REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Statement of Governor General's Warrants issued since last Session.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Statement of Expenditures on Account of Miscellaneous Unforeseen Expenses from April 1, 1920, to February 15, 1921.
[DOT]-Sir Henry Drayton.
Statement of Temporary Loans issued and outstanding since the last Session of Parliament.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Report of the National Battlefields Commission for the year ended March 31, 1920.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Report of the Ottawa Improvement Commission for the year ended March 31, 1920.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Statement of Civil Service Insurance for the year ended March 31, 1920.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Report of the Royal Society of Canada for the year ended April 30, 1920.-Sir Henry Drayton.
[Stage Direction]
Report of the Superintendent of Insurance, on Life Insurance Companies covering business of the year 1919.-Sir Henry Drayton.	1
Report of the Superintendent of Insurance, on Fire Insurance and Miscellaneous Companies covering the business of the year 1919.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Ship Building Industry, detailed account of endorsements or liabilities under Chapter 70, 10-11, George V, 1920.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture for the year ended March 31, 1920.-Hon. Mr. Tolmie.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. James Mclsaac for an address to His Excellency the Governor General, in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King, resumed from Tuesday, February 15.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, now
that I am becoming somewhat of a familiar figure in this House and more or less of an old member, and having, of course taken part year after year in the discussions of the House, I would much prefer on this occasion that the duty of replying to the Prime Minister would fall to some more competent and capable hands. As, however, it is my duty to undertake this task,
I will set about to do it to the best of my ability and somewhat to the satisfaction,
I hope, of at least some of the hon. gentlemen on this side of the Chamber.
I must at once follow the time-honoured form of congratulating the mover and the seconder of the Address. It has always been desirable that this duty should be performed with ability and dignity becoming this time-honoured institution of Parliament, and I am pleased to be able to say that the gentlemen who had the duty in hand yesterday performed it at all events to my satisfaction. In the mover, (Mr. Mclsaac) we have a more or less experienced gentleman in this House, but I was pleased indeed that the seconder, the hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie), though unused to Parliamentary practice and discussion acquitted himself so well. I am sure that speaking in this House for the first time is difficult enough under any circumstance, but it is more difficult when one is put up against the very important job of seconding the
motion for an address in reply, as was the duty of the hon. member for Yale yesterday. I was sorry, however, to find some of the " old Adam " traditions handed down to the hon. member for Yale. I find that, while an excellent man in many respects, he has fallen victim to the pernicious effects of the apple as did his forefather many years ago. I am sorry to find that, while no doubt a free trader when he was watching the absolutely free-trade performance down in the Bay of Fundy, the tide going out and coming in on a waterfront unequalled in any part of the world-this would naturally lead one to be a free-trader with wide comprehensions of free trade-the hon. member for Yale in other circumstances, fell, as it was rather natural for him to do under the influence of the " apple " and the " apple tree." We hope however, that after he has been here for a while, he may forget those things and once more come back to the ideas which he inhaled by the seaside in the fair province of New Brunswick.
Let me further congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) upon the position of honour and responsibility to which he has attained. He is the successor of great men: he follows, in the same office and in the same chair in this great and free country, such men as the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, the Right Hon. Sir John Thompson, the Right Hon. Sir Charles Tupper, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden and others whose names are not so strikingly familiar. He will gain inspiration from consulting the record of those great men and I have no reason at all to doubt that with his ability, which is by no means small, he will do justice to the position which he now occupies.
I must also hasten to pay tribute to my own leader (Mr. King) for the very excellent speech which he delivered in this House yesterday. I am proud to say that we all realize more than ever, if that be possible, that we have a distinguished man at the head of the party, and most certainly he acquitted himself with the highest possible credit in the task which he had in hand.
Ever since the present Prime Minister came into this House, I have had a seat, part of the time on this side, and part of the time on the other side oL the House supporting the then government. I have watched with interest and satisfaction the right hon. gentleman's style of argument and presentmenti of a case, and I have

always found him to make the very best possible case out of the material at his disposal. But yesterday I was disappointed in his speech. I did not expect to like it, but I do not like it even as much as I expected. I thought that he did not answer the arguments put forward by the leader of the Opposition. It was possibly because they were unanswerable. I will do the Prime Minister the full justice of saying that if anybody at all on that side of the House or in his party could have answered the arguments put forward for their own disappearance from this House by my leader yesterday, he himself would be the man. Yesterday, however, he did not display his usual masterly ability, and certainly he fell short of answering the arguments put forward. It is perhaps natural for a man to desire to hold on to power and to the high office in which he might find himself, and natural also for a party to be desirous of holding on to power; but let me say to the Prime Minister and to the Government that it is not in accord with democratic principles. We in this country are proud of saying that we are democrats to the hilt, that our Government is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and that the voice of the people must prevail. The moment there are indications that we have lost the confidence of the people and no longer truly represent them, all the satisfaction and pride which goes with being in power vanishes, and if we still persist in holding office, then office brings no honour to ourselves or to those whom we once represented. When that stage is reached, I think it is the duty of the Government and of an individual to place himself in the hands of the country and say: I am at your disposal; if you want me continued in office, say so; but if you do not want me and my colleagues continued in office you have also the right to say so, and we shall bow to your verdict. That, in my judgment, should be the conduct of public men in this country, but I am sorry to find that it is not the disposition of the present Prime Minister or his Government so far as their attitude was indicated in the speech of the right hon. gentleman here yesterday.
A good many arguments were put forward by the right hon. gentleman in support of his retention of office. He particularly referred to the difficulty of going to the country before the census was taken and a redistribution Bill had been put
through the House, and before the general housekeeping arrangements, so to speak, had been made. He laid stress upon the fact that the press of the Northwest cried aloud against anything tending towards a general election before these preliminaries had been settled. He mentiond one paper,, the Calgary Morning Albertan, as will appear in the Hansard report of his speech, and invited us particularly to see what that paper said about the impropriety of going to the country before the census was taken and the provinces of the West had received their proper quota of representation. Now, I have in my hand the Morning Albertan, to which no doubt the right hon. gentleman has made reference, and I particularly invite my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice to listen to the quotation I shall give from that paper. From his experience on the bench he knows very well that when a lawyer stands up in court and quotes an authority, if it should turn out that that authority is directly against him, it is usually a bad knock-out for his. case, and the judge usually tells him that his case is directly opposed to what he wishes to make out of it, and that if that authority is to be followed, he will have to decide against him. Well, the Prime Minister yesterday rested his case largely upon what the Morning Albertan said about an election. Now, this is what that paper says in its editorial of February 9, two days after the famous election in Peterborough.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Famous and fatal.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Both famous
and fatal. This is what it says:
What about an early December election? If the Meighen Government believes that it has any chance of winning, then it will go to the country at once. Then, and no sooner. Unless it is convinced that i-t has a fair chance of success, it will not risk an election.
A Governement which without any mandate of any kind has kept control for two years after all excuse for continued existence has been exhausted, will not act from sentiment even if West Peterborough and East Elgin have called so loudly. The Government will continue in office as long as the law allows, or until it is defeated in the House, or until it believes that it has some advantage in an appeal to the country.
The people of .Western Canada have some objection to an early election, because it would mean the old representation. Our number would be enlarged if an election were postponed until after the census of the present year. However, it would be better for Western Canada to go under-represented for three or four years than that all of Canada should be under control of a

Government which has not the confidence of a majority of the people.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I merely wish to say, with the hon. gentleman's permission, that the editorial which he read from the Albertan is not the editorial to which I refer. The editorial to which I had reference was published about two months ago and used the exact language I used ? If the Albertan is capable of changing that language, that is not my fault.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a revised edition.


Arthur Meighen: You are always
revising.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Now, we had reason to believe yesterday that my right hon. friend was right up-to-date and that he was not dealing in old garments of the Albertan. He was speaking yesterday, the 15th. instant, and this was published on the 8th.	'


Arthur Meighen: They may change
back again.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, they may, but I venture to submit that the people of Canada will not be satisfied that the editorials of the Albertan newspaper are sufficient justification for the Prime Minister to base his arguments upon. This only goes to show that when one is in a desperate situation he is ready to grasp at straws. I venture to think, Mr. Speaker, that the astute mind of the Prime Minister was rather led astray by somebody who told him that there was such a thing in the Albertan, and he jumped at a fatal conclusion. And although he will not, I know, do it publicly, I should like the Prime Minister, privately at the first caucus of his party, to tell them that anything he said about the Albertan on which he bases his case is absolutely false and falls to the ground, and that for the present the case made out by the Leader of the Opposition is entirely undefended. It is quite possible that the Prime Minister will not be disposed to listen to anything we say on this side of the House. If he were well advised by his own friends and supporters, and if he felt that the country was behind him, he would heve a perfect right as a party leader to pay little or no heed to anything we might say on this side, although it js always well to take warning and accept admonition from whatever quarter it may come, and to consider carefully whatever observations may be made by even one's keenest enemies. One would have expected the

Prime Minister, ere now, to have paid due attention to what his own best friends have said, and I think he would be wise hereafter to consider their opinions. Now, last year a dear old friend of his party, the Montreal Gazette, tendered some sage advice to them and expressed some opinions regarding the Government at that time. That paper said then:
The art of government is most difficult under the best auspices; but a leaderless ministry, destitute of policy, must be the despair of its friends. The public memory is short, and public gratitude is an unknown quantiy. The electorate Vequired a guide, a policy, an association with those who invite confidence, and the Government offers neither guidance, nor principles, nor familiarty with the people. The situation is not suddenly precipitated; it began with the conclusion of the war. Since then futile efforts at permanent coalition have more than once been made, and Minister after Minister has dropped out until the situation has become difficult for the Government, and despondent for its supporters.
That was the opinion of that newspaper about a year ago. Reference was made to the matter when the House opened last year, but the Prime Minister will probably tell me that that article has no bearing upon the present situation, that they might have been finding fault with the personnel of the Government and with the leadership of those days, but that the conditions that prevailed then have passed, a new leadership having been instituted and new members having entered the Cabinet; consequently-this is what he will no doubt contend-this criticism of last year does not apply at the present time. Well, that might be an argument. But here we are confronted with an opinion very lately expressed, and I would respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister that he burn a little more of the midnight oil and read the public press so that he may learn what his friends, at all events, are saying about him. The same friendly newspaper, the same newspaper that has always been, as far as I know, a tower of strength to the Tory party, has again spoken, as late as the 8th day of February, the day after the Government met its Waterloo at Peterborough. This is what it says:
The Government has declared its intention to live out its term, and constitutionally has the right so to do. Its parliamentary majority may prolong its existence for nearly another two years, but will it continue as a strong ministry for that period? A majority somewhat perilous when parliament prorogued has been reduced. The by-elections won by the Government mean merely the retention of seats, and indicate no new feeling of confidence, while the contested

