Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My right bon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) inquired concerning certain correspondence in the Department of External Affairs between the government of Canada and the British government relating to ocean transport especially in relation to the Imperial Shipping Committee. I beg to lay on the table such correspondence as I have been able to secure.

Copies of reports of the Board of Railway Commissioners-Hon. Mr. Graham.


HEALTH OF ANIMALS REGULATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I desire to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) a certain matter of importance in regard to which I shall ask him two questions. For the safeguarding of the health of animals in Canada, certain regulations were passed prohibiting the importation of goods packed in hay or straw-I think fodder is the term generally used-coming from areas in Great Britain or elsewhere infected with the foot and mouth disease. I understand that notice to this effect was given the transportation companies in November, but recently there arrived in Vancouver on one of the Canadian merchant marine ships a cargo, a large portion of which consisted of goods packed in this prohibited material. I am informed that a very substantial part of this cargo has been ordered returned, other portions having been permitted to land. I want to ask two questions:	Is it
not possible to permit the unpacking of these goods under careful supervision, the packing material to be immediately destroyed, and thus avert a loss to the importer who undoubtedly is innocent in the matter? In the second place, why Should local importers be subjected to such loss and inconvenience when the fault rests very largely with the transportation company, in this case with the government merchant marine?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: The situation complained of
is practically as my hon. friend has stated it, 57
except that additional steps were taken as long ago as August last. The United States government had passed a similar law prohibiting the importation of goods into that country when packed in hay and straw, and as we had a working arrangement with that government whereby we should have regulations of a similar nature with regard to imports from foreign countries, we found it all the more imperative, not only in the interests of Canadian stock but also for the purpose of carrying out our end of the arrangement, to impose this restriction with regard to goods packed in this material coming from countries infected with the foot and mouth disease. However, we allowed goods to come in packed in this way wherever a certificate accompanied them indicating that there was no foot and mouth disease in the exporting country. A number of such shipments came in and we drew the attention of the importers to the fact that this certificate could be obtained from the exporting country. We also extended the time of grace to January 1, hoping that the offenders, who as my hon. friend points out are really the shipping companies and not the innocent importers, might have time to accustom themselves to the regulations. We recognized that we were in the difficult position of being obliged to protect the live stock of the country on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to give as far as possible some consideration to the shipper. So that, as I say, we extended the time to January 1, after which the rule was to be hard-and-fast; and in the meantime we did our best to fumigate and burn all straw coming with such shipments. There was a difficulty, however; we found that shipments of these goods were accumulating at such a rate that it would take an army of officers to fumigate and bum the straw. Finally, therefore, we decided to extend the time to January 15, taking the ground that, after that, under no consideration should the practice be allowed to continue. And we took this ground for several reasons. In the first place, so long as we allowed the goods to land in this kind of packing, the shipping companies apparently would continue to accept such shipments, and the evil would go on in perpetuity. In the second place, we had not a sufficient number of men to take care of all the parcels that were coming in; we could not properly fumigate and dispose of them. And there was a third reason. There is always an element of danger in unpacking these goods, because the moment you begin to fuss with them you increase the opportunities that already exist, for the germs to scatter. At the beginning, we usually destroyed the straw in some of the

Health of Animals

incinerators, but it was inevitable, in the transportation of such goods, that the infection should spread; and for that reason we decided that we should have to stop receiving the goods at this end. If we did not do something of the kind the shipping companies would continue to accept delivery at the other end, and so the danger would persist. Apparently there is a hardship and I do not know how we shall overcome it, but at the same time we must protect our live stock interests. This matter was brought to my attention by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay), and if it can be shown, even yet, that a preference should be given to supplies entering into a government contract, such as the dry dock at Vancouver, I am willing to consider the matter further. The trouble, however, is that if we give a preference to one, even though the goods in that case may be delivered by the Canadian merchant marine, it is difficult indeed to see how we can refuse others. Certainly, so long as we receive goods as we have been receiving them, the shipping companies will continue to accept delivery at the other end.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to ask one
other question. Could not some alternative scheme, say at a moderate cost of unpacking and destroying the material, be substituted for the arbitrary order for absolute return, which in many cases will entail very serious losses? Let me illustrate the point without labouring it. I have in mind a company that ordered goods-I am not referring to the dry dock at the moment-upon which they depended to complete a contract within a specified time. As it happens, these goods were not accompanied by the necessary certificate and consequently an order has been issued for their return, so that it may be two or three months before the contractors receive the necessary supplies. The result may be a penalty under the contract. If the minister could provide the alternative of segregating these goods and destroying the fodder, at the cost of the shipper, then at least in an extreme case such as I have mentioned the difficulty might to some extent be overcome. I ask the minister and his colleagues to earnestly consider this in the interests of trade.


William Richard Motherwell: We have been considering it very carefully, Mr. Speaker, but the element of danger is present. I am in receipt quite recently of a number of telegrams from the western provinces urging me to continue these restrictions and to take no chances of the disease being introduced. The telegrams include one from Premier Bracken

and another from the live stock interests of Alberta. I know it is a hardship to innocent shippers. In my opinion the right course is to prosecute those shipping companies that are landing embargoed goods on our shores.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Including the Canadian
Government Merchant Marine?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not see why
action should not be taken against them if they are landing goods on our shores that have been embargoed and prohibited. However, at the urgent request of my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) I will look into the matter further, and if there is any way of doing anything without risk to our live stock industry, and without opening the door to everybody else wanting the same treatment, I shall be delighted to act.


NATURALIZATION LAWS AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Ten days ago, Mr. Speaker, I drew the attention of the government to the debate in the British House of Commons on February 18 with reference to proposed changes in the naturalization laws to prevent a woman of British nationality married to an alien from losing her British citizenship. It was stated that the British government were communicating with the dominions in regard to the matter. I asked then whether this government had received any such communication. I repeat the question to-day to the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have some information, but I will have to give it to my hon. friend tomorrow, not having it with me at the moment.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the press recently a report to the effect that an offer had been made for the purchase of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine as a whole. Would the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) inform the House what reply has been made to t'he offer, and what the intention of the government is in regard thereto?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): The attitude of the government, Mr. Speaker, has always been that it was prepared to sell any portion of the merchant marine that was not, in its opinion, necessary for the development of

Privilege

Mr. Fournier
our trade. Several offers have been made at different times for portions of the fleet. Up to date the government has not considered any of them.
TARIFF RETALIATION On the Orders of the Day:


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to read a news item from Saturday's Montreal Gazette, and base a question to the government upon it. It refers to a statement alleged to have been made by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to the Canadian Council of Agriculture. I notice the minister is not present, but I am pretty sure the Prime Minister can answer my question; or if he cannot I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) would try. This is the despatch:
Ottawa, March 6.-"If the Americans put up a prohibitive tariff against our agricultural products why shouldn't we put up a tariff against some of their products?" Hon. J. A. Robb, Acting Minister of Finance, asked a delegation from the Canadian Council of Agriculture, which waited on the government this morning.
" The government needs to have some club to handle these fellows," he continued.
May I ask if the Acting Minister of Finance used this language, or language to the same effect?-and is it to be taken as an indication of what we are to expect in the budget? Or is it only indicative of a lucid interval?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to answer my right hon. friend, but I think he will have to wait until the minister returns.
THE RECENT EARTHQUAKE On the Orders of the Day:


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, as I walked into the House this afternoon the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) called my attention to a matter of importance. On the evening of February 28 Ottawa and eastern Canada were visited by a very severe earthquake. As usual, the press reports were very much exaggerated, and Tadoussac, Murray Bay, Baie St. Paul and other north shore towns have been repeatedly . mentioned in the despatches, which inform us that tremors continued for several days after the first shocks and that considerable damage has been done in that part of the country. I know the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has already sent one of his officials to inspect the district, but I think he would be well advised to have an official report made stating exactly what occurred. We do not 57i
want people to imagine that we are in an earthquake belt, but earthquake disturbances may come again, and I think it would be a good thing for the minister to let us know exactly what did take place on the north shore.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: I may say in reply, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Hodgson, of the Observatory staff, is now in the Quebec area affected investigating the reported disturbances in the interests of scientific research, but he has received no instructions to bring back details of the damage done.



PRIVILEGE-MR. FOURNIER

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. A. FOURNIER (Bellechasse):: I
rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In to-day's Ottawa Citizen the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) is quoted as having used the following language in addressing a meeting yesterday in Montreal :	.
Mr. Woodsworth said in part:
"Although there are only two members of the House elected on the Labour ticket, we are not as weak as you might imagine. The Conservatives, Liberals and even the Progressives-who have asked us to join their forces-have their hands tied; they cannot say what they think, as they were elected by campaign funds and have to stick by what their leader says;
As a Liberal I protest most energetically against that statement.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am
under obligation to the hon. member (Mr. Fournier) for having brought this matter to the attention of the House? It has already been suggested here to-day that we ought to have accurate statements in the press. I have already given a statement to the newspapers correcting the report. Certainly I did not say anything about campaign funds as applied to those members who come from the prairies.


Mr. CALDWELL:: May I ask if the hon.
member will include New Brunswick?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope hon. members will admit that it is difficult sometimes for the press to condense into a few paragraphs an address that occupies well on to an hour. I was trying to show what, from our standpoint, as we have attempted to point out from time to time in this House, is one of the evils of the present party system, that the big party requires extensive campaign funds in order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

Peace River Railway Outlet


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am explaining
my position, Mr. Speaker. And further, that owing to the rigid party discipline which prevails it is extremely difficult for the individual member to express his own particular convictions when they differ from those of the party as a whole. That was the setting of the statements made in my speech in Montreal.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: Thank you for the
apology.



