation to the minority in the country, and that is the minority that ought to be represented and is entitled to be represented. I believe that every man who is elected to the House of Commons of Canada is elected, first, as a supporter of the national policies which are best adapted to the needs of Canada. That is the first thing that he must support. The next thing that he must do is to represent the people of his constituency-not only those that voted for him but all the people of his constituency-and I say that in no country in the world, and never in the history of Canada, has there been such need as there is to-day for representative men with a national outlook who are prepared to stand by the policies which are developed and offered by this Dominion. In order to have that it is necessary for us to get away from parochial ideas, and petty policies, although they may please a section of one constituency-may please perhaps a section even of one province. We need to get down to greater things, the more important things, the things that, to my mind, are to-day essential for the welfare of Canada.
Let us elect men who will support the national policies of Canada. In order to bring that about it seems to me we must retain the system that we have at present. But we cannot retain it if Kve adopt proportional representation, and if the people of each constituency divide into two, or three, or four or five or six classes; one class perhaps, or even two classes, with their ideas on great national questions, and the balance divided up as to whether a man should be a farmer or something else, whether he should be a labouring man or something else-supporting one man because he advocates a certain view which is not before the electors of the country at all but is merely held by some of the electors in his constituency-enough, the candidate thinks, to elect him. Now we cannot build up a great nation in Canada by adopting- that method of electing our representatives to Parliament.
In 1909 a Royal Commission was appointed by the British Parliament to look into this whole question-not only the question of proportional representation, but the many and varied methods, of electing their representatives. One portion of the report of that commission dealt with the present system of electing members in single member constituencies by the process of a relative majority, and the opinion expressed on that system was this:
None has been devised more simple for the elector, more rapid in operation, more straightforward in result-advantages in an instrument for use by a large electorate of varying intelligence which it is difficult to over estimate.
Now, is there not a good deal of truth in that statement? Is it not a fact that what we want is not a system which will be mathematically correct-because after all the system of election by proportional representation is largely a mathematical system. What we want is a system which will appeal to the intelligence of our people, which the average person or,-in fact, every elector-can use with reasonable intelligence, a system by which the people can mark their ballots in such a way as will show what the individual elector, at least, believes is best for our country? Talk about the transferable vote and the alternative vote! I think there is a good deal to be said in favour of both, but the fact is that in Western Australia where they have I think, the transferable vote-they have one or the other-only sixty-five per cent of the voters made a second choice. And what, after all, is the value of the second choice? Is it not the electors first choice that is important? It will be the custom for every elector, I think, to give less consideration to his second choice than he gives to his first, even less consideration to his third than he gives to his second; and the result will be that men will be elected on second, third or fourth choice, the most ill considered choices which the elector makes.
Small majorities will cripple governments; and I know of nothing more unfortunate for Canada to-day than that this Parliament should, at the next election,	or at	any time within
the near future, be so composed that no one party can carry on with a strong support and a strong majority. That would be the most unfortunate position this Parliament could get into. Why I would much prefer seeing my friend the leader of the Opposition in control of affairs in this country than that condition should exist. I would even go so far as to say that I would prefer even to see my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) in control of the affairs of this House rather than witness a condition where no party could control. What Canada needs to-day is a stable government, a strong government that can carry on, and if the policy which that government adopts is wrong, the people of the Dominion will

attend to it and attend to it very promptly.
Something was said by the hon. member for Marquette about this system being in use in Belgium. I am sure the hon. gentleman does not intend to advocate that we in Canada should adopt a system that is in use in Belgium. The system in vogue there is the "list" system where a list for each party is made out and arranged, as I understand it, by-shall I say-the organizers of the party, arranged in a certain order, and each elector votes for a list. He ignores the personnel of the representatives entirely, and the policy they are working for-the elector merely votes for a list. Or would my hon. friend advocate the system of proportional representation in operation in France, which has produced for many years a general election in that country every few months or every year or so. That is what we would probably get in this country if proportional representation were adopted at the next election.


Mr. PROULX:: Does the hon. gentleman say they have elections every year in France? My understanding is they only have elections there every five years.


Michael Steele: They have had a change of government there much more frequently than that in the last few years on account of the ministry being unable to secure the support of a majority in the House. It might be of interest to us to hear what some of the men who helped to build up the British Empire in the past have to say on this system of proportional representation. Disraeli discussed it in debate in 1870. That is a considerable time ago, but the British system then was much the same as it is to-day. This is the opinion which Disraeli gave on the system of proportional representation. He said that such schemes are:
Refined and fantastic arrangements for the representation of the people
He also said:
Proportional representation is a proposal opposed to sound principle, the effect of which would be to create a stagnant representation and bring about a feeble executive; an admirable scheme for bringing crochety men into the House; a scheme of coteries, not the politics of nations; which if attempted would end in chaos and confusion.
John Bright was opposed to the system and so were Gladstone and Harcourt. If the British Empire has produced any greater men than these, I am not familiar with their history.