seats like East Elgin and West Peterborough have swung to the Opposition and weakened to that extent the strength of the ministry. Governments are not constitutionally upset by the loss of a by-election or two, but no govern-m nt can disregard the hand-writing, and above all no Government can gain in the present nor survive in the future that does not owe its existence to popular support. It happens that at the moment the time is propitious for an election, save that supplies have not been voted. The creditors of the Crown, meaning civil sn van's and those ' ho have nprforaed serv.ee still unrepaid and still unprovided for, are entitled to payment for service without regard to the quarrels of politicians, with which they have no part. Parliament will meet within a week. Its first duty is to provide for the services and maturing debts. If time permitted a tariff might be introduced and the Government appeal to the country upon it. If more time permitted. Parliament might have another session and after a redistribution of seats dissolve the House. In ordinary course this would be the " ay of procedure, the way we have hoped would be persued. But in the circumstances of adverse results from the recent by-elections, the situation has changed, and the advice we have to give to the government is to proceed with the supply bill and then permit the electorate to express its preference for parties in order that stable administration and confident policy may be carried on.
The situation is now uncertain, tlie life of the Ministry hangs by a thread, and under this circumstance strong and effective administration of affairs is impossible.
That, Sir, is the same authority continued. It had given its opinion of the old Government under the leadership of the Right Hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Borden) who has gone out of office, and it has now tendered its advice and its opinion as to what the present Administration should do. This expression of opinion is added to the many authorities which were quoted here yesterday by the leader of the Opposition.
I am not fond of reading in this Chamber, for I am not a good reader, and although other quotations can be cited I will merely refer to them. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Ottawa Journal of February 9th, 1921, and in an editorial of that day practically the same language is indulged in, practically the same advice is given, and the Government is told that it should at once, in view of the result of the elections in Peterborough and other places, dissolve Parliament and go to the country. True it is held that there was a division of the vote in Peterborough and. there was not a decided majority for any party, taking the vote as a whole; but the editor of the Journal-whom we all know to be a staunch supporter of the present Government, and of every Tory administration in this country for many years- tells the Government that whatever else the people wanted they did not want the present Administration. That is made perfectly evident.- The Journal says the people may have voted for the Labour man, for the Farmer candidate, and for the Liberal -and they did vote extensively for those candidates-but the last thing on earth they wanted was to have anything to do with this Administration. Now, Mr. Speaker, that advice, coming from a friendly paper like the Ottawa Journal should have some weight with, and some hearing from, hon. gentlemen opposite; and it bears out, I think, the idea which I have expressed-that there is no pride or satisfaction in being the leader, or being a member, of a Government that has not the confidence of the people. The only source of satisfaction is when the man who is at the head of affairs, and those who sit with him in the Government, have the honour of representing the people. When that condition ceases there is no honour attached to the position, and the representation that the people and the country sould have is lost.
Since the advent of the Union Government to power the Winnipeg Free Press has been an ardent supporter of it, but now the Government is considered to be a sort of patch work. Somebody beside me suggests, "a crazy patch work," but I would not go so far as to say that. At all events the Government is a makeshift for the time being, and a sort of amalgamation of some of the material which formed the old Administration. I take it that the Winnipeg Free Press is friendly to the present Cabinet. I see nothing to lead to a contrary-opinion, except that in its editorial of the fifth of February that journal undertakes to say what it thinks of the election in West Peterborough. Let me quote from an editorial of that date:
The result -in West Peterborough is capable of no explanation which gives the least gleam of comfort to the Dominion Government. Prom whatever view point it is regarded it is a knock-down and a drag-out for the Administration.	.
The editorial is lengthy and I will merely read a few lines further from its closing observations:
Once Mr. Meighen is convinced-and we should think West Peterborough would remove the last of his illusions,

that there is nothing to be gained beyond the mere holding of office for a few additional months, from hanging on, he may decide that in the long run the interests of himself and his party will best be served by an immediate election. The Government will meet Parliament without authority of prestige. It will have a majority so precarious as to make it a highly dangerous

business for it to .submit legislation of a controversial character; dt will .be subjected' to the constant taunt which will embody the truth, that it is usurping a power which the country does not wish it to exercise-and the net result must be a steady dwindling of whatever strength it may have in parliament and country. It is quite possible that the Government will act upon the advice tendered it by the Montreal Gazette; and go to the country after securing the passage of the Supply Bill by Parliament, leaving tariff revision and other difficult questions to the new parliament the probable outcome of the West Peterborough by-election will be a general election in the early summer.
Sir, those are the quotations which I regard as being in point, quotations from papers which are entirely friendly to the Government and whose opinions should be regarded by the Prime Minister and his colleagues as worthy of the greatest possible consideration.
Yesterday we were told by the Prime Minister that there was no need to move an amendment to the Address but that there could be a division upon the Address as it stood. Let me say that I am not familiar with any practice by which a vote could be taken without some amendment to the Address; and I think the Prime Minister's suggestion to his followers in that regard is entirely wrong. Before an expression of opinion could be given on the Address it was necessary to have an amendment. We do not want to vote that the Address be not passed; we want to pass the Address with an amendment which expresses our views.
It was very noticeable throughout the speech of the Prime Minister yesterday that he was not exactly upon the ground that he wanted to be. He realized that if he could get us over on the ground of the tariff that would be a better fighting position, and therefore he was apparently very much dissatisfied at the omission to say anything about the tariff in the amendment. Last year gentlemen on this side did say something about the tariff in an amendment to the Address, and I remember well the then leader of the Government causing a great deal of merriment among his friends because we suggested that the Speech from the Throne should say something about the tariff, and that the subject should be discussed on the debate on the Address. The then Prime Minister found fault with us for even suggesting such a thing. Well, we have a right to suppose that there is a continuation of ideas on the other side, and therefore this year we do not trouble them about the tariff. But

there is no hope of satisfying them; when you give them one thing they want another, and even if they got both they would not be satisfied.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of discussing the tariff at this stage. I have been in this House for pretty well on to twenty years now, and during that time I have never shrunk from discussing the tariff, whether I was supporting my party while in power or in Opposition. When the proper time comes to express an opinion on the question of the tariif, if my opinion is worth anything, I shall be ready to express it. But six years ago we were promised by the Administration which immediately preceded the present one that an inquiry would be conducted throughout the country, which would be followed by a tearing down or a bolstering up of the tariff, as the case might require. That promise was not implemented until last year, when this Government appointed a tariff commission. We are told in the Speech from the Throne that the report of that commission will be submitted in due course. Does the right hon. the Prime Minister think that it would be fair to us to discuss the tariff before we have the advantage of considering that report? If so, why did he waste thousands of dollars of the people's money in sending a commission from the Atlantic to the Pacific to gather up what they are pleased to call information, which is to be put in the shape of a report and to be laid on the Table?-and, I hope, printed and distributed among hon. members so they may get the benefit of the peregrinations of the hon. the Minister of Finance.
But the Prime Minister says: Why wait for anything of that kind?-we are not going to pay any attention to it. In effect he will follow the advice that was once given by the right hon. gentleman (Sir George Foster), who now sits beside him, when he said that these commissions and their reports were as thick as blackberries and were all pigeon-holed, no further attention being paid to them. I suppose this is another blackberry that is being matured. Nevertheless, I think we are justified in waiting until that report is produced. It is at all events a courtesy to the Minister of Finance that we should wait. We will be more courteous to him and to his commision than was the Prime Minister, because the latter went from the Atlantic to the Pacific declaring what the ta.riff policy of the Government was going to be, notwithstanding anything that this

report might contain. That is hardly a justifiable course for him to take when his commissioners are collecting information on the fiscal question.
I am not going to make any attempt at the present time to discuss the tariff, but I am going to throw out an idea which I think must be acceptable to every .broadminded man, and to every man who has any sense of responsibility, as to what the government of this country must do. This is a vast country, over 3,000 miles wide, extending from the frozen zone down to the American line, a country equal to if not greater in size than the United States. We have varied interests and different classes of people, and no government can attempt to pass a tariff without giving consideration to the interests of the country as a whole. No government can expect to frame a tariff that will suit everybody; it is an impossible thing to do; but there is enough strength of thought in this Parliament and out of it to know that some happy medium can be reached by which the people's interests, both east and. west, will receive due and proper consideration. That, Sir, is the line of action that I would take myself if I had any responsibilities in this matter; and while I am here I shall always have the responsibility of my vote. It is no use for any government to press home the idea that any particular section of the country is opposed to manufacturing and other interests which must necessarily exist here in order to maintain our national standing. Such a spirit is not abroad at all. But there are different ways of coming to conclusions, and we do say this Government has done reckless things, and that a better management and readjustment of matters could be accomplished by a government that had the confidence of the people and could act on its own initiative. I use the phrase "on its own initiative," Sir, because we on this side, at all events, believe that this_ Government never was its own master, is not its own master now, and will not be its own master while it continues with its present support in this House. We say that in 1911 it came into power backed up by many of the big interests, and that those big interests sent their man into the House as Minister of Finance because they would not trust anybody else with the handling of their money. He stayed here, Mr. Speaker, until the job was done, and then he moved out and told us to go to the cats as far as he was concerned, after they had got the last dollar of what was coming
to them. That is what I mean when I say that this Government is not acting on its own initiative. It is acting _ as the schedule is prepared for it and as its path is blazed out by the big interests. _
We are anxious to protect the big interests in a legitimate way, we are anxious that every man who has a dollar invested in this country shall be protected, and we are anxious that every industry shall prosper; but we are not anxious that the mil-licnaire class shall have the people of this country by the throat and dictate the course of government. Such conditions are intolerable to a free people. Therefore, we purpose to wipe out this Government and to put in a government which will represent the people and will deal fairly and equitably with every man, whether he is a millionaire or a sidewalk cleaner, tor we are all free and equal before the law.
I say without hesitation that we cannot get the confidence of the people in our parliamentary institutions restored while the present Administration remains in power. It may not be all true that this Government is so shackled by the big interests as the idea is abroad in the land, but the Great War Veterans, if you choose to begin with them, believe they have nothing to hope for from this Administration; the labouring classes do not believe they . have anything to hope from this Administration; the farming comunities, as their representatives in this House show, do not believe in this Administration or in anything that will be initiated by it. Even the big interests themselves have no great confidence in their protege now, for they have withdrawn their representative in this House, which, diplomatically, is always a signal of war.
These, Sir, are reasons why there is no confidence in the country. The wheels of progress are not moving as rapidly as they ought to move, and, confidence being shattered, those who have money to invest will not invest it. Why?
Why? Because labour is at war with this Government; and what is the use of talking investment or progress unless labour and capital will work harmoniously together? This Government have placed themselves on the side of the capitalist. They thought that was all that was necessary, but they reckoned without their host. So far as the progress and prosperity of the country are concerned the capitalist is helpless without labour; both must work together. About two years ago we had an instance of

the degree of friendship that exists between the present Prime Minister and labour in this country. When the Peace Conference was in session at Paris the then Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) was psalmsinging with the rest of them down there and telling about all the great things they were going to do for labour-what a blessed lot the labour fellows were. At the same time we had the spectacle of the present Prime Minister, with a gang of policemen, breaking into the houses of poor labouring people in Winnipeg at the silent, dark hour of midnight, and hurrying them off to the Stony Mountain Penitentiary. That is one reason why labour in this country believe they cannot expect sympathy or justice from the present Prime Minister or the present Administration.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a good deal of talk as to what our attitude is as a party, as to what we shall do if we get back to power, and what the country is to expect from the Liberal Party. We have only to point, Sir, to fifteen years of power, fifteen years of administration the like of which there has not been in Canada since Confederation. There was nothing different in the Liberal policy then from what we have now; there was nothing different from what has been in existence since this Government came in. But we left the country in a splendid condition. So excellent was the condition of business in every department of the country's activities that the then leader of the Opposition, when he went to the country in 1911, found fault with us because we were talking about trade with the United States, and said: "Let well enough alone." Everything was in such splendid condition that he wanted nothing disturbed. All that we say, Sir, to the Government, and to the people of this country; all that we say to the West and to the East and to every part of Canada, is that the great Liberal Party have their interests at heart; that they have the same policy and the same principles, the same desire for the advancement, the freedom, the contentment and the happiness of the people of this country that they had during the fifteen years they were in power. There is not the 4 p.m. slightest difference between our policies, our beliefs and our principles then and those which we stand by now; nor is our desire any the less to rule this country faithfully and properly and well. We have nothing else to offer to the people, but that we are prepared to 
offer to them; and we believe that when the opportunity is given to the people the present Administration will be wiped away, horse, foot and artillery, and the place that knows them now shall know them no more forever.
Right hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) : Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that, following on the heels of custom, I had the impression that we were to meet to-day at three o'clock instead of at two; therefore I have been deprived of an opportunity to hear part of the eloquence of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie).