PEACE RIVER RAILWAY OUTLET

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton):: I would like to call the attention of the government to a special despatch to the Edmonton Journal, dated February 28, regarding an outlet to the Pacific coast from the Peace river. It says:
The Minister of the Interior comes out flatly for the
least expensive line by way of the Monkman pass.
I would like to ask if that is a statement of government policy regarding the Peace river transportation question?


Charles A. Stewart: It is not a statement of government policy. The statement is incorrect so far as it intimates that I have come out flatly in favour of the Monkman pass. As one who is deeply interested in an outlet for tne Peace river country, I am entirely in favour of an outlet to the westward and have never concealed that attitude. I am in favour of the Monkman pass, or the Peace pass, or the Pine pass, whichever is the most feasible, will serve the country best, and can be constructed the cheapest.



IMMIGRATION ACT-RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-AIbemi):: I
would like to ask the Minister of Immigration if he would bring down the return required by subsection 2 of section 4 of the Immigration Act as amended last year. This section requires the minister, within thirty days of the meeting of parliament, to lay before the House a return of all permits, with the names and particulars, issued by the minister authorizing persons to enter or stay in Canada without being subject to the provisions of the Immigration Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will direct the attention of the Minister of Immigration to the matter. I am sure he will be glad to comply with my hon. friend's request.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. WALLACE STEWART (Humboldt) moved1 the second reading of Bill No. 18, respecting the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Company of Canada.
Arthur Meighen: What has the Minister
of Railways to say about this bill?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways):	This is a bill for extension of
time for construction. The original act was passed in 1893. With respect to several of these bills-my memory does not serve me about this one-I have received communications urging that some steps be taken to have construction proceeded with in cases where the original Charters have been extended many times. However, it is the custom to accept the second reading of these bills, more as a form than anything else, and to refer them to the committee on Railway, Canals and Telegraph Lines for discussion as to details, where all the parties can appear. I suppose it is proper for the House to give the second reading, on the understanding that the bill shall go to this committee for full discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.

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

Mr. CALDWELL:: 1.	Has the government been officially advised that Great Britain has put an embargo on the importation of potaties from Canada into the United Kingdom?
2.	If so, when and why was this embargo put into effect ?
3.	What are the conditions of the embargo?
4.	Was the government advised as to the imminence
f such action on the part of the Imperial governn ent previous to such action being taken?
5.	Was any action taken by the government to attempt to prevent such an embargo being put into effect ?
6.	If such an effort was made on the part of the Canadian government, what was the nature of the representations made to the Imperial government?
7.	Has any effort been made to have these conditions modified ?
8.	Does Great Britain admit potatoes from any European countries ?
9.	Does the government know whether conditions alleged to be the cause for the placing of this embargo against potatoes from Canada exist in European countries from which potatoes are admitted into Great Britain?
10.	Do such conditions prevail in Great Britain or n any part thereof?

Questions
11.	Is the government aware that large quantities of potatoes are in railroad transit in this country, or in store at docks ready to be loaded on ship board ?
12.	If so, will such potatoes be allowed entry into Great Britain if sent forward?
13.	Are potatoes originating in the United States of America admitted to Great Britain? If not, why?


William Richard Motherwell: 1; Yes.
2.	Notification was received in a despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated February 16, that, on account of the presence of the Colorado beetle in Canada, and the possibility of its introduction into the United Kingdom through importations of Canadian potatoes, the importation of potatoes from Canada after February 20, 1925, was prohibited.
3.	The embargo is unconditional.
4.	Yes, but unofficially.
5.	Yes.
6 and 7. When the possibility of the embargo was first reported, the following cable was sent to the High Commissioner:
Unofficially reported here that British ministry contemplate putting embargo on Canadian potatoes because of presence here of Colorado beetle. This beetle has been in Canada for half century and to take objection to it now would be extremely unfortunate and untimely in view of recent action of United Kingdom looking to promotion of inter-empire trade by establishing marketing committee upon which dominions have been invited to appoint representatives. Urge you have any such suggested action stayed until whole situation is carefully surveyed from all angles as another ill advised cattle embargo incident would be unfortunate.
The following is a quotation from a letter addressed by the High Commissioner to the Right Honourable Lord Bledisloe, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries:
I am enclosing a little article which appeared in the Manchester edition of the Daily Mail yesterday headed "U.S.A. Bacon."
You will notice in the last paragraph of this an allusion to potatoes, in case American potatoes should find their way via Canada to this country. As a matter of fact this would be commercially impossible because the duty on potatoes from the United States to Canada is thirty-five cents per 100 pounds and the United States market is always higher than the Canadian, even in times of plenty like the present year, and if they went through Canada in bond they would be bound to be marked U.S.A. potatoes.
You are probably well aware of the care taken in grading and marketing Canadian potatoes. They are run over wire screens for sizes, then bagged, and each bag must have a tag attached by a government inspector, marked "Canadian A", and "Canadian B" or "Canadian C." I may add that the potatoes are examined by two government inspectors-by the original grader and the potato health inspector at the point of shipment.
The information I get is that it is practically an impossibility for the Colorado beetle to appear in any Canadian tuber because, as you know, the slugs feed on the leaf and then bury themselves in the earth, not in the tuber, and the tuber being run over wire screens for sizes and then run again over hand racks
at the point of shipment precludes any possibility of them containing anything that might develop into a Colorado beetle.
These representations were, however, unsuccessful and the embargo was placed on Canadian potatoes. The government was, however, successful in inducing the British government to except from the conditions of the embargo any Canadian potatoes afloat at the time the embargo was put into effect.
A further attempt was made to have the restrictions removed1 the following cable having been sent to the British ministry.
The Entomological branch of the Department of Agriculture has just completed a close biological study of the Colorado beetle and from their study of the habits of the insect, there would appear to be no danger whatever of the beetle being transported in shipments of potatoes exported from Canada.
The Colorado potato beetle in eastern Canada disappears from the plants by the end of September and enters the ground for hibernation. In fact, the large majority of the beetles are in the ground a month earlier. Potatoes exported from Canada to England are dug in October, at which time, as stated, the beetles are inactive, being m hibernation in the ground. After digging, the potatoes are machine-graded before shipment and the danger that any beetles could remain in association with the potatoes through all this process is infinitesimal.
Our officers who have made special observations of this insect have never reported the finding of the beetles in bags, barrels, or other containers in which potatoes are shipped.
During the summer months when the beetles are active, there is a possibility of their being transported with any cargo, but it seems almost inconceivable that the beetles could be introduced with shipments of potatoes which are invariably dug after the beetles have entered the ground for hibernation.
We have no records, nor know of no cases in other countries of the insect having been distributed through shipments of potatoes.
As the department has an established potato inspection service, Canada would suggest that the Imperial government accept shipments of potatoes from this country subject to their being accompanied by certificates as to freedom from Colorado potato beetle due to having undergone such grading and inspection as would permit of such guarantee.
No reply to this has yet been received.
8.	Yes.
9.	Yes, the Colorado beetle is found in the Bordeaux district in France, but importations from this district are forbidden, while importations from other parts of France must be accompanied by a certificate to the effect that the Colorado beetle is non-existent in the export district.
10.	The information supplied by the British Ministry is to the contrary.
11.	Replies received from railway companies and the principal shippers would indicate that practically few cars were en route when the embargo went into effect, and all these were immediately diverted to other markets on news of the embargo being received.
Questions

12.	Answered by No. 11.
13.	No. For the same reason that Canadian importations are prohibited, namely, the presence of the Colorado beetle in the United States.


GRAIN ELEVATORS
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Who prepared plans for the extension to No. 1 elevator, Vancouver, and what was the engineer's estimate of cost?
2.	Were tenders called for the erection of said extension, and if so, in what manner?
3.	How many firms tendered, and what are the names of such firms or individuals?
4.	What was the amount of the lowest tender?
5.	At what figure was the contract awarded, and to whom ?
6.	What is the total cost to date, based on engineer's approved certificates?
7.	How much has actually been paid to said contractor?
8.	Has contract been completed? If not, what still remains unfinished ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I
would like to make a reference to this question and also to Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 12. In order to answer these five questions, I may say that in the case of the first two the Harbour Commission of Vancouver has to be communicated with; in the case of the second two, the Harbour Commission of Montreal, and in the case of No. 12, the Harbour Commission at Vancouver. If it is the desire of the hon. members who propose these questions to clear the order paper, these could be put down as orders for returns and the answers would be brought down as soon as replies were received. But if hon. members are unwilling to have that done, the questions will have to stand for a little while.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I may be permitted,
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that if these questions are passed as orders for returns -and this applies to other cases than that immediately under the attention of the House -the returns may not be brought down until after the session is concluded. I am not injecting any complaint on that point, but I would suggest that while it may be necessary to communicate with these various harbour commissions, the notice of the questions was given on or about 21st February, and had the communications been immediately sent out, seventeen days should have been ample for the receipt of replies from even the most extreme points.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have a
memorandum in my hand from the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in which he states:
Immediately the questions appeared on the order paper they were forwarded to Vancouver.

And he intimates that the reply has not yet been received.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I thank the Prime Minister for that. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that they stand as questions, and I trust that the government will press these various bodies to hasten their replies.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Questions Nos 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12 stand.


SALES TAX REBATES
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: By a return dated February 21, 1925, to an order of the House dated July 3, 1924, it is shown that as of date October 16, 1924, out of a total number of 4.486 claims for rebates of sales taxes, 1,907 claims had been checked and paid, leaving 2,563 claims outstanding. How many of these outstanding claims have been checked since the date given in the said return, and how much money has been paid thereon?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The information is not yet complete. It is being prepared.
Question stands.