Now, there are practical objections to proportional representation which have not been mentioned, and one is the large constituency. I am free to admit that a system which might be very convenient for the people of Great Britain or in the other densely populated countries of Europe would be entirely unsuited to a sparsely settled country like Canada. It would be impossible even in the older portions of our country for any representative to become familiar with the views of the people in a constituency made up of four, or five or six of the present constituencies, and when we get into our newer sections, such as Northern Ontario, Northern Quebec or the Western Provinces, it would be entirely out of the question. Imagine a constituency as large as the half of Saskatchewan to be canvassed by the men seeking election. How much would the people know of their qualifications? It seems to me that the advocacy of this system for Canada to-day is far ahead of the times, and while I think it was very wise indeed for the Government to agree to the appointment of this committee to study the system of proportional representation, I am only sorry that they did not also instruct the committee to inquire into the present system of representation in view of the disparity in the size of our constituencies. To my mind that is one of the greatest electoral evils we have to-day. A man representing a constituency of 13,000, 15,000, 18,000 or 20,000 certainly is a minority representative compared with the man who is representing a constituency of 60,000 or 80,000 people.
That is all I have to say on the matter at the present time.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, I should not like this debate to conclude without giving expression to my own personal views on this important subject of proportional representation. From such study as I have been able to give it, I find myself in full sympathy with the principle. I wish also to support the amendment which has been proposed by the Government, and to congratulate my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council on having brought forward an amendment which at last gives this House the privilege of getting information on at least one important public question.
Part of my study of proportional representation was made as a member of a select committee of this House, and I have been rather interested in listening to the

different speeches to find that no single member appears to have had any knowledge that such a committee had investigated this important subject. During 1909, 1910 and 1911 that select committee was
12 m. appointed, and my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) who has spoken so strongly this evening against any committee was one of those who at that time supported the motion in favour of a committee.


William Foster Cockshutt: I rise to a point of
order, Mr. Speaker. I was not a member of the House at that time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes.


William Foster Cockshutt: Excuse me. I came in in 1904 and was out from 1908 until 1911, and therefore did not support the appointment of the committee at that or any other time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I accept the statement of my hon. friend. I was under the impression that he had been in the House continuously from the time that he was first returned. I owe him an apology if he was not in the House at that time. However, a committee did take this matter in hand and was unanimously supported by the House of Commons of that day. I am not sure that its report has been printed. My impression is that it has been, but I have been unable to secure a copy from the Library this evening. I mention the appointment of that committee as an evidence that the subject has already been under consideration by a committee of this House. What is needed for a correct understanding of proportional representation is the most careful study which it is possible for hon. members to give the subject. If any evidence were needed in support of the wisdom of having a committee appointed, it would be found in the speeches made by the hon. members for South Perth (Mr. Steele) and Brantford, (Mr. Cockshutt) and Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), all of whom were more or less inclined to view proportional representation as something not in accord with the principles of the British electoral system. What is that system other than an endeavour to give expression to the democratic principles of justice and freedom?
Proportional representation, so far as I can see, is a juster system than any we have at the present time, in that it gives the electors, whether of a minority or a majority, their fair share of representation in
Parliament, where their views can be aired; and it seems to me that it also gives greater freedom in that it allows the greatest possible latitude to every citizen in expressing his choice of who shall represent him in Parliament. Because proportional representation is founded on the true democratic principles of justice and freedom, and as it gives better expression to those principles in our electoral machinery, I for one, strongly favour its adoption.
However, it is desirable that a resolution of this importance should, if possible, receive the unanimous support of the House. It is apparent from the debate that if hon. members were asked to vote on the resolution as moved by the hon. member for East Peterborough it would not receive unanimous consent. On the other hand, I am inclined to believe that the amendment proposed by the Government will, notwithstanding the one or two reactionary addresses which we have listened to this evening, receive the almost unanimous support of hon. members. This will mean that at least we will have a committee appointed to carefully study the merits of proportional representation and make a report to the House.
In conclusion, reverting again to what I said at the outset, it is a sign for which we on this side I am sure are all duly' grateful, that the Government seems at last to be waking up to the wisdom of doing something which we have constantly urged this session. The last two amendments that we moved, one asking that every department of the Government should supply this House with information, and the other to the effect that it was desirable in the public interest that we should have as adequate representation as possible during the present session, were voted down by the supporters of the Government. Tonight fortunately my hon. friend brings in an amendment which recognizes the wisdom of giving the House information and of finding a way for more adequate representation. I congratulate him on this improvement. I hope the Government will follow the lead he has given, and I trust his supporters will lend a hand by giving his amendment their unanimous support.