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: On account of domestic conditions, my hon. friend will be excused.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I knew my
hon. friend had a warm spot in his heart for me. However, I am pleased that I arrived in time to hear his eloquent peroration. I do not know what stronger arguments he made in the earlier part of his speech, but generally speaking I note that my Jion. friend keeps his best until the last; so I suppose I have heard the strongest of his arguments.
The first argument that caught my ear was that we could not undertake to discuss tariff reform in the House until the report of the tariff commission was laid on the Table. The (members of that commission have been gathering information, he says;
' they have been preparing that information and it has to be produced and put before the House in the form of a report, and when we get that and have plenty of time to digest it, we shall be in a position to discuss the tariff question, and not before. Now, my hon. friend has had quite a long experience in parliamentary life. What he has not himself seen, he has read of; and I am going to ask him if he ever knew of a case where information gathered by ministers of the Crown for their personal information and to serve as a basis for their calculations respecting the schedules of the tariff was presented to the House in the form of a report. I think my hon. friend will have no recollection of such a proceeding. The tariff inquiries made by the ministers are for the purpose of obtaining the necessary data upon which to prepare their schedules in the interests of the country; my hon. friend surely must have known that. Knowing this, my hon. friend has, therefore, gone even further than his leader. Not only has he postponed the discussion of the tariff question for a

shorter or longer period of time; but if old practice and custom prevail in the future in this respect as they have in the past he has put it off pretty nearly until the Day of Judgment. He has cut clear from it; he has gone one better than the leader of the Opposition.
But my hon. friend did strike upon a new policy, wonderfully vague in its definitions. Suppose the request of the leader of the Opposition were complied with by the House and we were declared to be usurpers and thrown out of our seats. Various policies would be put before the country , upon which the people would have to decide. The indefiniteness of the policy of the leader of the Opposition, arising from its variations, would he exceeded only by the greater indefiniteness of the policy of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie). The policy he would lay down, if such an issue were to come suddenly before the people, would be this: My policy-he would say to the electors-is to be a happy medium "happy medium" undefined. Well, it was a happy thought, hut I wonder just what the electors would expect to get if they decided upon a policy put forth by the former leader of the Opposition in the form of "a happy medium", without definition.
My hon. friend said also that we came in in 1917 backed by the big interests.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: ' In 1911.


George Green Foster: He never said
a truer word in his life. We did come in backed by the big interests of the country; and the big interests of the country, when we came into power in 1917, were the interests which were behind the war, the interests of every man, woman and child of a loyal disposition in this country, the big interests which were in favour of defending the Empire and the liberties of the people.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What I said was 1911, not 1917.


George Green Foster: If my hon.
friend made a lapse and said "1911," he and others have said over and over again that we are in now by the lease and power and godwill of the big interests. They are always saying that. In 1917 we were put in power by the big interests of the country such as I have stated, and it is those interests which we are pursuing at the present time. Though the war is over in one sense of active militant operations, it is far from over in the other sense of healing the wounds and making the readjustments which are necessary as a sequence of the destruction, confusion and trouble which resulted and which follow in the trail of the war.
I am not going to follow my hon. friend any further in reference to the particular subject which he has debated, and I am not going to make any apology for bringing another subject, to the attention of the House. The Speech from the Throne has many sections in it and deals with a variety of subjects, and I think the House would hardly be doing justice to itself or to the situation on the whole if it confined itself to the somewhat narrow discussion of different faiths' and beliefs with reference to the tariff issue alone. I am, therefore, not going to apologize to the House for introducing an entirely new subject and one which I think it is well for Parliament at this particular stage and for the the country to take somewhat into consideration. I read as one of the sections of the Speech from the Throne:
The-First Assembly of the League of Nations was recently held at Geneva. Representatives of forty-one nations, including those of Canada, met and deliberated together in a spirit of harmony that promises much for this great experiment. Much time was necessarily devoted to the work of organization, but other measures were also agreed upon which are calculated to promote stability and good will in international intercourse. Most important of these is the draft scheme for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice which will be submitted to you for approval at an early date.
I am not going to try to give a large number of details to the House. I intend to approach the subject from a different angle with the idea of giving to the House, and through that to the country, a general view of the work and purposes of the League as so far developed. The note that is struck in that paragraph of the speech is a note of great importance and of singular breadth. It is indicative of a long line of progress which has at last developed into a political situation unequalled in the history of the world. It is indicative also of the progress of Canada from her childhood to the present time and of her future progress.
With what singular interest anyone who is really interested in the development of the individual life follows the boy from early childhood to matured manhood. The playthings and the trivialities of the boy gradually are shed, and from step to step he takes on the obligations, duties and work of maturing youth and maturing manhood. He goes from obligation to obligation, from duty to duty, from

strength to strength, as he develops. Long time afterwards, it happens that the boy who played with marbles and made his little constructions of mud huts and the like gets up amidst the big forces of the world and plays with those great currents of thought and enterprise which are the cardinal and principal currents of the world's history and the world's development. We do not pity the boy for that change. It is a mark of development and progress; we are delighted to see it, and none of us tries to put upon that development the bar of an exclamation like this: "Ah, well, he is undertaking greater responsibilities; he may fail." What is interesting in the development of individual life is far more interesting when we view it with reference to the development of national life, and this about which I am speaking to-day marks one of the many stages of Canadian national life. Before Confederation there was potent, inherent, in these colonies in British North America, a unity which by and by might work out into greater distribution of power and strength and a great accession of development and progress. Confederation was one of the first steps in developing that latent potency for nationhood. After the confederation had been fairly rounded out, the relationship widened and we began to think more and more of the inter-related colonies and dependencies of the Empire, to make our acquaintance with them, to consider them as members of the same family, to consider between them and us joint interests and common ideals, and so to work from the merely national out into the broad expanse of the Empire as a community of young peoples and coming nations within the Empire itself. That broadened us; it gave us greater responsibilities; it put upon us greater obligations; but we did not regret it. After that we went still wider afield. The war in South Africa struck another note and gave another complexion and tone to the relations of Canada within the Em-' pire itself. It was that note and tone which are given by the expenditure of blood and sacrifice and effort for a common purpose and a common ideal, and an impetus was given to that spirit, and wideness and breath to the development of that spirit within the Empire itself, by the South African war.
Then came later that hurricane of war in Europe, menaced by growing clouds for many months, maybe many years before, and in the midst of that hurricane of war

Canadians found themselves, and Canada found herself, one with those who were sent forth to take their part in that war. That enlarged Canada her thought, her feeling, her ideals beyond the family, beyond the national, beyond the Imperial, and created a wider acquaintance, and a wider area of sympathy and effort with all the allied nations as against the common enemy we all were fighting.
The war over, and its sacrifices in an active way for the time being over, Canada's interest still proceeds. We entered into that war, not simply to destroy some crowned head, not simply to overthrow some military dynasty; we entered into that war to secure the liberty and the peace of the world, and every drop of blood we shed, every man that fell, and every bit of the dust of Canada's people that enriches the soil of those countries where they fought and died was a pledge for the future carrying out of the work begun and carried on by physical sacrifice in the war. We made our investment there, and every bit of treasure that we spent and every drop of blood that was shed, and every succeeding sacrifice that was made is not only a perpetual record of the work done by Canadians in the field for freedom and justice, but an undying reminder of the work that Still remains to be done.
We have made an investment in the field of world peace. We have put in our treasure and our blood, and we propose to follow that investment to its completion, and to bring out of it in common with the other nations of the world, the rich rewards of enduring peace, freedom from war and all the dread burdens that follow as a consequence of war. Now in that work we are not simply related to the Empire, we are not simply related to the Allies; we are related to the world. We are a part of the world machinery now, with just that much wider sympathy, with just that much broadened, helpful feeling that binds us not merely to our own nation, not merely to the Empire, not merely to the Allies with whom we fought, but to the world itself which needs adjustment, and into which we have put our investment in order that peace and security may follow as the ripened harvest. So much then for that phase of the question.
When we sat in Paris after the conclusion of the war, and during the conferences of that long peace assembly, men from all the nations interested, their strongest and best intellects, were working on the problem of the Peace. What could

be assured as a constitution of Peace, as a realization of the hopes that war would be diminished, if not entirely banished from the world. These men were working with all their power and energy along that line, and the product of their labours was the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles, followed by the other treaties which embodied that covenant and which looked forward to gain by that covenant the fruits of the victory and compensation for the sacrifices in the world war. The Treaty of Peace, read just by title, has no great distinction from the hundreds of thousands of treaties of peace which had before been signed throughout the world and which are now filling the records of the different nations of the world. But this was more than an ordinary treaty of peace. It was a pledge and a covenant for the future. It was a reversal of the policy of six thousand years. It was a negation of war and an apothesis of peace and was signed and guaranteed by the thirty-two signatories to the covenant and the treaty, and since that time has been signed by thirteen states that were neutral, and by the six others which were admitted at Geneva. It has been signed by forty-seven countries of the world. Four that signed the Treaty of Peace did not ratify it. This accounts for the ultimate figure. It is a pledge of their proposals, of their wishes, of their desires, of their convictions, of their promise to fulfil. It may not be without importance, I think, to read in a few lines just what that pledge is. It is contained in the Preamble:
The High Contracting Parties In order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security	.
by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war,	.
by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between nations, by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among Governments, and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another.
Agree to this Covenant of the League of Nations.
Forty-seven nations of the world have signed that. There is nothing that ever equalled that in the world's history. Treaties have been made between two countries, between three and four and sometimes half a dozen countries, but no treaty with signatories to a pledge for the abrogation of war and the employment of the 4
arts of peace for the settlement of international disputes and difficulties has ever before been witnessed by the world with the majority of the world's nations behind it.
I have said that forty-seven nations have signed that pledge. That means that about 63 per cent of the whole of the territory of the world is embraced within that pledge. It means that 75 per cent of the whole population of the world is embraced within that pledge. That is significant. To my mind, it is something wonderful. Who are outside of that pledge to-day? Germany is outside, but if Germany for a few months will give the proper attention to her international obligations, and show a spirit of goodwill, she will be admitted to the League and will be welcomed. Mexico is outside of the League, and so is Soviet Russia, but there is hope for both Soviet Russia and Mexico.
The United States is without the League; but do not ever say that without coupling with it this other thought, that the spirit, the prayer, the hope, the overwhelming conviction of the people of the United States runs even with the ideas and purposes for which the League is formed. There may be some differences as to certain non-essentials which may have to be looked after and changed. But when you count the United States as not being in the League count also, of a surety, upon the fact that the vast majority of her people, with their prayers and hopes, are marching in the direction of the League of Nations as constituted.
Let us then in the next place consider the duties and obligations of the League. They are set forth in the covenant, which assigns those duties and obligations in certain directions and to certain organs of the League which are to be created. The League itself must operate through its own organs. The Supreme Council is not intended to carry out the purposes of the covenant of the League. It is simply an organization of [DOT] the four or five great Powers. The League must have officiating organs of its own.
Let me for a few moment simply sketch what are the working organs of the League of Nations. Its first working organ is the Council, which is constituted by one member from each of the five great Powers; and as the United States has not yet ratified the covenant of the League, only four representatives are on the Council from the great Powers; that is to say, representing all of the five Powers