GLASS PRODUCTS
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What was the total value of glass products imported into Canada during the year 1924?
2.	What was the total value of said product exported from Canada during the year 1924?
3.	From what countries are these goods imported?
4.	To what country does Canada export these products ?
5.	Owing to the specially alarming conditions brought
on by the use of machinery to the detriment of the workman in the' glass-work factories, has the government th * intention of altering the tariff during this. session in regard to glass -products imported into Canada ?	*


Hon. Mr. MURPHY (for the Secretary of State):: 1 and 3. Total value of -glass products imported into Canada during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1924, with countries whence received.
Countries whence received Value
United Kingdom	$1,220,857
Hong Kong	 359
N ewfoundland	 6
Austria	 25,061
Belgium	 2,308,166
China	 1,352
Czecho-Slovakia	 122,179
Denmark	 1
France	 64,613
Germany	 430,555
Hungary	 196
Italy	 10,796
Japan,	 38,892

Questions
Countries whence received Value
Netherlands	 184,010
Sweden	 1,206
Switzerland	 11,955
United States	 3,128,670
Total imports for consumption	$7,548,874
2 and 4. Total value of glass products exported from Canada during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1924, with countries to which exported.
Countries to which	Canadian Foreign	
exported	produce	produceUnited Kingdom	169,655	253Africa, British South.. ..	20,834	Bermuda	590	139British East Indies- British India	250	Straits Settlements.. ..	14	British Guiana	3,438	British Honduras	168	British West Indies- Barbados	1,280	Jamaica	15,006	260Trinidad and Tobago..	14,759	Other	2,966	49Hong Kong	40,347	Newfoundland	13,281	856Oceania- Australia	7,153	Fiji	235	New Zealand	60,095	Other	30	Argentine Republic.. ..	912	Belgium	12	Brazil	54	China	1,316	315Colombia	22	Cuba	179	France	5,635	St. Pierre & Miquelon	348	223Germany	18Mexico	24	Peru	75	Portugal- Portuguese Africa.. ..	314	Turkey	102	United States	320,425	301,165Alaska	17	Hawaii	15	Philippinies	10	. . .Total exports	
679,561 303,278
5. Announcement as to tariff changes is made only on the floor of the House by the Minister of Finance.


CANNING MACHINERY
Mr. GRIMMER:: 1.	During May * or June, 1924, was a shipment of canning machinery, for use as equipment in a fruit or berry canning factory in British Columbia, admitted into Canada without duty being paid?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the government to authorize by order in council such duty exemption or the refund of such duty if same has been paid?
3.	During June, 1924, was duty collected from other importers on canning machinery similar to that mentioned in question 1?
4.	If so, is it the intention of the government to make a refund of the duty paid by importers mentioned in question 3?
5.	Has there been discrimination in the manner in which different importers were treated in connection with importation of canning machinery?
6.	If so, what justification, if any, has the government for such discrimination?


Hon. Mr. LOW (for the Minister of Customs) :: This inquiry should be made an order for return as it is necessary for the department to communicate with the ports to ascertain if canning machinery of the class mentioned was imported in June, 1924, and duty collected thereon from other importers, as such machinery is not separately enumerated in the Customs statistical classification but is included in the general item of machinery.


GLACE BAY POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. CHAPLIN:: 1.	When did the postmastership of the town of Glace Bay become vacant ?
2.	Who has been filling this (position and is it
being filled temporarily or has a permanent appointment been made?	t
3. What applications were received by the Civil Service Commission?
4.	Which applicants were returned soldiers?
5. Why has a permanent appointment not been made ?	.
6.	Is it the intention to disregard the applications from returned soldiers possessing the necessary qualifications ?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY (for the Secretary of State):: 1.	4th June, 1924.
2.	Temporarily by J. D. Cameron who was formerly assistant postmaster for twelve years.
3.	Joseph Robert Burchell, Charles Felix Gallant, Joseph James Gillis, Alexander Mc-Dougall, William Ogilvie McKinlay, John Duncan Cameron, Hugh Lynk, Peter A. McDonald, Peter McIntyre, Marceline Poirier, Charles Severn, Mrs. Ada Walker.
4.	Joseph Robert Burchell, Charles Felix Gallant, Joseph James Gillis, Alexander Mc-Dougall, William Ogilvie McKinlay.
5.	Because of financial losses sustained by the department in the Glace Bay post office and the valuable services rendered by acting postmaster Cameron in readjusting the local administration of the post office, the department and the commission have deemed it
Questions

advisable to make careful inquiries regarding the character and suitability of the various applicants for the reason that Glace Bay post office is a revenue office where the postmaster engages and pays his own staff. If the latter are not skilled in post office knowledge and experience they will be of little assistance to a postmaster not familiar with post office regulations. As soon as the inquiries in question have been completed the case will be referred for action by the Civil Service Commission.
6.	No.
GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES-MONTREAL Mr. DENIS (St. Denis):
What properties, vacant or otherwise, are owned by the federal government in the city of Montreal, and where are they located ?


Charles Murphy: Department of Marine and Fisheries-
All the properties under the administration of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal are owned by His Majesty in the right of the Dominion government, and are located on the harbour front from a point just below the Victoria bridge to Bout de 1'isle,-not including the Lachine canal basin.
Department of National Defence-Militia Service-
Drill Hall, Craig street, site owned by city leased to federal government; Drill Hall, Bleury street, Royal Highlanders; Drill Hall, Pine avenue and Henry Julien st., 65th Regiment; Drill Hall, 578 Wellington st., 4th Field Company; Drill Hall, Esplanada ave., and Rachel st., Grenadier Guards; Lafontaine Park, Sherbrooke and Lafontaine sts., leased to city of Montreal; Isle aux Fraises, St. Lawrence river, vacant; Champ de Mars, Craig and St. Gabriel sts., leased to city of Montreal; Military Cemetery, Papineau ave., Cemetery Plots, Notre dame des Neiges cemetery; Cemetery Plots, Mount Royal cemetery.
Department of Public Works-
Post Office, General, St. James and St. Francois Xavier sts.
Postal Station "A", 571 St. James st.
Postal Station "B", 324 St. Catherine West.
Postal Station "C", St. Catherine Corner Plessis.
Postal Station "D", 317 Centre.
Postal Station "E", 1832 St. Lawrence boulevard.
Postal Station "F", Notre Dame and Richmond sts.

Postal Station "G", Pine avenue and Arcade st.
Postal Station "H", St. Catherine and Bishop.
Postal Station "S", 222 Monk boulevard.
St. Henri, 12 Place st.
Hochelaga, 1606 St. Catherine st. E.
Old Custom House, Common and Commissioner sts.
Old Examining Warehouse, Common and McGill sts.
New Customs Examining Warehouse, McGill and Youville sts.
Customs Canal Office, Lock No. 2 Lachine canal.
Immigration Detention Hospital, St. Antoine st., near Windsor.
Public Works Building, St. Paul st., and Place Royale.
Drill Hall, Craig st., opposite Champs de Mars.
Vacant-
Pneumatic Station, St. James st., St. Felix st. and Imperial avenue.
Postal "R", St. Denis near Beaubien.
Maisonneuve, Ontario st., near market square.
Adjoining Municipalities-
Westmount Postal "L", Green and Western avenue.	[DOT]
Westmount Ordnance Stores, 1 Hillside avenue.
Westmount (vacant), Sherbrooke andStrath-cona ave.
St. Laurent Postal "O", d'Eglise st.
Verdun Postal Station, Church st., near Verdun st., (now being erected).
Lachine Postal Station, 384 St. Joseph st.
Department of Railways and Canals-
The land owned by the Department of Railways and Canals in the city of Montreal consists of the right of way of the Lachine Canal. This is located between the city limits and Montreal harbour. From the city limits to the Canadian Pacific Railway swing bridge, the right of way is about 450 feet wide; from the Canadian Pacific Railway swing bridge to the Canadian National Turcot yard, the width is about 600 feet; from Turcot yard to Cote St. Paul the width varies from 450 to 300 feet; from Cote St. Paul to St. Gabriel lock, the width is about 300 feet, and between St. Gabriel lock and the mouth of the canal there is considerable extra land for basins. Practically all of the land that is not required for canal purposes is under lease to industries or shippers dependent on the canal.

Questions


RECEIPT AND CHECK TAX-REVENUE
Mr. McTAGGART:: What was the total revenue in the year 1924 from the sale of stamps on receipts and checks?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (for the Minister of Customs and Excise):: It is not possible
to state the revenue from the sale of excise tax stamps for use on receipts and checks, as such stamps are also used on money orders, notes, bills of exchange, bank drafts and overdrafts, stock certificates and bonds.
The total revenue derived from the sale of excise tax stamps during 1924 was $9,300,714,73.


FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL TAXATION
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has anything been done by the government to meet the Ontario government and co-ordinate federal and provincial taxation to prevent duplication and overlapping, on income, amusement and other forms of taxation, since last session?
2.	If so, what action has been taken?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to this question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask for your ruling as to whether it is a proper question for the government to reply to.


George Newcombe Gordon: Let it stand.
I would like to consider that matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the
right hon. the Prime Minister would indicate wherein that question is wrong.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know what my hon. friend means by "has anything been done by the government to meet the Ontario government?"


Henry Lumley Drayton: To get together. It was the policy of the government before.


Arthur Meighen: I understand there was
a conference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has been a conference, yes.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose a full report
of the results of the conference would be necessary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well.


RURAL CREDIT SYSTEM
Mr. JELLIFF:: In pursuance of the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce concurred in July 18, 1924, recommending that legislation for the establishment of a rural credit system be prepared and submitted to parliament at this session, will the government submit such legislation to parliament during this session?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This matter is under consideration.


GOVERNMENT MOTOR CARS
Mr. SIMPSON:: 1.	How manj' passenger motor cars have been purchased by the government, for use in the district immediately surrounding the city of Ottawa, and including the city, since January 1, 1922?
2.. What is the total amount expended for the purchase of passenger motor cars since January 1, 1922?
3.	How many chauffeurs are in the employ of the government, at the present time, in the city of Ottawa and immediate district?
4.	What is the total amount of salary paid to the said chauffeurs during the present fiscal year to date?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The information requested by this is similar to the information asked! for in a notice of motion for production of papers by the same hon. member. There would be no abjection to giving the information asked for in the form of a return, and I think that would answer the question.