Mr. A. THOMPSON (Yukon) :: Mr. Speaker, I am glad this subject has been brought to the attention of the House, particularly for my own sake, because it is one I have found great difficulty in arriving

at an opinion on. Maybe there are other members who are in the same position. We shall now have an opportunity of giving the subject careful study and of hearing the evidence which will be submitted to the proposed committee. So far as my observations have gone I am not quite sure whether I am in favour of proportional representation or not. However, I want to approach the question with an open mind, and I shall endeavour to do so. It must not be forgotten that the splendid system of government Which our forefathers worked out and under which we are operating, was founded altogether upon the majority system, and that system is the basis upon which the representatives in the parliaments of the Empire are selected. It is a system which, I think, we should not hastily cast aside.
So much for proportional representation. There is, however, in the working out of this majority system of ours a development which occurs from time to time which has never seemed to me to be quite in keeping with the spirit of our representative institutions or with the genius of our people. I refer to the case of a single constituency in which one member is elected out of three or four candidates. We have instances of it in the House at the present time. The amendment proposed by the minister to-night will give us an opportunity of considering a remedy for that in the preferential or transferable vote, so that when more than two candidates run in the same constituency the candidate who is elected will represent a majority of the electors. That principle, indeed, has been adopted by us, in our political conventions, as well as by the United States in theirs. When a number of candidates are nominated and a ballot is taken it is quite frequently found that no single candidate has the majority. In that case the low man drops out and the votes given to him are transferred by his supporters to some other candidate, and so the process of elimination goes on until finally a candidate is elected who has the confidence of a majority of the delegates at the convention. That principle, therefore, is not new. It seems to me it is quite compatible with the transferable vote, which would result in the election of a candidate with a majority rather than of a plurality candidates. I have much pleasure therefore, in supporting the amendment, and I feel sure that I shall obtain much information from the discussion which will
	.
ensue before the committee, the meetings of which I shall have great pleasure in attending.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Albert Sexsmith: Mr. Speaker, I shall detain the House only for a few moments. I wish to say first that I have been very much pleased with the reception accorded to this resolution. Had the motion been accepted unanimously by the House, including my two good friends so close by, the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) and the member for Perth (Mr. Steele), I would have had serious doubt whether the proposal was a desirable reform or a movement forward. I myself am a Conservative; I like to cling to some of the old things-those that are good, but I like to discard those things which are ready to be discarded, and look onward to the future. We talk about this great Canada of ours and about British principles of freedom. Well, that is the reason why I introduced the resolution-because if under our old system, one man's vote is equal to the vote of six other men, I say that condition is not British. But that is exactly what has been taking place in almost every election since Confederation. We have in Ontario sometimes one Conservative vote worth four or five Liberal votes. We have in Quebec, as I said to-night, one Liberal vote worth six Conservative votes. We had the spectacle in Nova Scotia in 1904 of 46,000 Conservatives unable to get one representative while 56,000 Liberals got eighteen. Now, I ask my hon. friends from Brantford and from Perth, is that British fair play? Is that British justice? If it is, I do not understand British fair play or British justice.
I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that I gladly accept the amendment offered by the Minister of Immigration and desire to thank him for taking the matter into consideration. I hope and trust that a committee will be appointed and that it will go on in good British style and secure some better system than we have to-day, a system fairer and more British-and if it is more British it will be more just.
Motion (Mr. Sexsmith), as' amended, agreed to.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, if there is no objection I would move now, while we are on the subject, seconded by Mr. Calder:
That the special committee appointed this day to consider the subject of proportional

representation and the subject of the single transferable or preferential vote and the desirability of the application of one or the other or both to elections to the House of Commons of Canada, consist of the following members: Messieurs Blair, Calder, Orowe, Currie, Davidson, Denis, Harold, Manion, McMaster, Molloy, Pardee, Sexsmith, Simpson, Sinclair (Antigonish and Guysborough), Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Whidden.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the proposed motion of Mr. Maclean (Halifax) :
That Rule 10 of the House of Commons, relating to the appointment of the Select Standing Committees of the House, be amended by adding to the Select Standing Committees of the House a Select Standing Committee on "Railways and Shipping" owned, operated or controlled by the Government; and that the Special Committee appointed to prepare and report the list of members to constitute the Standing Committees for the present sessi-on, be instructed to prepare and report the list of members to compose the Select Standing Committee on "Railways and Shipping" owned, operated or controlled by the Government, for the present session.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: I wish to move that this motion be discharged from the Order Paper.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the motion of Right Hon. Mr. Meighen .the House adjourned at 12.17 a.m. Tuesday.
Tuesday, April 5, 1921.