apart from the United States. The four other members of the Council are provided for by election by the Assembly, of which I shall speak a little later. Before the Assembly was called and nominated its four members to the Council, provision was made in the covenant by which four members to represent the other nations, members of the League, officiated, and their term of office closed when the Assembly took on its proper power of nominating its four members. So that you have as an organization, one of the first organs of the League, the Council, consisting at present of eight members, which may be augmented to nine if the United States becomes a member of the League. Of these, four of five represent the Great Powers, and the other four represent all the other Powers and are elected by the Assembly of the League.
Now, that Council must in the first place have unanimity in order to carry through its measures, and that condition appeared at first to be almost a block in the way of practical working. It has not been found so, however. It is better to have that as a condition of the conclusions being reached by the League than to have a mere majority trying at this particular time to force upon all the nations what it may think should be done. And in practice it has so worked out that no obstacle has appeared in the way of any line of conduct and action which the Council of the League has been carrying out during the time that it has. been in existence. The ground is taken that trivial things should be allowed to go and conclusions should be reached in the spirit of the League with a unanimity that will carry conviction. And if sometimes the rough edges may perhaps be pared off of what some members of the Council might wish to see put through, thereby giving some indication of compromise, still it is a wise compromise and a wise provision, in my opinion, and it has worked out successfully so far.
The next organ of the League of Nations is the Assembly, which is constituted in this way. There are now three delegates for every nation a member of the League, whether that nation be small or, large. There is one vote for every nation, and the leader of the delegation gives the vote when votes are called for. From the 41 nations which were represented by their delegations at Geneva on November 15, there were 110 delegates, some nations having two and some one; there was not the full number of three for

each nation. That is the Assembly as it was constituted on November 15. As now constituted there will be a possible three delegates for every one of the 47 nations that now make up the membership of the League.
With the Assembly, just as with the Council, unanimity must prevail, unless it is otherwise designated in the covenant or in the. treaties which assign obligations or duties to them. Ope would think that in an Assembly of 110 delegates-that is, the representatives of 41 nations-it would be found that the compulsory unanimity would work out detrimentally to practical business. Well, the proof is better than the supposition. That Assembly met and did its work for five weeks, and the question as to the condition of unanimity being a bar or block to its progress never once came to the front in any such way as to retard the real work of the Assembly. The men who represented the nations were there under the overpowering impulse and spirit of working for a League with ideals in which the selfish and the national must give place to the unselfish and the international. And however strongly opinions were held and presented and debated, in the end there was no withdrawal of any proposition on the ground that perfect unanimity was not obtainable. So much with reference to the proof of the practical, rather than to the theory which one may form as to- what might be a bar or block to the working of the Assembly.
The Assembly and the Council have different duties put upon them; there is a difference of jurisdiction. There are some things which, under the covenant and in the treaties, are given to the Council alone, while there are other things that are delegated solely to the Assembly. That is to say, each has some absolute powers. They have co-ordinate powers where they work in concert one with the other in order to come to the desired result. And then the Assembly and the Council each has the right to take up anything that comes within the sphere of the League or that appertains to the peace of nations.
There are, and were, some who thought that there ought to be exact definitions, put down in black and white, of the duties of the Council and of the Assembly; but a little discussion of the matter made it plain to all concerned that that would be extremely unwise, and that it was far better to leave it to the good sense and the good spirit of co-ordinate bodies, working along

the same lines and for the same objects, rather than to attempt to exactly define the arrangement of their powers. Anyway, it worked out thus to the satisfaction of the members of both Council and League.
Then, in connection with the Assembly and the Council, there is of course the Secretariat. The Secretariat is really the staff of the Council and of the Assembly. The first secretary was provided for in the Covenant of the League of Nations. He was appointed by that Covenant for five years, and was selected by the Supreme Council of the League for that period. When the term expires the Secretary-General becomes the appointee of the Assembly of the League of Nations and the work goes on, as in Parliamentary circles, under the control of the Assembly, or what you might call the popular body. The Secretariat has a staff at the present time of some one hundred and fifty officials of different grades. On this staff more than eighteen different nations, members of the League are represented, showing the spirit of distributing this work as evenly and as well as might be, so that as many of the members of the League as possible shall be personally interested and shall be able, personally, to put forward their views with reference to the practical work of the Secretariat. Now these make the three great forces of the League in its operating capacity-the Council, the Assembly, and staff of the Secretariat, with the limitations that I have mentioned.
Having gone thus far, will the House
Slow me to say a word or two as to the neral line of the duties. I cannot take the time to put them in detail but I will present them generally: They are for the reduction of the armaments of war, provided for in articles 1 to 8 in the Covenant. The lowest point, consistent with national safety and with the international obligations of the League, is the point set out to be attained in the future. To get to that as quickly as possible is the work of the League. Ten sections, or so, are then taken up with dealing with disputes between the nations and which up to the present time have been settled in the main, if diplomatic efforts failed, by the arbitrament of brute force. These cover a variety of plans for arbitration, for courts, for notices, pledges not to go to war within a certain time and until examination has been made, and safeguards against 'the violation of any of these pledges that were made.
Then there comes an article with reference to the registration of Treaties which, though simple in itself, is of paramount 44
importance. It means that every Treaty which is concluded between members of the League is to be registered and ultimately to be published. What does that mean? It cuts straight across the customs of thousands of years when secret treaties were made between powers which aroused the suspicion and massed the resources of one set of powers against others, and not only led to suspicion but to lack of faith and confidence and ultimately to broils and to war. This marks the era of open diplomacy. Henceforward you can make your treaties but they are to be registered and. under the League, to see the light of day. That is a change that is stupendous in itself and which, if carefully worked out and adhered to, means a mighty important element and factor in the peace of the world for the future.
Then there is the system of Mandatories which also marks an absolute divergence from the methods of six thousand years. The individual who, in the olden time, was stronger than his neighbour took his cattle and made them his own. The nation which otherwise was stronger than its competitor took its territory and made it its own. Under the League of Nations the derelicts of war, the colonies and the parts of empires dismantled do not go to the victors to form additional parts of their territory and to constitute the elements of their future aggrandisement. These are placed under the Mandatories allocated by the Supreme Council, the terms and conditions of the Mandate to be prescribed by the Council of the League of Nations and the supervision to be under a Commission appointed by the League of Nations to which the Mandatories are to report each year and whose work may he reviewed by the Council and by the Assembly itself.
The element in the Mandatory principle is that these parts of territory and these peoples are not to be held as the. adjuncts or slaves of the nations that have conquered, but are to be held in trust and to be administered by the Mandatory for the good of the people entrusted to their care; and the checks that I have mentioned are placed upon the Mandatories by the League in order to see that this trust is properly and reasonably executed. There you have a revolution, alongside another revolution, in the ways of the world for the last six thousand years and which point strongly- with the backing of forty-seven nations at present behind them to the better era when wars and their possibilities *Will be reduced to the minimum and the maximum of peace and security will be ensured.

But the League of Nations was wise in another thing. There are two ways in which you may bring about good international relations. One is by the reduction of the causes of war, by the compulsory reduction of armaments and another is by this allotment of Mandatories to prevent greed from being an impelling motive for war-that is greed of territories not at present enjoyed. All these things are good in their way, and are necessary, but there is another avenue. That is to get down to the common heart, the common impulses, the common interests of the nations, and working along humanitarian and economic lines for the good of all, one nation with another, to pave the way along that avenue for those feelings of amity, of help and of sacrifice, one for the other, and of commonness in ideal and purpose and benefits which will have a very strong effect in bringing about the desired results. And so there is your social and economic propaganda. A nation, China for instance, is plagued by the opium traffic. That nation buys itself free or struggles out from it; another nation-not China-sacrifices some of her interests and agrees with China; and you have the two principal nations concerned in agreement. But you never will stop the opium trade and the deleterious traffic in it and kindred drugs until you have the co-operation of all nations, because those who do not co-operate are the go-betweens, and they destroy the effect of the sacrifices of those who are primarily interested. Therefore the League comes in as a sort of liaison between the different nations in all these great humanitarian works of which I have cited one example, and by its counsels and its technical advisers it assists the nations to do more effective work: it exerts itself to influence nations to make similar conventions; it pleads with nations for the good of all to join these conventions ; and it helps by its counsel and its supervision to gather the nations gradually into one world-whole.
When that has been done and effective supervision established, you strike a death blow, as far as you can, at these ills. There is the illicit traffic in women and children; there are the epidemic diseases which scourge primarily one country and which threaten to scourge the world out of that country as a centre and hot-bed of those diseases. All these are brought under co-ordinating influences in the different nations, and by means of the League of Nations they combine for supervision and for help in carrying out the world-pur-

pose. There are a dozen or more of those great humanitarian, economic and financial organizations-technical organizations they are called-the duties of which are defined in the Covenant and in the operation of which are being negotiated by the League of Nations. That in brief gives you some idea of the nature of the work that is being carried on by the League of Nations.
Now with reference to the 'Assembly. That is the newest and therefore may perhaps be less known to most of us. Any way, I feel it my duty to say something with reference to the Assembly, to the end of interesting my fellow members in the work and purposes of the League, and, if possible, of arousing in Canada that force, moral and social, which must be the foundation of the success of the League of Nations, if it ever is to succeed. It is not Lloyd George, it is not Millerand, it is not the King or the Cabinet of Italy who in the main is going to make the League of Nations a success in the world. It is the Co-ordination of the prayers and wishes and hopes, the moral and political influence of the great body of humanity the wide world through which is to make that League successful. This is my excuse for bringing that matter forward today.
On the 15th day of November one hundred and ten delegates found themselves in the City of Geneva and in convocation at the Hall of Reformation, which, taking Genevan history into account, has some associations connected with it. People were wont to ask, and there was every excuse for their scepticism: What in the world will happen when forty-one different nations, of every colour, of every creed, of every language and traditions get together in one room down in Geneva? How are they going to understand each other? How will they ever make their views known to each other? Will they ever get down to business? There was ground for thought of that kind. Well, Sir, what happened? In brief, this. I have had some experience of political conventions; so has my hon. friend. I have seen them get together from one country-yes, from one province, and I have found them take a very long while in getting their rules of procedure and all that sort of thing fixed to their liking and settling down to real work. I never saw and never read of a convention, and certainly none on the scale of this one, which so soon got down to profitable and practical work as did the first Assembly of the League of Nations.