George Newcombe Gordon: Dropped.


Arthur Meighen: That question cannot be dropped without the consent of the hon. member. The question is not out of order because the information is asked for in a return.


George Newcombe Gordon: There cannot
be a return also.


Arthur Meighen: Why can't there?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit it is in the province of the government to determine whether a question should be answered in the form of a return or by direct reply. This same information is being asked for by the hon. member in motion No. 9 on page 17. We are quite prepared to bring down the return.


George Newcombe Gordon: Answered.


Mr. SIMPSON:: This question refers to
passenger motor cars, whereas the motion for a return refers to all motor cars.


Mr. GRAHAM:: The return would include
both.
Mr. SIMPSlON:	If the information is
given separately in the return, there would be no trouble.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That would
be done.


BLACKFOOT INDIAN RESERVE-WHEAT
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What was the total quantity of wheat raised by the Indians on the Blackfoot Indian Reserve in Alberta during 1923 and 1924?
2.	How much of this wheat has been marketed?
3.	What was the average price received in each year?
4.	Was this wheat delivered to the Alberta Co-operative Wheat Producers? If not, to whom was it sold?
Questions


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	1923, 136,114 bushels; 1924, 60,756 bushels.
2.	Of this quantity all grain was marketed except that held for seed by Indians.
3.	Average price received: 1923, 76 cents per bushel; 1924, $1.32 per bushel.
4.	No grain was delivered to the Alberta Co-operative Wheat Producers; Grain sold to Alberta Pacific Grain Company, Parrish and Heimbecker National Elevator Co., N. Bawlf Grain Company.


MERCHANDISE IMPORTATIONS
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What was total amount of merchandise imported into Canada from England during years 1923 and 1924 respectively?
2.	How much of said merchandise entered Canada through Canadian ports and how much through American ports during the years 1923 and 1924 respectively?


Thomas Andrew Low: 1 and 2. Statistics of trade with "England" are not separately compiled. The term "United Kingdom" includes the whole of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1923 and 1924. Statistics of imports therefrom are as follows:
Fiscal Years ended March 31 1923	1924
Total Imports (merchandise) into Canada from United
Kingdom	$141,330,143 $153,586,690
Imports through
United States.. ..	2,914,881	932,224
Imports direct to
Canadian ports.. 138,415,262	152,654,466


PUBLIC DEBT
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What was the amount of the public debt of Canada on March 31, 1914?
2.	What was the said debt on the following dates: March 31, 1918; March 31, 1921; March 31, 1922; March 31, 1924?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (for the Minister of Finance):: 1.	March 31, 1914, $335,996,850.14.
2.	March 31, 1918, $1,191,884,062.50; 1921, $2,340,878,983.69; 1922, $2,422,135,801.73; 1924, $2,417,783,274.88.


ONTARIO AMUSEMENT TAX
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the government, or the Acting Minister of Finance, look into the validity of a certain war tax imposed during the war by the Ontario government and called an amusement tax. and since continued?

2.	Does said tax not invade the federal field under "Militia and Defence," and is not said tax a restraint of trade and commerce, and contra to the terms and conditions on which the province receives a federal subsidy to aid maintaining provincial institutions?
3.	Are not such forms of direct taxation an invasion of the federal field?
4.	What is the policy of the government, if any, as a matter of policy to safeguard federal authority in such matter ?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1,	2, 3 and 4. Such matters are considered by the government in due course as they arise.


ONTARIO GASOLINE TAX
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the government, or the Acting Minister of
Finance look into the question of the validity of legislation of the province of Ontario to tax gasoline three cents per gallon, and as to whether said tax does not invade the federal field, and also whether said tax is ultra vires of the province on the following and on other grounds: (a) That it is a restraint of trade and commerce;	(b) The said tax affects the body
politic, and could only be imposed by federal authority as defined in the judgment of the Privy Council in what is known as the "Through Traffic Case"; (c) It is a direct tax and not an indirect tax within the province, and is a tax outside the scope of the subjects set out in section 92 of the B.N.A. Act (1867); (d) It affects "works and undertakings" declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, and proposes to restrain the conduct of these works and undertakings; (e) The said tax is ultra vires of the province under the acts, contracts and agreements by which the federal government granted the province of Ontario federal aid to highways, and on other grounds?
2.	What action, if any, is taken by federal authority to prevent encroachment as aforesaid of the federal field by the provinces in taxation matters?


Ernest Lapointe: 1 and 2. The matter will receive consideration in due course.


MOTT'S WHARF, N.B.
Mr. JONES:: 1.	What was the total cost of the Mott's wharf, parish of Cambridge, Queens county, New Brunswick?
2.	Were tenders called for the erection of said wharf?
3.	Who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded?
5.	If work was done by day labour, who was superintendent, and how much time did he work, and what rate of pay did he receive?
6.	How many labourers were engaged on the work, what are their names and what amount did each receive ?
7.	What material was used, who supplied same, and what was the cost?
Hon.	Mr. KING (Kootenay):	The
wharf referred to was built by the government of the province of New Brunswick, and this department has no record as to its cost and how constructed. This was one of the wharves transferred to the Dominion government by the provincial government.

Questions
REV. FATHER MacDONNELL


Mr. BOWEN:: 1.	Is the Rev. Father MacDonnell, of the Scottish Immigration Aid Society, an official representative or agent of the federal Immigration department?
2.	If so, when was he appointed as such?
3.	What salary does he draw?
4.	How much, if any, has the federal government advanced to him, or to the Scottish Immigration Aid Society, for immigration work, from January 1, 1922, to January 31, 1925?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (for the Minister of Immigration):: 1.	Yes, in connection with immigration to Canada from Scotland.
2.	First engaged in May 1921 but not continuously in the service of the department since that time.
3.	$150 per month plus actual living and travelling expenses.
4.	To Rev. Andrew MacDonnell

1922-	23 .. ..$1,943 53 (travelling expenses)
1923-	24 .... 1,472 96 (salary and expenses)
*1924-25 . .. 3,740 50 (salary and expenses)
Total	$7,156 99
To Scottish Immigration Aid Society-
1922-	23 .. . .$1,000 00
1923-	24 .. .. 4,000 00
1924-	25 .... 8,300 00 (To Jan. 31).
Total... $13,300 00


GOVERNMENT ELEVATOR SCREENINGS
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Under what terms and conditions are screenings disposed of at the Dominion government elevators at Calgary and Edmonton?


Thomas Andrew Low: The majority of the screenings from grain received at the Canadian government elevators at Calgary and Edmonton are not the property of the elevator as they are removed from wheat carrying a dockage amounting to 3 per cent or over, and coarse grains 5 per cent or over, and, therefore, belong to the owners of the grain. Warehouse receipts are issued for these screenings and the screenings are shipped upon instructions of the owners and the surrender of the warehouse receipts. The elevators have absolutely no control over the disposition of these screenings.
In the case of screenings which accrue to the elevator in lieu of cleaning charges, that is, screenings from Wheat carrying less than 3 per cent dockage and coarse grains carrying less than 5 per cent dockage, they are practically all disposed of to stock feeders in the two cities named at current market prices.
No contracts or agreements are entered into for the sale of these screenings. They are sold whenever available to any parties desirous of purchasing, preference being given to farmers and stock feeders.


POTATO IMPORTATIONS
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Through which ports of entry were potatoes admitted into Canada during the year 1924?
2.	What quantities were admitted at each port?


William Richard Motherwell: 1 and 2. Quantities of potatoes imported and entered for consumption at each port in Canada during the fiscal year ended March 31st, 1924.
Port	Pounds
Nova Scotia:
Halifax	 22,540
Liverpool	 3,000
New Glasgow	 4,440
Sydney	 7,900
Yarmouth,	 5,300
New Brunswick:
St. Andrews	 5,180
St. John	 3,300
Woodstock	 48,680
Prince Edward Island:
Charlottetown	 400
Quebec:
Athelstan	 1,430
Beebe Junction	 1,000
Montreal	 4,703,300
Quebec	   39,960
St. John's	  6,135
Sherbrooke	 166,563
Ontario:
Amherstburg	 39,060
Brantford	 257,910
Bridgeburg	 365.635
Brockville	 23,080
Chatham	 134,325
Cornwall	 600
Fort Frances	 92,855
Fort-William	 12,020
Guelph	 34,000
Hamilton	 813,565
Kenora	 500
Kingston	 66,000
Kitchener	 32,670
London	 453,900
Niagara Falls	 489,565
North Bay	 227,703
Ottawa	 1,026,090
Owen Sound	 59,600
Port Arthur	 39,910
Prescott	 11,370
St. Catharines	 63.000
St. Thomas	 81,750
Questions

Port	Pounds
Ontario-Concluded
Sarnia	 117,050
Sault Ste. Marie	 166,477
Sudbury	 84,780
Toronto	 8,582,907
Wallaceburg	 18,700
Whitby	 1,300
Windsor	 1,665,340
Manitoba:
Emerson	 15,900
Gretna	 9,000
Winnipeg	 1,144,685
Saskatchewan:
Moose Jaw	 3,033
Regina	 2,500
Saskatoon	 2,400
Alberta:
Calgary	 55,432
Lethbridge	 1,200
British Columbia:
Abbotsford	 5,000
Cranbrook	 2,951
Fernie	 14,443
Nanaimo	 180
Nelson	 75,140
New Westminster	 151,000
Penticton	 1,140
Prince Rupert	 5,740
Revelstoke	 42,268
Rossland	 33,220
Vancouver	 3,015,716
Victoria	 51,977
Yukon:
Dawson	 150,736
White Horse	 103,525


CANADA-UNITED STATES FISH SHIPMENTS
Mr. HANSON:: Is it the intention of the government to restore the so-called Modus Vivendi whereby United States fishermen were permitted to land their catches at Canadian ports and ship them into the United States free of duty, und were also permitted to outfit and bait at Canadian ports?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: The intention of the government in this regard will be made known in due time. Meantime t'he present arrangement will be adhered to.


DOMINION IMMIGRATION CONFERENCE
Mr. CARROLL:: What are the names of the delegates from the Maritime provinces who attended the Immigration Conference held in Ottawa during November, 1923, and what amount was paid to each by the Department of Immigration and Colonization, as expenses?


Charles A. Stewart: Nova Scotia-Hon. D. A. Cameron & W. B. McCoy, $265.00.

New Brunswick-Hon. David Mersereau, $72.45; Hon. J. E. Michaud, $75.00.
Prince Edward Island-Hon. John Myers, $86.05.


TAX FREE BONDS
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What is the total value of tax-free bonds maturing on or before December 1, 1925?
2.	What is the total value of all bonds for which the government is responsible, maturing on or before December 1, 1925?
3.	How does the government propose to meet this indebtedness ?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (for the Minister of Finance):: 1.	$42,014,500.
2.	Including short-term obligations, $164,347,833.
3.	This is a matter of financing concerning which the Acting Minister of Finance is not in a position at this date to make any statement.


OIL DRILLING MACHINERY IMPORTATION
Mr. WILSON:: 1.	What amount of oil well drilling machinery was imported into Canada during the years 1922, 1923 and 1924?
2.	From what countries were the importations made?
3.	What duties, if any, were collected?


Hon. Mr. LOW (for the Minister of Customs and Excise):: 1. & 2. Imports entered for consumption in Canada during the fiscal years ended March, 1922, 1923 and 1924 of "Well drilling machinery and parts and apparatus of a class or kind not made in Canada, drawn or seamless iron or steel, tubing over four inches in diameter for drilling for water, natural gas or oil, and for prospecting for minerals, not
to include motive	power." Fiscal	Fiscal	Fiscalyear	year	year1922	1923	1924United Kingdom .	.. $ -	$ -	$ 1,146Newfoundland ..	.. 180	-	-United States ..	.. 47,503	45,052	62,662T otal	.. 47,683	45,052	63,808
Other well drilling machinery is not separately enumerated in the Customs Classification of Imports but is included in the general classification of machinery. No information respecting duty paid on oil; well drilling machinery is included in this classification.
3. The imports shown above were free of duty.

Questions


IMMIGRATION EXPENDITURE
Mr. KELLNER:: What amount of money did the government spend in 1924 in assisting immigration, (a) in regard to assisted railway or ocean fares; (b) for assistance in land settlement; (c) for assistance in keep of immigrants ?
Hon. Mr. STEWART (for the Minister of
Immigration):
(a)	8290,392.58 advanced under Empire Settlement Act and to be repaid to the department by those who received assisted passage.
(b)	No expenditures.
(c)	The following grants for 1924 were made to organizations receiving and maintaining immigrants, pending their placement
in situations,-
Calgary Hostel	$	600 00Halifax Hostel	
350	00Regina Hostel	
750	00St. John Hosted	
500	00Toronto Hostel	
500	00Vancouver Hostel	
250	00Winnipeg Hostel	
750	00Montreal Hostel	
3,500	00
Scottish Immigration Aid
Society	 8,300	00
Total	 $15,500 00
The grant to the Scottish Immigration Aid Society is made in connnection with its farm at Red Deer, Alta., where new arrivals from Scotland are received and maintained until employment is secured for them, or until they become established on farms for themselves. The sum paid to the society in 1924 included $1,500.00, balance of appropriation for the fiscal year 1923-24.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT LANDS-REVALUATION
Hon. Mr. MANION:: Is it the intention of the government at this session of parliament to make a revaluation upon the lands given out in past years to soldier settlers by the Soldier Settlement Board?


Charles A. Stewart: The m'atter is now receiving consideration.


LAND SETTLEMENT-IMMIGRANTS
Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	How many immigrants were brought to Canada in the year 1924 as a result of the services of the Land Settlement Board?
2.	Of such immigrants, how many were actually employed on farms ?
3.	Howt many of these immigrants have remained on farms for a period of (a) 6 months; (b) 3 months?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL (for the Minister of Immigration):: 1. The Land Settlement branch has not been engaged in the actual work of bringing immigrants to Canada but. under a reorganization of the Department of Immigration and Colonization, the duties of the Land: Settlement branch have been extended to include the work of assisting in the settlement of incoming immigrants.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN


Mr. HUDSON:: 1.	How many tons of grain did the Canadian Pacific railway haul to Fort William and Port Arthur during the calendar year 1924?
2.	What was the number of ton miles?
3.	What was the rate per ton mile?
4.	What was the average haul?
5.	How many tons of grain did the Canadian Pacific railway haul to Vancouver in the calendar year 1924?
6.	What was the number of ton miles?
7.	What was the rate per ton mile?
8.	What was the average haul?
9.	What was the total percentage of grain hauled in western territory to the entire revenue tonnage of that territory in 1924?
10.	What percentage of the total ton miles in the western territory in 1924 did grain produce?
11.	What was the percentage of the total freight revenue carried in western territory in 1924 by the carriage of grain?


CANADIAN NATIONAL-GRAIN SHIPMENTS
Mr. HUDSON:: 1.	How many tons of grain did the Canadian National railways haul to Fort William and Port Arthur during the calendar year 1924?
2.	What was the number of ton miles?
3.	What was the rate per ton mile?
4.	What was the average haul?
5.	How many tons of grain did the Canadian National railways haul to Vancouver in the calendar year 1924?
6.	What was the number of ton miles?
7.	What was the rate per ton mile?
8.	What was the average haul?
9.	What was the total percentage of grain hauled in western territory to the entire revenue tonnage of that territory in 1924?
10.	What percentage of the total ton miles in the western territory in 1924 did grain produce?
11.	What was the percentage of the total freight revenue carried in western territory in 1924 by the carriage of grain?



IMPORTATION OF FARM PRODUCTS

Mr. DOUCET:: What were the importations into Canada from United States and from other countries, respectively, during	the	year 1924,	of the following	farm products:	(a)	live cattle;	(b) horses; (c)	sheep; (d)fresh fruits; (e) dried	fruits; (f) grain;	(g) meats,including beef and pork products; (h) dairy products;	(i)	seeds; (j)	potatoes, turnips	and sugar
beets; (k) eggs; (1) wool; (m) all other farm products not enumerated above?



INCOME TAX OFFICES

Hon. Mr. MANION:: 1. How many Dominion government taxation offices for collection of income taxes are there in Canada?

Unopposed Motions for Papers
2 Where are they situated?
3.	What is the amount of income taxes collected in each such office?



ROYAL COMMISSIONS

Mr. FORRESTER:: 1.	How many Royal commissions were appointed by the federal government from November 1, 1911, to December 31, 1921?
2.	What was their personnel?
3.	What was the cost of each?



RAW SUGAR

Mr. WALLACE:: 1.	From what countries was raw sugar imported into Canada, and how much from each, during the years 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924?
2.	What was	the	aggregate amount of customs dutiespaid thereon	(a)	under	the general	tariff	and	(b)
under the preferential tariff?
3.	From what countries was refined sugar imported into Canada and how much from each, during the above-mentioned years?
4.	What was the aggregate amount of customs duties
paid thereon	(a)	under	the general	tariff	and	(b)
under the preferential tariff?


Mr. WALLACE:: During the	fiscal years	1920, 1921,	1922,	1923	and
1924, what drawbacks of duties on raw sugar were paid in respect of (a) sugar exported; and (b) sugar consumed in Canada?
UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS SPILLERS ELEVATOR Mr. BLACK (Yukon):
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, documents and correspondence, between January 1, 1922 and February 25, 1924, between R. H. Gale and any minister or official of the Dominion government; and, between R. H. Gale and the Vancouver Harbour Commission, and between Vancouver Harbour Commissioners and any minister or official of the Dominion government; and, between any representative of the Spillers interests and the Harbour Commissioners, and, or any minister of the Crown and official of the government, regarding the negotiations for lease or sale of certain waterfront property in the Vancouver harbour, upon which is now' erected what is known as the Spillers elevator, and which property lies immediately east of the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners elevator No. 1. Also, copy of any letters, agreements, schedules of fees, assignments, transfers, and other documents appertaining thereto.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SUDBURY RENTALS

Mr. LAPIERRE:: For a copy of all correspondence, documents and communications exchanged between the officials of the Canadian National Railways and the owners of the Sudbury Star building, Sudbury, Ontario, relating to the rental of offices in Sudbury.



MRS. PIERRE F. BOUDREAU

Alexandre Joseph Doucet: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents received by the Post Office department, relating to the dismissal of Mrs. Pierre F. Boudreau, as Postmistress of Inkerman, Gloucester county, New Brunswick, and the appointment of the present postmaster.



GRAND ETANG PIER

William Anderson Black: For a copy of all correspondence, vouchers, paylists, and other documents, in connection with repairs effected to the piers at Grand Etang, Inverness county, Nova Scotia, during the fiscal years 1922-23 and 1923-24.
ADAMgVILLE-BEERSVILLE SERVICE


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents received by the Post Office department since January 1, 1924, with reference to giving a direct mail service between Adamsville and Beersville, in the county of Kent, New Brunswick.



DESPRES VILLAGE-POST OFFICE

Alexandre Joseph Doucet: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents received by the Post Office department during the year 1924, relating to the reopening of a post office at Despres Road or Despres Village, Kent county, New Brunswick.