It is true there was all that disparity, there was all that variety of tendency and thought from generations and centuries behind each of these nationalities-all those conditions were there, but when humanity is inspired by a common spirit and a common ideal, overpowering in its nature, all these differentials are soon left to take care of themselves, and the human unit is the only thing that emerges into the foreground, and the worth of the human unit is the only thing that counts. That was exemplified in the first League of Nations. It was the spirit of the mission upon which they came, it was the height of the ideal which inspired their coming, it was for the great purpose possible of achievement that they were there, and they set themselves to become acquainted with each other, to get each other's viewpoint, and they vanquished all these seeming difficulties. They came together, and in six days' time they were working just as smoothly, and, I think, much more expeditiously than the committees in our own Parliament or in other Parliaments of constitutionally governed countries are carried on. So much then with reference to that as a matter of fact.
What did they have to do? Those one hundred and ten people met there without a president or presiding officer. That difficulty was quite easily got over. The Council of Nations had appointed one of its number to be temporary chairman, and he and the head of the Swiss Confederation made congratulatory addresses, and then came the election of a permanent president. It is a courtesy amongst those peoples that the first session of a convention like that, shall take as its chairman a man from the country in which it meets. That honour might have been claimed by Switzerland, but it was not, and the president of the Swiss Confederation himself moved the nomination of Mr. Hyman of Belgium as the first president. He thus put Belgium and Switzerland into the best of accord one with the other, and avoided any bitterness that otherwise might have taken place. So we had our first president.
Then came the rules of procedure. The Council had drawn up provisional rules of procedure. We adopted those rules after a very short discussion, and then appointed a committee to amend, revise and bring down a permanent set of rules. The next step was how to carry on the work of the Assembly. That was solved in this way. Six great commissions or
committees were formed, each consisting of forty-one members; that is, upon each of those commissions every member-state of the League had one representative, and those six commissions took the burden of the work which was referred to them. The first committee dealt with constitutional questions, the rules of procedure, the relative competence of the Council and of the League, and the election of members of the council. The second took up the matter of the technical organizations which I have already explained to the House. The third took up the matter of a permanent Court of Justice. The fourth took up the secretariat and the finances of the League -a very important subject indeed, which engrossed a very large amount of our attention. The fifth took up the question of admissions to the League; fourteen demands for admission were made and six out of the fourteen were admitted. The sixth committee took up the questions of mandates, armaments, and economic weapons. Every resolution and everything referring to the meetings and the work of the Assembly was transferred to its appropriate committee, was threshed out in that committee, and the conclusions of the committee were reported back and discussed, amended or approved, as might be, by the Assembly. That brought forty-one different nationalities of men into each committee, and solved very quickly the question of our getting acquainted with each other. They were thrown together around a common table for a common purpose. They made their views known and practically became as well acquainted in the course of a very short time as we on different sides of the House are with one another.
French and English were the two languages in which the debates of the Assembly were conducted and discussions in the committees carried on. The question came up very early in the course of the proceedings. There happened to be seventeen states whose national language was Spanish, and the question was mooted; If we have French and if we have English, why not Spanish as well? It was debated with great vigour, but in the end the overmastering spirit of the Convention solved that difficulty; the Spanish demand was withdrawn and the solution was found along this line, backed by the practical considerations which made it impossible that every nationality should have its own language as an official language. If one wished to speak Spanish, he had the right

to do it; he had the right to get an interpretation of his remarks, and that translation into either English or French was spread upon the minutes and took its place just the same as if the remarks had been made in French or in English. But a wonderful thing happened; among the delegates from those forty-seven nations there was scarcely one who was not able to express his views either in English or in French. So it was simply a process of double translation; if a man spoke in English his remarks were immediately translated into French; if he spoke in French it was immediately translated into English, and each had the advantage of the views of the other. Although it took time, the procedure was carried out with wonderful smoothness and rapidity.
May I mention one thing that particularly struck me in connection with the deliberations of the Assembly? We are a very courteous assembly here in this new hall. We try not to say anything deliberately which will wound another. We pay compliments sometimes-though not very often, I am afraid.


Mr. McMASTER:: They are not always returned.	-


George Green Foster: No, they are not. What struck me from beginning to end was the spirit of courtesy which characterized all the discussions of the Assembly. I did not hear a wrangle in the Committee or in the Assembly; no sharp things were said just for the purpose of wounding. Sharp arguments were used it is true, and were sharply clinched, but over all there was a universal spirit of courtesy. Is that because the dominant element in that Assembly was Of the Latin race? Whatever may be the reason, it was a fact.
Another thing that struck me was this: from no country did higher or more advanced ideas emanate than from the countries of South America, nearly all of which are members of the League. Certainly in breadth and liberality-sometimes carried to the point of danger-their views and suggestions were in advance of those of the other delegations which were in attendance.
During that Assembly thirty-one plenary sessions were debated. Twenty-eight different resolutions debated and were passed in reference to important subjects sent from the Committees for- discussion by the Assembly. But from first to last the discussion of that'whole Assembly were characterized in an eminent degree by frankness, fulness,

clearness and earnestness, directed to the sole purpose of getting at the best solutions possible.
I wish to say a word with reference to the position of the smaller nations. Every delegation has just the same rights in the Assembly and in the Committees as every other delegation. In speaking and in voting the small power has the same privileges as the large power. Much depends, of course, on the source from which the delegate speaks; in the discussion of certain questions one power may have an influence which is not present in the same degree in the case of a smaller nation. But as tp discussion and voting the
5 p.m. privileges of the various nations^ represented in the Assembly are uniform,-an ideal the realization of which has long been sought. Indeed, that is what gives strength to the League; for the smaller nations feel that they approach the larger on a footing of equality and that they can exercise as much influence as the quality of their views entitle them to.
What has emanated from that Assembly? First, a plain proof that it is possible for a League of Nations constituting the majority of the countries of the world, and ultimately constituting all the countries of the world, to meet on a world platform and do effective, practical work. There was a forum upon which every nation could ventilate its ideals and put forward its position in a great gathering of internationals. There was a forum elevated before the world, watched by the press, the proceedings of which were telegraphed and written to every quarter of the globe; a gathering in which the foremost ideas of the foremost men of forty-seven nations of the world could find expression. There was a platform for the discussion of matters so brought up, for the formulating of views with regard to them, and for the impression of those views upon the world.
Do you mean to tell me that is not erecting in the world a method of procedure, a channel of influence, a means of propagation of the best thought of the nations of the world, a moral force and an intellectual force which will go further than armaments in' righting the gross wrongs of the world and drawing the conscience and heart of the world to a contemplation of the higher, the better and the truer course? That, to my mind, if nothing else were accomplished, is a splendid accomplishment and worthy of the trouble and all that it cost.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: In the discussions of the League, there was some question as to the meetings being held in secret rather than in public. Would my right hon. friend speak of that?


George Green Foster: With reference to the Assembly, all meetings were in public. That is, the Salle de Reformation was not large enough to hold everyone, but everybody who could get in got in; representatives of the press were there and had a right to be there. The meetings of the Assembly were open to the public gaze; the world saw them; all heard and digested the discussions if they wished to. With reference to the committees, it was' resolved that each committee should make its own determination whether it would hold private sessions or public sessions. But it was imperative that the proceedings of each comfnittee should be taken down in extenso from day to day, published as they were the day after, put into the hands of every member of the Assembly and the results given to the press. In addition to that, a number of the meetings of those committees were advertised to be held publicly and the public were admitted to them, so that I do not think there is any reasonable ground for stricture in reference to that. Some things will occur in a committee where it is best that the matter should be threshed out amongst the members of the committee itself, and provision was made for that emergency. Otherwise, the light of day was shed into all the transactions of the Assembly. Let me say just here on that point, that the decisions of the Council have to be public as well.


Mr. A. THOMPSON:: I would like to
ask a question or two with regard to the relative positions of the Council and the Assembly. Is the Council superior to the Assembly? Does the Council derive its force from the Assembly? Is the Council elected by the Assembly?


George Green Foster: Just a word
on that. I touched upon a part of it, but now that the question has been asked a little more distinctly, I will give the answer. The Council has eight members upon it. Those eight members in the Council represent the Governments of the countries from which they come. Four of those members are elected by the Assembly, those four representing the other nations outside of the four great powers. In some cases, they have co-ordinate powers, Council and Assembly. They have
to work together and come to an agreement in order to carry a thing. In other respects they have absolute powers conferred upon them by the covenant and they have each the general power that they can take up whatever comes within the sphere of the League and which pertains to the peace of nations; but the agreement between them is maintained- and it is the only sensible one-that no one works without an understanding with the other.
I think I touched upon the point that one great thing that was done by the Assembly, if it did nothing else, was that it met and organized itself and was successful in organizing itself upon a practical basis and that it finished the machinery of the League of Nations. The operating organs of the League of Nations are now complete, but each man, when he comes to measure up what has been done in this last year by Council or League must take this into account, namely, that the Council itself did not begin to officiate until the 16th of January, 1920; that the Secretariat did not commence to officiate until a month later or nearly that; that fully six months was taken up in getting any kind of an organization for the League that its operations were in Paris, in Brussels, in London and in other places; it had no abiding home. It now has its abiding home, and the later part of its work was in getting to that home and in fairly settling down, preparing for the Assembly of the League of Nations, getting its officers installed and ready for practical work, so that when you come to sum up what has been done last year, you must take that into account. Take into account also that neither the League nor the Council nor the Secretariat had real life in its bones until the Assembly was constituted, and the Assembly gave to it that foundation which made it possible for the superstructure to be a vital part of the whole edifice. The League of Nations with those organs of work relies primarily upon the Assembly which meets yearly. ' The members of that Assembly come fresh from every nation with the mandate of their government at that particular time. That Assembly holds the sources of supply, and the budgeting system which formed a large part of the work of that Assembly is now arranged upon a plan as good as the plan of budgeting which exists in any Assembly in the world. It is now based on proper principles and under control of proper guidance. Heretofore it

was but a part of an imperfect machine and it could not run smoothly nor perfectly. Now the whole machine is there with its controls and its powers of supervision, and the whole machine works together as a completed organism.


Mr. PROULX:: Under article 10, if the
Assembly comes to a certain decision, have the delegates from each country the power to commit their country by their votes?