YUKON GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS- INCOME TAX EXEMPTION

Mr. BLACK (Yukon) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, documents, statements and communications concerning exemption or partial exemption from payment of income tax on payments or remuneration, whether paid as salary, living allowance or otherwise, by the government of Canada to officials of Yukon Territory, and showing what exemptions (if any) from income tax have been allowed to Yukon officials on amounts paid them by the government of Canada during the past seven years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think there is no objection to bringing down any of the papers called for other than such as may properly be regarded as confidential.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. CHAPLIN (for Mr. Hanson) moved:: For a return showing by districts or regions the number of employees in each of the following classes and the average annual compensation for each employee of such class of the Canadian National Railways:-receiving under $1,000 per year; receiving $1,000 per	year	or	over	but	under	$2,000;	receiving	$2,000per	year	or	over	but	under	$3,000;	receiving	$3,000per	year	or	over	but	under	$4,000;	receiving	$4,000per	year	or	over but under $5,000; and so on until
all classes are complete.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member I think is not in his seat. When this was up the other day I suggested that it should be put under the notices of motion without the star, that is, under Notices of Motion. The hon. member suggested that he would talk to me about it before anything was done. It is possible this may be dropped, but I would hate to take any action in his absence.
Motion stands.

The Senate



GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF MOTOR CARS

Thomas Edward Simpson: For a return showing the number of motor cars purchased by the government, since January 1, 1922, the make of said cars, the total price paid for each, the date of purchase, to what duty assigned or by whom used, the total amount of gasoline purchased. Also showing the number of buildings in which the said motor cars are housed, showing when owned by the government, date purchased and at what price, and when rented, what rental and when leased. Also showing the number of employees engaged in the care and upkeep of said motor cars, and the total amount spent on repairs to these cars, since January 1, 1922.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have already intimated that we will be prepared to give the information asked for. I should like, however, to amend this resolution so as to furnish the House with a little more information than is sought. The motion asks for information with respect to oars purchased since January 1, 1922. I would suggest that the motion be changed so as to apply to purchases made since January 1, 1912.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister will indicate in each case the oar purchased for ministers and not in relation to officials with respect to war service.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Senate as at present appointed and constituted is not of the greatest advantage to Canada.
He said': Mr. Speaker, I make no apology in proposing this resolution. I realize fully that many experienced parliamentarians will look askance at, perhaps resent, the huimble effort of one so unexperienced as myself in proposing this problem for the consideration of the House. But I think my defence, and an ample one, is to be found in the fact that public opinion has pressed this long standing question to the very gates of parliament itself; and if, perchance, as & result of the discussion of this resolution the subject of Senate reform is pushed just a little bit closer toward a satisfactory solution, then I shall! indeed hive had ample compensation. I am not unmindful either that a similar resolution, perhaps similarly worded, might, with some justification, 'be introduced by an energetic member of the other chamber and having special
application to this House, because in what I have to say with regard to whatever shortcomings there are, in my humble judgment, in connection with the operation and constitution of the Senate, I do not forget that this chamber likewise has some shortcomings.
In preparing a resolution of this character two courses presented themselves to my mind: First, I could have prepared in definite form my own convictions of the proper method to take to effect Senate reformation. I have, however, to some extent profited by the experience of the past in that regard, because similar definite resolutions, presented not only in this House but in the other chamber, have been fruitless of results. The second method is the one which I have adopted-the method of proposing a resolution which allowing the greatest latitude for discussion, and the fullest opportunity for the presentation of any plans of reformation, yet does give this House the opportunity, if it so desires, to express what it has never done before-its opinion as to whether or not it is satisfied with the constitution of the Senate as it at present exists. May I say that a further consideration moved me to some extent, and that was by reason of what I had anticipated would be the course taken by the government, in the statements at least of the Prime Minister, of an intention to introduce some measure of Senate reform. I anticipated that government action would be initiated by calling a provincial conference-that would be the initial step in the programme,-and it occurred to me that perhaps the provincial conference foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne would inquire as to what the attitude of this House was-whether or not we are satisfied- and, further, it occurred to me that the best thing to do would be to take this first step- to ascertain whether or not the House of Commons is satisfied with the Senate as at present constituted. May I say also at the outset, that to my mind no question requires a clearer insight into our constitution, no question calls for a clearer analysis of our institutions, and certainly none should command in larger measure moderation in statement and in presentation.
When one thinks of the genesis of our parliamentary institutions in Canada we immediately thrust our minds back to the British North America Act, because that is, at least, the statutory enactment which provides for this parliament. The British North America Act of 1867 provided for a parliament composed of two bodies; the Commons, the lower chamber, elected by popular vote; the Senate, the upper house, nominated for life by the
The Senate
[Stage Direction]
Governor General in Council. So far as the British North America Act is concerned there
is only one provision which in any way limits the power of the Senate, and that is a provision which declares that money bills shall originate in the House of Commons. Therefore, I think one is legally correct in stating that the powers of the Senate and the powers of the House of Commons are not only coequal but co-extensive, with the single exception that I have mentioned.
Now, in framing the constitution which we have to-day what motives animated the Fathers of Confederation, what models had they before them, if any, to copy? There were two possible schemes for confederation: One was a legislative union, the other was a federal union. I think some of the Fathers of Confederation would have preferred a legislative union, but they were animated by the example and guided by the model which was furnished to them by our great neighbours to the south. Many of them, including Sir John A. Macdonald, frankly confessed their admiration of that constitution. They had not only the constitution itself before them, but they had the benefit of the long experience the people of the United States had had with that constitution. They observed how that constitution had served at a time when the population of the United States was less than two million people, when its inhabited area amounted to something like one hundred thousand square miles. They had observed how that constitution had fitted the desires and ambitions of that great country, even at the time when its population had increased to something over thirty-five million and its inhabited area extended to almost three million square miles. In addition to that they had observed the great political, economic and social changes which had taken place during that experiment in legislation, and they had undoubtedly admired the pliability of the constitution to meet these changing and changed conditions. Moreover, they had before them the experience of that constitution, under period of the greatest stress, the period of the American Civil War, and they had observed too that even states whioh desired to secede from the union had adopted for their confederacy a scheme almost identical with that embodied in the federal constitution. So it was not unnatural, with conditions not altogether dissimilar, that the Fathers of Confederation should have looked with admiring eyes and adopted as far as practicable the principles embodied in the American constitution.
But you will at once say "Why dad they not adopt the elective principle as applicable

to the second chamber, that principle being adopted in the American constitution?" I need not remind the House that at the time of confederation some of the confederating provinces had elective legislative councils. The Maritime provinces had not. It was I think largely as a matter of compromise that the nominative life principle was adopted. There was much criticism of it. I remember very well reading about objections raised by such statesmen as Sir Oliver Mowat to the adoption of the nominative life principle, and I remember very well too that some of those who gave their assent to that principle subsequently recanted, and I include in this number Hon. George Brown and Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, subsequently Prime Minister of this country. Both those distinguished gentlemen subsequently recanted their allegiance to the nominative life principle and therefore I say that the adoption of the nom-4 p.m. inative life principle for our Senate came largely as the result of compromise. I do not think that it was considered such a serious matter, and many who were engaged in that important enterprise of drafting a constitution for this country were forced to give way on this principle in order to secure harmony on other more important
principles.
That being so, the United States model being the one we adopted, paying however due allegiance to the monarchical system of government, what, I ask you, might reasonably be expected of a Senate, and what duties might it reasonably be called upon to perform? What was expected of the United States Senate? In that connection, let me quote the words of the chief architect of the United States constitution, Alexander Hamilton, showing what he anticipated would be the purpose of the Senate and what duties it should be called upon to perform. He said:
First. It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it, may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. I will barely remark, that, as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government.

The Senate
Second. The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies, to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations. But a position that will not be contradicted, need not be proved. All that need be remarked, is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity, ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought moreover to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration.
Third. Another defect to be supplied by a senate, lies in a want of due acquaintance with the objects and principles of legislation. It is not possible that an assembly of men, called for the most part, from pursuits of a private nature, continued in appointment for a short time, and led by no permanent motive to devote the intervals of public occupation to a study of the laws, the affairs, and the comprehensive interests of their country, should, if left wholly to themselves, escape a variety of important errors in the exercise of their legislative trust.
In amplifying this third point he mentions one or two 'things which have frequently been quoted, and1 which I desire to quote now. He said:
A good government implies two things; first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained. Some governments are deficient in both these qualities: Most governments are deficient in the first. I scruple not to assert, that, in the American governments, too little attention has been paid to the last. The federal constitution avoids this error; and what merits particular notice, it provides for the last in a mode which increases the security for the first.
The fourth purpose which Alexander Hamilton says the Senate serves is as follows:
Fourth. The mutability in the public councils, arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the states, is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence, and every prospect of success.
The fifth purpose he gave as folfows:
A fifth desideratum, illustrating the utility of a senate, is the want of a due sense of national character. Without a select and stable member of the government, the esteem of foreign powers will not only be forfeited by an unenlightened and variable policy, proceeding from the causes already mentioned; but the national councils will not possess that sensibility to the opinion of the world, which is perhaps not less necessary in order to merit, than it is to obtain, its respect and confidence.
And finally as a sixth reason for the Senate, he paints out the want in some important cases of a due responsibility in the government to the people, arising from that frequency of elections, which in other cases produces this responsibility. He proceeds:
The remark will, perhaps, appear not only new, but paradoxical. It must nevertheless be acknowledged, when explained, to be as undeniable as it is important.
Responsibility, in order to be reasonable, must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party; and in order to be effectual, must relate to operations of that power, of which a ready and proper judgment can be formed by the constituents. The objects of government may be divided into two general classes; the one depending on measures, which have singly an immediate and sensible operation, the other depending on a succession of well chosen and well connected measures, which have a gradual and perhaps unobserved operation.
It is -unnecessary to point out the significance of the sixth purpose enunciated' by the distinguished author. Shortly, as I understand the chief purpose of the Senate, it is to put a check upon democratic intensity, if I may use that term. It purposes to set against the caution and experience of age the inexperience and the zeal of youth. I have considerable sympathy with these purposes, but I think sometimes that we may forget that since these principles have been written a hundred years of history have also been written, and I am not so sure now that, instead of trying to curtail democratic intensity, we might more properly be engaged in this case in trying to curtail reaction. In our day the reactionary has full and complete opportunity for his activities, whereas the man who seeks even the slightest measure of reform finds himself opposed by all kinds of checks and balances. After all, however, these checks and balances, I take it, cannot stem the tide. It may be well, that the tide of democracy should be somewhat delayed, but it must move on. There is another and important consideration pointed out by Hamilton in another place in his work, which is essential in a federal system of government and which gives special significance to a second chamber, namely, the necessity of preserving unimpaired and intact the sovereignty remaining in the states or local divisions and the necessity of preserving the established rights of sections and minorities. These things are fundamental in a federal system, and their preservation is the especial obligation of a Senate, these its special task.
Having these various principles in mind, I want to deal now shortly with the Canadian Senate, and I think that probably I shall be on ground which is not objectionable, at any rate to any great extent. What defects are there in the Senate as it is at present constituted and as it operates at the present time? In how far does it diverge from the original principles which brought it into being? These are questions which I shall now address to the House. First of all, I desire to indicate what I regard as the defects of constitution, if I may
[Stage Direction]
The Senate
[Stage Direction]
use that term. In my judgment there are at least three. The appointment of the Senate by the central authority, the Governor General in Council, is absolutely inconsistent with the federal system of government. The members of that body are appointed by the Governor General in Council supposedly for the purpose of conserving provincial rights and sectional interests. But they are not responsible to the people of those sections or provinces; they are not responsible to the provincial legislatures. Neither the people nor the legislature in any province have any right whatsoever in the appointment of the particular individuals who are supposed, theoretically at least, to conserve their special interests. I say therefore that the appointment by the Governor General in Council of the individuals who constitute the Senate is thoroughly inconsistent with the federal system of government. There is nothing new in that observation, for I would call the attention of the House to the fact that as long ago as 1874 the Hon. David Mills, afterwards Minister of Justice under Sir Wilfrid Laurier's regime, brought in a resolution based on that very inconsistency and asked the House to go into committee of the Whole to consider his remedial proposals. The House, by a vote of 77 to 74, concurred in his view and went into committee of the Whole; but so far as the records show, no further action was taken. That is the first point with regard to the Senate.
Let me ask at. this juncture whether in aE its history, in all the story of its life from eonfedteration up to the present day, anyone can indicate any case in which the Senate has stood1 for the protection of provincial rights, for the protection of sectional interests, for the protection of minority rights? I know of no such ease myself, although I admit that I am liable to err. I have examined! with care a book written by one of the chief proponents of the Senate as it is at present constituted, and from cover to cover of that book I have been unable to find a single instance in which the Senate has in any special way shown a desire to carry out the fundamental purpose for which it was created. And' surely there have been ample opportunities for the exercise of that prerogative. Surely no one as he sees this Dominion to-day would admit for a moment that there has not been ample opportunity to have prevented, or at least allayed, this sectional discord1 which is characteristic of almost all parts of the country. Surely there have been ample opportunities to conserve provincial rights. I recall that Sir Oliver Mowat had a very prolonged struggle with the government of Sir John A.
[Mr. Shaw.J
Macdonald in his effort to conserve the rights of the province of Ontario.
The next objection I have to the constitution of the Senate is that the appointment for life is undemocratic. I need' only mention that point to convince hon. gentlemen of its truth. But the difficulty is-I will put it no stronger-that appointment for life is apt to make the occupants of that chamber lose all initiative; it is apt in some cases, I trust in very few, to create an indifference on the part of the senators to their duties. After all, I wonder what it is that inspires the hon. members of this House to action, and keeps them alert and vigorous in the particular task for which they were chosen? What is it? It is simply the desire, the quite proper desire, to merit the continued esteem of those who are responsible for their presence here.
My next objection to the Senate is that it is altogether too large from the standpoint of numbers. The United States Senate, which was to some extent the model for our federal institution, has a membership approximately the same as that of the Senate of Canada. And the Senate of that great country is called1 upon to protect the sectional interests of something like 110.000,000 people. Surely no one would deny that it effectively performs its task. So I say that the Senate of Canada today is altogether too large. I believe too that the Senate should be proportioned equally as between the various provinces. Let me illustrate. Under our constitution, the province from which I Come is entitled to 6 senators while the province of Ontario is entitled to 24. It may be that in a very few years, although perhaps not in my lifetime, the province of Alberta may surpass in population the province of Ontario, for i't has made far (greater proportionate progress in the last twenty years. Would it then ibe right and proper and fair that t'he present disproportion should continue in (the respective representations in the Senate, although the population might have changed very considerably? It does occur to me that, designed as this body is for the protection of provincial rights, and the conservation of special and sectional interests, the representation might fairly be proportioned equally so far as the various provinces are concerned. These are substantially what I find to be the main defects, if I may use that term, in the Senate constitution.
I want now to deal with what I think are some of the defects in its operation. Mind you, I am not complaining about any particular members of that body; in whatever I say I am not blaming them 'but thie system which has madte the present situation possible. First of all, let me say that the Senate

The Senate
as it is constituted is partisan and not in-dependtent. I do not have to rely on my own judgment in that matter, but I aim sure that it must appeal to everyone that such is the case. Is it not natural that the recipient of a place in that chamber should feel himself owing some allegiance to* those who are responsible for his appointment? Even one of the hon. members of that 'body some years ago in agreeing with that view stated that if Sir John A. Macdonald-who had appointed him to that high position-should aak him as a favour to vote in a certain wiay on a ipai'-ticular measure, he would feel under some obligation to db so, because he said, "I am in the position of a delegate in the presence of the delegator."
It will no doubt be interesting to hon. members if at this stage I read the judgment of a distinguished observer of parliamentary institutions in all parts of the world; I refer to the late Viscount Bryce. He says in Modern Democracies:
The plan of nomination by the executive is even less to be commended, because members seem to be usually selected for party reasons;
I doubt if any one here would seriously controvert that statement.
Sometimes, as in Canada, not merely for the sake of securing for the ministry a majority in the second chamber but also in order to reward its elderly supporters, who, weary of courting constituencies, gladly subside into a dignified armchair. There are countries in which secretly rendered political services or liberal contributions to party funds are believed to open the door of the chamber to those whose merits the public had failed to discover.
That is the opinion of a distinguished observer. But when one comes to look at the political composition of the Senate itself, one finds how this pernicious patronage system has exacted its full toll of the independence of that body. I hold in my hand a statement showing the political membership by provinces of the Senate in 1896, the year in *which the Liberals came into power. There were then 13 Liberals and 68 Conservatives, with one seat vacant. The House of Commons at the same time was composed of 117 Liberals and 89 Conservatives. - Surely no one would suggest for a moment that the Senate represented the political views of the country at large. The next change of government took place in 1911, when the situation was almost completely reversed, there being then in the Senate 66 Liberals and 20 Conservatives, whereas in the election of that year 133 Conservatives and only 86 Liberals were returned to the House of Commons. In 1917, the year of the advent of Union government, the situation had again been changed, there being 40 Liberals and 46 Conservative senators.
58i
Charles Marcil: What was
the political standing of the Senate at the time of confederation?


Mr. SHAW:: In the course of my investigation I found it very difficult to discover the exact situation at that time, but if there were any party lines I think the parties were substantially on a parity with each other.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How were the first
senators appointed?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: So I suggest that in operation the Senate is a partisan body; it is not independent. I do not mean totally independent of the public will, but not likely to bring to the consideration of every question a fair and impartial judgment, unfettered by partisan considerations and uninfluenced by party affiliations, with the courage to face unpopularity in its decisions. In this respect the Senate has failed. Moreover when the Senate is of the same political complexion as the party in power, it is largely a useless body, except for revising purposes, and I suggest that such revision can be done in a far more effective and adequate way. When the Senate is of an opposite complexion to the party in power then it becomes in most cases a real hindrance to effective government, resulting sometimes in near legislative paralysis.
My next complaint is that the Senate does not reflect the varied national life of this country. I do not say, mind you, that the House of Commons does either. But it is natural to suppose that most hon. members secure their right to occupy a seat in the Senate by reason of attendance in this House or association with it, and the result is that, generally speaking, they are not representative of the various sections of our national life. Viscount Bryce in his Modern Democracies also points out that a senate to be really effective must represent all the main currents of our industrial, commercial and social life-agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, and so on. I do not think anyone who has given consideration to the subject would contend for a single moment that the political method of appointment conduces to a fair representation in the Senate of our national life.
Another objection which I would urge is that the Senate sits and awaits action by this House. We have an illustration of it at present; the Senate is waiting for what may fall from the table of the House of Commons in order to amend or change it. Now, charged as the Senate is under our federal system with high and important functions, surely there is ample opportunity for that body to engage its time profitably at this juncture when the whole country is being devitalized by sectional differences and when serious industrial strife is threatened. Surely the Senate might by a careful study of our economic, social and industrial life, assist materially in solving the problems that now confront the Dominion.
Lastly, if you put the Senate on its lowest possible basis, that of a revising chamber alone, then I say it does not even discharge that duty adequately, because in the concluding stages of the session it is showered
n\lr. Slmw.]
with a host of bills from this House, and it must either throw them out or pass them with scant opportunity to give them careful consideration and intelligent revision. So on that basis alone I submit that the Senate is not an efficient revising body.
Now, I could quote Viscount Bryce, a very keen observer of constitutions, to the effect that the Senate of Canada is one of tlie weakest second chambers of its character in existence. That is the considered statement of that distinguished gentleman some two or three years ago in his book, Modern Democracies.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the hon. member will
permit me, could he give us the quotation? I do not ask that to embarrass him at all, but I am deeply interested in learning how the late Lord Bryce makes that statement. I know his work.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The hon. member will find
the quotation to which I refer at page 441, volume 2 of Modern Democracies. In dealing with the various kinds of chambers he mentions those in the same category, and he says:
Amongst these the French Senate is the strongest and that of Canada the weakest.
I want to read the considered statement of a Canadian author, himself a very astute and keen observer of parliamentary government in this country. I refer to Professor Wrong of the University of Toronto. He says:
It is not a body that occupies an important place in the thought of the Canadian people.
He goes on to amplify that statement; I am not concerned at the moment in reading that part of it. But he'says further:
Always the senators have obeyed the mandate of party; there is no case on record in which a majority in the Senate has opposed, on an important measure, a majority of the same party in the House of Commons. Those who know what is going on at Ottawa admit freely that the Senate does useful work on non-party lines in improving bills; but they will add that it discharges no other useful function.
I see that Professor Wrong and myself disagree on one small particular in connection with that. Summing up his conclusions with regard to the Senate, Professor Wrong says:
1.	The Senate plays a minor part in the political life of Canada, and commands but little authority.
2.	The Senate becomes important only at the time of a change of government in Canada, and its influence is then likely to be used to hamper the new government.
3.	The Senate discharges useful functions in improving the details of the bills sent to it from the House
of Commons.
4.	Experience in Canada has shown that the method of appointment for life works better than would appointment for a term of years.