George Green Foster: That is for the delegates from each country to arrange with their government. If they have not done that before they have left, then they must get into communication with their government and do it. When they give their vote, they are supposed to be voicing their country's views, and not simply their own opinions; otherwise, we would not have a very strong Assembly. I think my hon. friend will see that.
I think I have covered the ground with one exception, and I am not going very deeply into that because the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) has in hand some legislation in regard to that, and he will go into particulars. The one outstanding work of the Assembly has, I think, been the constitution of a permanent court of international justice. Early in the year the Council called a committee of ten of the first jurists of the world, one of the number being Mr. Elihu Root of the United States. They met at The Hague and they were in conference for six weeks. They agreed with unanimity upon a proposal for a permanent court of international justice. That report went to the Council of the League, where it was revised, examined, debated and discussed by the Council of the League and with some amendments was sent to the Assembly. The Assembly, after making some few amendments, unanimously approved the proposition, and that proposition has been already approved by twenty-three of the member States of the League, amongst them the most foremost States of the League, and there is no doubt in my mind that the forty-seven member States of the League will agree thereto.
If they approve of it and ratify it, a permanent court is called into existence, which sits continuously, consisting of * eleven judges and four deputy judges with power to take into account and settle disputes between States members of the League, disputes between States members of the League and other States not mem-

bers of the League, and disputes between States which are outside the League, provided certain conditions are complied with which are set out in the statute constituting the court.
For the first time in the world's history we have agreement upon a method of choosing judges. In 1907 the convention at the Hague split on the rock of the choice of judges. One proposal was that every state in the convention should nominate one judge. That would have made an unwieldly number. Another proposal was that there should be seventeen or eighteen judges, of whom the Great Powers should nominate eight and the other Powers nine. The smaller States baulked at that. Then a system of rotation was discussed. Anyway, the negotiations fell through, because it was impossible to agree upon any one method. The Hague Permanent Court is a Court of Arbitration, nothing more, and nothing less. But once this Court of Justice is settled upon and goes into operatiorf, , you have already twenty-two of the foremost Powers that have pledged themselves to submit their cases to it, and before the year is out in my opinion, you will have forty-seven of the members of the League giving the same adhesion. Think of that for a moral force. It has a binding force over those who sign it, and it has a moral force over those that are outside.
Then take this other thing into account. On that proposition pf a permanent Court of Justice the United States, though without the League, is exactly on all fours as to the principles and the purposes of a permanent court. So in that one way alone the League of Nations has brought about a reversion from the method of brute force for settling international disputes, to the method of settlement by a permanent tribunal of the first judges of the world, to which tribunal they have agreed to send their disputes for hearing and settlement.
Now, Mr. Speaker and fellow-members,
I am very much obliged to you for the patient hearing you have given me.


Mr. NESBITT:: How are the judges
chosen?


George Green Foster: They are
chosen by a somewhat ingenious method. The Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague has a system of groups of judges, or members of the Court. Each Power that belongs to the convention nominates four judges of certain calibre, as laid

down. These constitute the membership of that Permanent Court. A party comes up with a dispute and it and the other party to the dispute each chooses its own judge out of that panel, and the case goes before the judges so chosen for arbitration. The League of Nations has adopted that grouping system, and each nation that belongs to the League has four nominees. Each nation outside can also have its four nominees, so in that way you have a panel of possible judges. The Council and the Assembly together unite in choosing from that panel eleven permanent and four deputy judges. That is the system, and it appears to have given universal satisfaction, as being free from political influences.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: May I ask whether a dispute between South Africa and Great Britain could be referred to this court for hearing and settlement?


George Green Foster: My hon. friend has asked a very close question. South Africa is a member of the League, and as a member has the right to nominate her four judges. Canada has that same right.
I am not going to enter upon the field of these very close relationships between the different parts of the Empire or upon the legal features of the matter. I will leave that to the Minister of Justice.


Charles Murphy: Can the Minister answer as to a dispute, say, between Australia and Great Britain?


George Green Foster: That would be the same as a dispute between South Africa and Great Britain.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: May I ask an easier question? Is there any truth in the report that there was some friction or differences of opinion among the Canadian delegates, or between some of the Canadian delegation and the British delegates?


George Green Foster: I was driver
of the team from Canada and I have no knowledge of any friction in the least. I can give a direct negative to that. We were like a band of brothers. Neither have I knowledge of any friction between any of the members of the British Empire delegations, and I do not believe that any existed. We did not always vote the same way, we did not always | talk the same way. Each state was perfectly independent in giving its views, and in that way I think maybe a better accord and better results were obtained than if there had been any
thought of acting as a unit or if there had been coercion in any way. But there was none of that.


Mr. DENIS:: As the Minister is kind enough to allow questions, I should like to put one which is of some interest to us on this side of the House. He has said that there were some forty odd nations, and that the official languages were English and French. I should like to know whether the French language was made use of in that Assembly as much as the English language?	,


George Green Foster: My hon.
friend's knowledge of history and national characteristics might have answered that for him. There was more French speaking than English speaking, and no doubt there was more good French spoken by those who spoke French than by those who were English and tried to speak French. French was the dominant language. I could make quite an interesting disquisition on the preferences of some for English and some for French, outside entirely of the question of race. It was quite odd to see some of the currents running.


Charles Murphy: Did the
representative of China speak French?


George Green Foster: Their delegate is a model for my hon. friend in clear, terse, and vigorous1 English, coupled always with the greatest courtesy, especially when he was facing his Japanese friends.


Mr. B. DEVLIN (Wright) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pay a few odd compliments, but I remember the advice of a very old friend of my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster). The late Sir Charles Tupper said that he always examined his conscience when a man from the other side of the House began to compliment him.
However, I do not think, Mr Speaker, I may be permitted to say, as immediately following the right hon. minister, that we are glad to see him back with renewed vigour and renewed strength, having performed his duties at the League of Nations, completing alliances upon the other side and forming a new one to adorn the social circles of our country. I shall not try to follow the hon. minister in the very able address he gave in regard to the work of the League of Nations. I could not help thinking, however, that he was taking a rather unfair advantage of his friend the ex-President of the Privy Council, the member for Durham (Hon. Mr. Rowell), who made a

statement in the newspapers and also to his electors that the only reason why he was remaining in Parliament was the fact that he desired to discuss the question of the League of Nations; and my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has simply proved today, in the masterly way in which he handled that question, that the usefulness of the hon. member for Durham no longer exists.


George Green Foster: Wait and see.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The second point which
I desire immediately to take up is the reference which my right hon. friend made to the use of the English and French languages officially. The point was first introduced in this House in a different way in an excellent speech delivered by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie); and you will allow me, I hope, Mr. Speaker, to interject a remark at this juncture that both the mover and the seconder of the Address did themselves full justice in the speeches which they delivered. The member for Yale said that he was brought up amongst a French population and that he loved the French people. You will readily understand, Mr. Speaker, that we who speak English on this side of the House, and who come from the Province of Quebec, having been associated with French-Canadian friends, not only admire their language, but admire as well their judgment and their qualities. Perhaps if others in this country were equally favoured they might be able to say precisely the same thing. I simply say this in passing, however, as it has already been spoken of.
I want to refer at once to a paragraph in the speech from the Throne in which we are promised important legislation with reference to the League of Nations. I have no doubt that when that important legislation is brought down it will have the full attention of the hon. members on this side.
Now, may I say a word touching the speech delivered yesterday by the new Prime Minister of Canada (Rt. Hon. Mr. Meig-hen)? That right hon. gentleman did not refer to any constitutional authorities respecting the status of his Government. That, Sir, can easily be understood, for if there had been anything in the constitutional history either of England or of Canada offering a precedent for the present situation, my right hon. friend, who is a good reasoner and who is possessed of clear vision and sound judgment in addition to the fact that he is an excellent student of constitutional history, would have advanced it.

But in view of the speech which was delivered by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) yesterday, intimating to the Government that they were in office because they had usurped power, and quoting authority after authority to show that their position was contrary to every conception of responsible Government in this country-aye, and in England as well 

my right hon. friend had perforce to remain mute on the subject of the constitution. Instead, that gentleman, who is so suave in manner and so calm in temper, got into a towering rage. I had never before seen him in such a rage in my life at the very suggestion that he should not be where he was, or that my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition should change places with him.
Sir, to me it is a matter of indifference whether the Government remain where they are or whether the Opposition continue in their present position. One thing, however, I have very present in my mind, and it is this: I always try to keep before me the resolve that in this country autocracy shall not reign but that the rights of the people shall be respected. There is throughout the land a voice calling upon the Government to appeal to the people in order to ascertain whether it has their confidence. But that voice is answered by silence on the part of the Government. My right hon. friend asked the question: What are we going to the country upon? Well, we appeal to the Government to go to the country upon the one question: do they enjoy the confidence of the people? My right hon. friend says: What about the tariff? Why do you not speak upon the tariff? That is very clever, but, of course, one would naturally expect clever things from my right hon. friend. The tariff, according to a ruling delivered, if I mistake not, by yourself, Mr. Speaker, can be brought up only when the budget is under consideration.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the hon. member is in error. I know the ruling to which he has reference; It was merely an intimation to the House that it might be more desirable to have a budget debate upon the budget, but it by no means purported to preclude any reference to the question of the tariff.


Mr. BELAND:: We shall observe your decision, Mr. Speaker.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: If you did not give the ruling as I have stated it, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me to recall to your memory the fact that it has been the in-

variable practice for a great number of years in this House not to discuss tariff issues until tlie introduction of the budget; and that is a practice that has been observed in parliamentary procedure in Great Britain for a great number of years. The Prime Minister asks: Are the members on this side ready to stand by their tariff proposals of 1919? He knows full well that the Liberal party is ready to stand by everything that is_ liberal. He knows perfectly well that in intent and purpose the guiding spirit of liberalism in Canada in recent years was the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who is to-day ably followed by the present leader of the Opposition. Inspired by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and by what is best in liberalism, we upon this side intend to follow the letter and the spirit of liberal principles. The Prime Minister said nothing more that I could take note of, absolutely nothing. He wants to discuss a hundred and one questions and pleads: Do not discuss the right of the people of Canada to have a voice in the affairs of the country at the present time: we are still working on war measures and dealing with conditions in this country that have arisen from the war.
Financial, industrial, and agricultural conditions in Canada will be consequences of the war long after the Prime Minister and I have disappeared from the scene of this world's activities. There was a world revolution during the war but there was not such a revolution in parliamentary institutions in Canada as to deter the people from demanding that their sanction be obtained in order to carry on public affairs. I do not mean to speak at any great length but I wish to lay stress upon the fact that for some years back the people of Canada have been demanding a voice in the affairs of the dominion. The Government refused to give them that voice. The preceding administration deprived the people of their voice and governed Canada by Order in Council. They resorted to every possible means to stifle the popular voice; and now the present Prime Minister declares that he and his Government are going to follow in spirit and in letter the policy of their predecessors. If that he so, why did it become necessary for so many members of the Cabinet to resign, or did my right hon. friend put them out of the Cabinet? I think it is due to the people and to the members of this House that the Prime Minister should make a statement as to the position of those gentlemen who have resigned from the Cabinet.
The Prime Minister says: We are going to stand by protection in this country. Let me draw his attention to the fact that in 1918 the Government, taking advantage of the reciprocity statute had potatoes placed upon the free list. There was no protection about that measure neither in letter, word nor principle; it was absolute free trade in potatoes; and I warn my hon. friend from British Columbia that other measures of a similar character may be adopter even by the present Government, when it suits their purpose.
Following the kind references that have been made to my native province will you, Mr. Speaker, permit me to quote a few statements from an article in the supplement of the Montreal Gazette for the year 1920 with reference to the Province of Quebec. The article in question states that Mr. Marquis, the head of the Provincial Bureau of Statistics, makes the statement that the value of the crops for Quebec in 1914 was $99,279,000. In 1919 it had grown to $307,044,000, an increase of 310 per cent, whilst in the Province of Ontario the increase was simply 190 per cent. The article goes on to say:
Still another illustration of agricultural growth in Quebec is shown in Mr. Marquis' figures. The value of land is in keeping with what is raised thereon in crops and cattle. With the exception of British Columbia, where the specially rich fruit farms, and veritable gardens, have a very high value, Quebec leads the provinces in value of farm lands. The value in British Columbia is $174 per acre; Quebec, $72; Ontario, $66 ; Prince Edward Island $51; Nova Scotia. $41; Manitoba, $35; Saskatchewan, $32; New Brunswick, $32 ; and Alberta is last with a valuation of $29 per acre.
In other words, after making allowance for land values in British Columbia the Province of Quebec heads the list. The finances of that Province are in an admirable condition-in a better condition than that of any other Province. The laws of Quebec are sane, her people are contented and the best of feeling exists between the two races that people the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not follow any herring that is sought to be drawn across the trail, and permit myself to be diverted from the one question that now confronts this House-will the Government grant a general election or will they not?


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is the House ready for the question?


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I know many hon. members intend continuing the debate. I

believe the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Harold) follows.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I will move the adjournment of the debate.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I had no idea the hon. member (Mr. Devlin) who has just sat down had concluded his speech. I am not in a position to answer his question as I do not own the Government. But I was going to make some remarks on that very question. A great deal has been said throughout the country, and a great deal has been said in this House since the session opened, as to whether this Government should continue to function or not. I do not know what took place in other ridings at the time of the 1917 election, but I certainly know what took place in the riding that I have the honour to represent. There was never a word spoken that could convey the idea that this Government was not to be elected for a full term. So far as I was personally concerned, the only promise I make was that I would support the Union Coalition Government in all measures that it might consider were in the interests of the country. I have done so and purpose continuing to do so. Even if I should disagree with the Cabinet on any particular question, I see no reason why I should go over to the other side of the House., In my judgment-I may be wrong-it is our privilege when we are elected to vote on any question as we think wise. If that were not so, I would not care to be a representative in this Parliament;
I would not care to be bound to follow any party or any government that introduced a measure that I thought to be not in the interests of the country, and I do not purpose doing so.
It is quite true that since the Union or Coalition Government was elected some members who were then sitting on this side of the House have gone over to the other side; that is their privilege. It is quite true that there has been a different grouping even among the Opposition. It is also quite true that the leader at that time of the then Union or Coalition Government has retired from the leadership. It is also just as true that the members and supporters of the Union Government have nominated a successor to that leader in a regular and constitutional way, as I understand-by the majority of votes of the supporters of that party or Government.
I think that is the proper way. I may say quite frankly that I have never been in

favour of choosing a leader at large conventions, because I think it is really the members of the House who have the best knowledge to choose their leader. I say again that the present leader of the Union Government was properly chosen, and I see no reason under our constitution the members of that Government should seek re-election until they are defeated in the House. I do not believe that because there happens to be a wave of feeling in favour of the Opposition or of the Government advantage should be taken of it to put the country to the expense of an election. There may be a popular wave on any question-and I have seen many popular waves that afterwards, with experience, became very unpopular-and therefore I do not see why the present Government should not continue to function until they bring in such legislation as the majority of the members do not agree with and they are defeated, or until their [DOT] proper term expires.
A great deal has been said about the recent election in West Peterborough, particularly in reference to group government. Personally, I am opposed to group government, because I think, no matter who the leader may be, if he has to cater to groups to get support he is liable to pass legislation which is not in the interests of the country as a whole. We are all human; the leader of a party, from my experience, is just as human as any of his followers; and it is natural for him to continue in office if he reasonably can. Therefore, as far as I have been able to study them, the European countries that have group governments suffer under the disadvantage that the legislation passed is more in the particular interests of the groups than in the general interests of those countries, simply because their governments must cater to their group supporters if they are to retain power.
We had one benefit under the old two-party system, and that was that the successful candidate had at least the satisfaction of knowing that he was elected by a majority of those who voted. All the people may not have voted, but that was their own fault; they had the opportunity. He at least, let me repeat, had the satisfaction of knowing that he was elected by a majority in that constituency. The West Peterborough election shows that no matter how capable the candidate is who was elected there the other day- and I understand he is a most capable gentleman-after all he has not the satis-

faction of knowing that he secured a majority of the votes that were polled. That might not make any difference to some gentlemen, because I believe the vast majority of those who have sat in this House since I have been a member feel that when elected, although as the nominees of a certain party, they become the representatives of all their constituents. And further, so far as my experience has gone since I became a member, I think the majority of hon. members who have been in the House for some time realize that it is their duty not only to represent the views of all their own constituents, but, so far as they can judge, the views of all the people.
I think that is a feeling that ought to pervade the mind of every man who is elected to this Parliament. After all, this is a Dominion, not a provincial Parliament; we have to take into consideration the interests of the whole country, not of any particular section of the people exclusively. I do not agree that this Government should go to the country on the ground, as is urged by some, that they were elected only for the war and demobilization period. The only thing I heard before or during the campaign of 1917 that would bear on that contention was that when the War-time Elections Act was passed it was distinctly stated that that Act would remain in force only during the war and during demobilization. I sat on the opposite side of the House at that time. I was opposed to the War-time Elections Act and I would still be opposed to it if it were in force. But it is not in force; it has been repealed; therefore the promise made in that respect has been carried out. But I do not think that has anything to do with the question of the term of Palia-ment.


Mr. ROBB:: Is not the Government that was elected under the War-time Elections Act still in power or claiming to be in power by virtue of a majority elected under that Act?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is quite true;
there is no denying it. But that does not make any difference so far as I can see. The War-time Elections Act was passed by the House, and the members of Parliament were elected under that Act and by very large majorities. Personally, I was elected notwithstanding the War-time Elections Act, so that I have not, and never did have, anything to say in favour of it.
My hon. friend (Mr. Devlin) has referred to Quebec as being the most stable province in the Dominion. I agree with that view, because the province of Quebec has stability. Too many of our other provinces are taking up fads. There is too much "progressive" legislation in a good many of them-that is, so far as the finances of the provinces and the interests of the people are concerned. Therefore I pay all due respect and honour to the province of Quebec and compliment them upon the manner in which their political and financial affairs have been conducted in the last ten years, and upon the position they have now attained.
I am speaking this afternoon under some difficulty, because' I was not here yesterday and, did, not hear what was said; nor did I have an opportunity to read Hansard. But in the Speech from the Throne there is a proposition-it is only a proposition; I do not know whether there is any intention to do anything in regard to it-in respect to unemployment insurance. I notice on actual reference to the Speech from the Throne that it is an investigation, not a proposition-that an investigation is being conducted by the Department of Labour into a system of unemployment insurance. I hope that the Government will not launch out into any system of unemployment insurance. I believe in giving every man an opportunity to work; I do think that the only way this country will succeed in the next few years, the only way in which it can overcome the enormous debt with which we are now burdened, is for every man to work; and I believe that if he is willing to work there is work in this country for every man to do. It may be necessary at times, as was recently the case in some of the larger cities, to assist persons who are , out of work, but I cannot help thinking that a great many of these people could find work if they were really anxious to do so. I know that in our section of the country a great many of them could find work on the farms-not, perhaps, at five or six dolars a day, but at reasonable pay. Nothing is so harmful to a people as indiscriminate charity, because it helps to foster the idea that people can get along without working.
During the last two or three years the country has passed through very serious times so far as the labour question is concerned. Many industries were forced either to close down or to work on part time, and some of them made every effort to keep the work going in their factories for their employes, on the principal that

half a loaf is better than no tread. After all, business is but a cycle; the consumer buys from the retailer, the retailer from the wholesaler, the wholesaler from the manufacturer. The farmer grows various commodities that sustain life, and the rest of the people who do not farm buy his products. If those people are out of work and have no money, they cannot buy those products, nor can they buy the products of the manufacturer. Last summer it was stated in the newspapers-both in Canada and in the United States, so far as I could see-that everything was going to be cheaper; that prices were coming down enormously. As a matter of fact there were a great many reductions in the prices of goods retailed; certain goods that were really luxuries were allowed to drop very materially in price. Even then I suppose a pretty fair profit was made on them, because during the war time	and
the period of very high wages the people lost their balance, so to speak, people bought things that their financial circumstances did not justify their buying, and indulged in extravagant expenditure which was of no particular benefit to themselves. For instance, I knew of a man who had been employed for several years, drawing fifteen dollars a day, and who, before he was not without work for three months, had nothing. That man was living beyond his means and without any care for the future, and while I do not say that everyone did that, I know hundreds of people did the same thing. In the committee that we_ commissioned to investigate the cost of living, we were told that people who were offered boots, say at eight dollars a pair, would not look at them, but when the same boots were produced to them for eighteen dollars 'a pair, then they thought the boots were all right. I am giving that only as an illustration of the craze that came over the country for living above one's means by people who should have been saving at that that time.
Then we come to this summer when the idea crept into the minds of the people that everything was going to be very much cheaper, and they ceased buying. When the consumer ceased buying, the retailer's shelves were full of goods and he had to cease buying; the wholesaler also had to cease buying, and the manufacturer went on as long as he could, as long as the banks would allow him to manufacture goods and pile them up and store them. The manufacturer had faith in the future and kept on for the purpose of keeping his men em-

ployed. But there is a limit to that; the banks would not advance any further on that sort of prospect. The consequence was that everything stopped to a certain extent. Some people may blame the Government for that, but the Government had nothing more to do with it than they have with the rain and the snow, the frost and the heat. It is true that the luxury tax was put on last year very largely for the purpose of drawing people's attention to the fact that they were buying goods at extravagant prices, and that was why the tax had to be added to the bill and not concealed in the price of the goods.
That had in a great measure the effect of drawing people's attention to their extravagance, and the consequence was that many people began to realize that the goods they were buying were altogether too high in price for their means and they commenced to curtail their expenditures to a certain degree. That tax has been done away with.
As regards unemployment insurance, I feel that our Ontario Government passed a very wise Act in their endeavour to take care of the widow by giving her a granf based upon so much for a widow alone and so much for each child so as to help her in extreme cases where she had no means. The difficulty about unemployment insurance, like the difficulty at the present time of maintaining in cities and towns many people who are out of employment, is that there is a tendency to take advantage of that aid and not seek employment. In other words, the workers keep the drones. Even the bees set us an example ip that situation. In a hive of bees the workers kill the drones; and while I do not want us to do that, let me repeat that there is only one salvation for this country and that is that everybody must work and give the best there is in him. At the present time there is a tendency on the part of some people to reduce the price of labour. I understand that last year in the West, in some instances, farmers had to pay as high as eight dollars a day for farm labourers. Farmers are not likely to get a sufficient price to produce grain on the farm at that rate of wages. But that condition of things did not predominate throughout the country, neither did the very high wages that were paid for munition workers during the war prevail amongst workers in ordinary industries, at east in Ontario. Ordinary industries certainly had to double their wages, but the difficulty was that while they doubled their wages, they did not get the same production. I know of an instance where wages

were trebled and the production per man was reduced by over one-half. As far as my knowledge goes, most employers of labour in ordinary business where wages were not extreme and exceptional, were not grumbling about the wages they were paying, but they were grumbling about the production. I am glad to say that during the last two months production has very materially increased in accordance with the trade, and if that be the case-that is, if the men do their duty and earn their pay- I know of no employers who are anxious to reduce wages. What the employer is after is results. I do not think there is any necessity for the large number of people that the newspapers report as being unemployed in our cities at the present time. I think that many of those men could find work at reasonable wages if they tried to. In small towns like ours, while there has been a certain amount of trouble because of slackening of work in manufacturing industries and, in one or two instances, the shutting down of factories for short periods, the bulk of the men were quite capable of carrying on until such times as their work started again. Those who were not, immediately sought other work and most of them were able to find it. That is the spirit I should like to see prevail throughout this country. Let every man,-whether he works with his head or his hands, and no matter what his occupation-not sit down and curse the Government, local or Dominion, or curse somebody else, but get busy and try and find some work to do that will provide him with a living whether he works with his head or his hands. Let every man try and assist the country to carry on, and if we all do that, there will be no necessity for unemployment insurance.
In other words, I object most strongly to any plan whereby the workers will keep the drones. There is too much of that now. It is the workers that pay the taxation of this country, no matter what form the taxation may take. That is why I am surprised to see sometimes in this House some honourable members attack very strongly what they call "the interests." Some man was talking to me very recently and blaming "the interests," as he called them. I asked him: "What interests? There is the farming interest," I said, "the manufacturing interest, the banking interest, the commercial interest; what interest are you talking about?" Well, he had only heard that "the interests" were to blame; he did
not know much about it, and had nothing further to say. As a matter of fact we must all work together. We need all sorts of people in this country working together in sympathy, and doing the very best they can individually to make a success of the country, and that is why I hate to hear people who have made a success of their lives from a financial standpoint condemned because they have made a success. Personally, I have no jealousy at all of the man who makes a success of his life. Whether he comes from my section of the country or anywhere else in Canada I am proud of him. So far as the monied interests of the country are concerned, we have to have money to carry on. The successful man cannot take his money to bed with him. He has to invest it in some business in this country to make it produce. Therefore, while he may not be working with his hands, he may be working just as hard with his head to provide work for the people who work with their hands. You cannot separate the interests of the so-called labouring classes in this country,- that is, those who work with their hands,- from the interests of the capitalists, who provide the capital which furnishes the material on which the workers labour. So far as I personally am concerned, I think we members of Parliament have undertaken a serious responsibility when we come to this House, and it is our duty, at least, I think it is my duty, to investigate carefully any legislation that is proposed, no matter from what source, and if we think it is wise legislation, it is our duty to support it.
Thank Heaven, I am not so partisan that I cannot see good in the other fellow, and I see no reason at all, so far as benefit to the country is concerned, why this Government should dissolve and go to the country. On the other hand, I can see a great many reasons at the present time why they should not. In the first place, the country is still more or less in a chaotic state so far as business is concerned. Take unemployment, for instance. You could not make any of these men believe that it was not the fault of the Government that they are unemployed. So far as I am concerned I do not believe it is the fault of the Government in any shape or form.
Now as to the tariff. I believe, and always have believed before I came to this House, when I was a private citizen struggling for my existence, that a reasonable tariff that will protect the industries of

this country to a reasonable extent is the only proper thing for Canada. I am interested in farming to a certain extent myself, and I want to say right here that for me the local market is much better -than any foreign market, for the instant my goods get out of my sight they are out of my control, and I do not know what may be the final result. There are some items in the tariff schedules at the present time that, in my judgment, are too high; they are urn-necessary for the manufacturer. I know something about manufacturing, and when I say that there are some items that are too high and unnecessary for the protection of the manufacturer, I am saying what I know to be absolutely correct. In the first place, if the manufacturer has too high a protection it gets him into a slovenly way of doing business. He does not, to use the common expression, "get down to brass tacks." That is, he does not organize and systematize his business so as to be in a position to compete successfully. Therefore, I am opposed to too high a protection on any line of goods. In days gone by, along in the 80's, it may have been necessary to maintain a rather high tariff for our then infant industries, because it is a difficult thing to start a manufacturing industry. I know of nothing more difficult, because for the first four or five years it is all costs. You can get your company organized, you can get your manager, but it is a guess whether he will make a success or not. You can get your office staff and your help together, but you have got to introduce your goods from one end of Canada to the other. Now, we have a population of only about eight millions, spread over a territory extending three thousand miles, and it is absolutely impossible to introduce your goods from one end of the country to the other under two years. You must engage at least two very capable men to cover that territory in a year, and you have to pay their salaries and expenses, which are not very light I assure you. And after you have covered the country and got your agents appointed, you will find that half of them are not satisfactory and you have to cover the same ground over again.
It is the hardest thing in the world to start a progressive manufacturing industry. You cannot possibly make any money at the outset; if you make your expenses for the first four or five years you are doing remarkably well. It then depends entirely upon the ability of your manage-

ment and the economic way in which you produce your goods. The tariff may assist you to a certain extent. In my experience I have found a great fallacy to exist in the country in the claim that all manufacturers add the tariff to the cost of their goods. I know intimately several manufacturing industries, and I know of none, so far as I am personally concerned, who consider the tariff in arriving at the cost of their goods or the prices they will put on them when they are offering them to the public. There are others with whom I am not so intimately acquainted-I know them only in a general way-who do take advantage of whatever protection the customs tax may afford them; hut so far as my knowledge goes, they are very much in the minority.
I do not know that there are any other clauses in the Speech from the Throne to which I am opposed, except the one I have mentioned. Let me repeat that the more you force the workers of the country to keep those who are not willing to work, the more people you will find that are not willing to work. And after all it is the workers that pay the taxes, no matter in what form they are imposed. If it is an income tax you have to have over a certain income before you are obliged to pay taxes. If it is customs, unles you are earning you certainly are not buying very many imported goods, except on credit, and there is a limit to that, because a merchant is not going to carry on very long unless you pay him. I have only this to emphasize, that we members of Parliament, elected to represent the people, have a serious duty to perform. Personally, so far as party politics are concerned, I am not prejudiced in any way, and I do not think that the people expect us to vote on any question purely and simply from a partisan standpoint. I do think, however, that they expect us to vote from a business point of view. We may have differences of opinion in our ideas of business, and it would be hard to get any dozen men gathered together who would absolutely agree on all lines of business; but we can generally come to a reasonable conclusion as to what is in the interests of the country at large and what is merely selfish interest. We members of Parliament are not here to promote selfish interests; we are elected to safeguard and further the interests of the country at large and of the people as a whole. I have seen no reason advanced in the newspapers and

heard none uttered so far in this House why this Government has not a perfect right to continue functioning and why it cannot legislate for the interests of the people just as well as any other government which you could possibly elect at the present time.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I wish, first, to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address, both of whom well acquitted themselves of the task imposed upon them. I should be glad to congratulate, in his personal capacity, the Prime Minister, but I hesitate to do so for two reasons: first, he has left the Chamber, and secondly, my own leader's experience in congratulating met with a shabby reception. Perhaps it might be just as well to go to the heart of the question. I am aware that hon. members have listened through all the long hours of this afternoon to addresses, and it must therefore be difficult to inject interest into the debate. But before we go further let me make a few observations concerning the remarks made by the last speaker (Mr. Nesbitt). It is true that that gentleman has been taken at a disadvantage. This Government, on this second day of the debate, had almost stopped functioning when he stepped into the breach. Is this indicative of the fact that this Government is to be maintained in power by Unionists who previously called themselves Liberals? I trust not. There were eighteen men on the other side of the House when the Prime Minister was about to move the adjournment of the debate, in order perhaps to give members a greater and larger opportunity for preparing themselves for the festivities of the evening, when my hon. friend jumped into the breach. What was his contribution to the debate? He took a text against the investigation of unemployment insurance, and then he went everywhere in a , truly apostolic manner preaching the gospel of reaction. He first of all stated that he was against the War-time Elections Act, and then, by a use of a logic which I cannot understand, said: Well, the Election Act has been repealed and I do not propose to cast out the Government or help to have them cast out: that Government was elected by an Act which I denounced when it was proposed and when it was passed, and which I denounce now. That was a dishonest Act, in my opinion;
and if this Government came into power through it, why should they not be turned out? Is it not the business of hon. members to turn them out? I think it is.
His next contribution, Mr. Speaker, was to denounce progressive legislation. When he did so he looked across at the Proges-sive party or Farmers' party-that party which the Prime Minister calls "the opposition situated angularly opposite"-but that portion of His Majesty's loyal opposition did not applaud his remarks to any great extent. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Nesbitt) is against unemployed insurance. I wonder if he ever realizes the feeling of a workman-an honest workman, perhaps an unskilled workman-who is working day by day, and week by week, and does not know whether his job is going to last over the next week. If the hon. gentleman could realize the feeling of that honest workman he would not denounce in such unsparing terms unemployment insurance. The hon. gentleman properly says that workmen should not reduce output. Neither they should, Mr. Speaker. But isn't it a temptation for a man to make the job spin out as long as he can if he feels that perhaps the next Saturday he will be paid off, and will not have the wherewithal to buy food for his- wife and children? For, although, in our civilization we have enormously increased the powers of production it is a matter of fact that vast majority of mankind, in the industrial centres at least, live week by week on their weekly wages. Therefore when the Government propose the innocuous measure of examining the question, surely my hon. friend might let them do so without raising his voice in advance against the proposition. Everybody must work hard. Ah, yes! and how well that came from a member who confessed he was one, if not two, days late in coming to his job here in Ottawa.
We have the infant industry proposal or policy. Ah, these infant industries! How certain types of men cherish them to their breast. They have to cherish the infant industries to their breast because those industries have never been able to be weaned and they are always asking for some special favour, some special privilege. I presume my hon. friend is quite in accord with that part of the Speech from the Throne which said the protective principle is to be maintained. My hon. friend is not prejudiced as far as party politics are concerned. He should know because he has sat on both sides of the House. Apparently



he has been* just as comfortable on one side as on the other but he has no intention of moving from where he now sits. Let me, Mr. Speaker, without the slightest heat or the slightest unkindness, say that I believe he is well situated where he is, and that he would be no addition, no help, to the forces of progress and democracy in this country. A speech of a very different sort was delivered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). The Minister spoke at great length but he is always interesting; and the fact that the debate was almost breaking down before the hon. gentleman from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) arose, shows plainly why the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke at such great length. The Minister dealt with the League of Nations. It was a rather interesting thing to see that his remarks concerning that great attempt-and let us pray heaven that successful and hopeful attempt-was applauded as vigourously, if not more vigourously, on this side than it was on the other. Of course one reason was that-indicative of the feeling of the country-there were more members sitting on this side than there were on the other. I have nothing to say in criticism of the Minister's remarks about the League of Nations, I heartily approve of what he said in that connection. We all trust and pray that some way of settling international disputes may be brought forward, and may go into effect, different from a settlement by force of arms and by the slaying ^of men the majority of whom had nothing to do with the making of the quarrel-for it is men of over forty-five who make wars, and it is youths of under twenty-five who fight them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Government-for really I have said nothing very unkind about them so far-would, at this stage, consent to adjourn the debate until to-morrow. We have now reached the hour of almost a quarter to six.


An Hon. MEMBER:: Is the hon. gentleman tired out?


Andrew Ross McMaster: As a matter of fact he is not a bit tired out. That reminds me of something I forgot to mention in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). If the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) will remember, his opposition to the way in which the votes were cast under the Soldiers' Voting Bill was almost as strong as his remarks in connection with the War Times Election Act. We all remember the vivifying moments in the Chamber when a

controversy arose between the' member for Brantford and the member for North Oxford as to the manner in which the soldiers' votes were counted in the last election.
On motion of Mr. McMaster, the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, February 17, 1921