The Senate
Then he goes on to amplify that view.
The longest term of years to be proposed would probably not exceed seven or eight. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in power in Canada for sixteen years. Had the terms of senators expired after even ten years, every Conservative senator would have been replaced by a Liberal during Sir Wilfrid Laurier's tenure of office, and the Senate would have contained only Liberals, a reductio ad absurd urn.
5.	In Canada the tyranny of party has been complete in regard to the Senate. But for this, more men conspicuous in the world of commerce, of letters, of education, might have found a place in the Senate and might have softened the rule of mediocrity which now prevails in the representative institutions of the New World. The party leaders, however, have willed it otherwise, and they have had their way.
But Mr. Speaker, I do not need to rely upon the judgment even of the distinguished authors I have quoted; I can refer the matter to the Senate itself. Some fifteen or twenty years ago-to be exact, in the year 1909-a distinguished gentleman who played a very large part ini the inauguration of this confederation and who lived through all its adversities and many of its changes of parties, himself introduced a resolution in that chamber designed to rectify many of what he thought to be existing evils, and to impart to that body a measure of additional strength. Among other things, he sought to make membership in the Senate partly elective. I refer to a gentleman with almost forty years' experience in that chamber, the late Sir Richard Scott.
Now, if there exist the constitutional defects as well as the defects in the exercise of its functions that I have pointed out, the next question naturally arises, what remedies are available? I must say at the outset that I have no desire in any way to criticize the government for the preliminary action it has taken in connection with this matter. I think that is essential; I think that is necessary under the constitution. But I want to look beyond that; I simply want to suggest that I have in mind the preliminary steps- I do not want the members of the House to get the idea that I would ignore the necessary preliminaries toward effective action.
There are three possible ways to meet this situation: First, abolition; secondly, strengthen the chamber; thirdly, weaken it. With regard to the first, abolition is becoming increasingly popular. It is becoming increasingly popular, I am convinced, because people have not before them any other effective scheme, or any scheme which premises change or reform so far as the Senate is concerned. It arises largely because of the paucity of other schemes, and not because it is the best remedy. The advocates of abolition urge that the Senate is a drag upon democracy; that it is an intrenehment of
special and privileged interests, and that any institution which is based upon a distrust of democracy is necessarily weak and should not be continued. Now, these advocates of abolition apply their theory equally to any scheme of government, be it the unitary system or the federal system. In that particular I think they are perhaps mistaken.
I see no objection to applying the principle of abolition to a unitary form of government but when it comes to a federal form of government with a second chamber charged with the specific duties and obligations which I have mentioned, then I think it would be a mistake to insist on abolition. If abolition is to be the remedy, what organization, what institution, will preserve provincial rights under our system of government? What institution will preserve sectional rights? What institution will there be to preserve the established rights of minorities? Besides, I am not so sure that where a popular chamber is so engrossed in partisan controversy from time to time it has that judicial calm which is essential to the proper and expeditious disposal of all legislation. In addition to that, the chamber-our chamber for example -has not the opportunity for the social and economic study that is essential to the proper solution of many of our problems. However, the abolitionist says, in the words of that English publicist in the late eighties, " Either mend it or end it ".
One other way of going about this matter is to make the Senate stronger, to cure its defects, to add strength to it. Several plans have been suggested; I propose to suggest only one or two, and that very briefly.
One suggestion is to make the Senate elective, to make it responsible to the people whose interests it is supposed to conserve and to preserve-to let the provinces themselves -the ones who are vitally interested, undertake the election of senators. By doing that you add strength to the Senate, because if there is strength in this elective chamber there will likewise be strength in an elective second chamber. The difficulty pointed out by most writers on the subject is the likelihood of deadlock between the two chambers, but with the experience of recent years- Australia, South Africa, Ireland-surely the people of this country should be able to fashion some system that will enable us to untangle readily any deadlocks that may occur.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Would the Senate be elected by the provinces for life, or for a limited term?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I think all writers on the
subject agree that the senators, whether nom-
91S
The Senate

mated or elected, should hold office only for a limited peridd of time. Now, that is one method, and the objection usually taken to it is that we already have too many elections in this country. We have federal elections, provincial elections, and to add another election would complicate our institutions and certainly disturb to a great extent the business affairs of this country. I do not think there is very much to that objection, because it would be very easy to arrange it so that the election for senators would fall at exactly the same time as the election for this House.
There are one or two methods based upon the nominative plan to which I want to refer. The first was proposed by a distinguished member of this House. I think because of that alone it is entitled to our serious consideration. The other reason which I think entitles it to our consideration is that it certainly is a thought provoking scheme. I refer to th3 plan proposed in this House some two years ago by the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding, whose illness and consequent absence from this House I am sure we all deplore. This distinguished gentleman, after forty years of parliamentary experience in this country, proposed that all the senators should hold office by nomination, that half of them should be appointed by the federal government, and the remaining half be appointed by the legislative assemblies of the various provinces. One can readily see that that plan would be an improvement, upon our present system. But the right hon. gentleman only pays a sort of half allegiance to the principle of provincial rights. That would be the objection I would see to such a plan as that. If it is necessary that state rights should be preserved, if this federal part of our institutions is to be preserved, then the Senate should be chosen entirely by the provinces themselves. Mr. Fielding did not propose that the tenure of the present senators should be changed. His scheme would come into gradual operation, until in course of time it became fully complete.
There is also another very valuable suggestion made by Viscount Bryce. He suggests that life tenure should be eliminated. I do not mean to give the impression that this scheme of his was proposed for Canada alone. He suggests that life tenure should be abolished, that the senators should be selected for a term of years; but his method of selection is to be entirely different from the method now followed or from any of the other proposed methods. A committee of selection is to be set up by both chambers, in our case by both the Commons and the Senate, and this committee of selection is to recommend to these two bodies a list of men distinguished in

civil life who have taken a large part in the national life of the country, or who have done honour to the nation in any way. That is his scheme for creating a second chamber, a second chamber which he limits very greatly so far as its powers are concerned.
I have referred to two methods-to the method of abolition, and the method of strengthening. I now want to refer to the third method, and that is to reduce the Senate powers as they already exist. I said at the outset that the powers of the Senate except in money matters are co-equal and co-extensive with those of the Commons. They have the widest power of initiation in measures of reform, but I think I am fair in saying that they have seldom taken advantage of this power. Now the suggestion along this line is to dilute, if you like, the veto power which now exists. The Senate now have an absolute veto power. Dilute that power until it becomes either a suspensory or a temporary power of veto. That is the plan that is followed in England. Such a scheme will reduce the Senate to comparative impotence. In connection with the English scheme, if hon. gentlemen will read the Parliament Act of 1911, they will observe there one or two very interesting things. First of all, the act itself in its preamble clearly indicates that the veto measure there taken, that is, the effort to make the absolute veto of the House of Lords a mere temporary veto, was only a preliminary step. The second and further step was to create a popular House of Lords. I will read the preamble for the information of hon. members:
Whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a second chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation-


William Findlay Maclean: Where is that
from?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The preamble itself of the
British Parliament Act of 1911. The act goes on to very seriously curtail, to practically nullify the powers of the Lords so far as money bills are concerned, and to provide that after the passage of any other public bill by the House of Commons for three consecutive sessions during a period of two years, the bill will automatically become law. The dilution of the veto power, therefore, is only a bridge, if you like, only a step along which we may go in one of two different ways- first towards abolition or secondly towards reform, one or the other. Therein lies the value only, in my judgment, of the veto dilution. It cannot give any permanent re-

The Senate
form; but it does meet the present and pressing situation. That was the situation in connection with the Parliament Act in the Old Country, and that was the purpose entirely. I do not know, however, if they 'have since followed along that track for the purpose of securing a popular second chamber in that country.
The ex-Prime Minister of England, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, has an idea also in connection with Senate reform. He wants to reduce the Senate to a revising chamber, and a revising chamber only. He suggests that it be lessened in number, that it consist entirely of law lords and parliamentary legal draftsmen, and that this body have power, not to change principles at all, but simply to improve the technique of legislation. These are, in short, some of the many schemes which are proposed for Senate reform. The question, after all, it seems to me, comes down to this, as indicated by one writer on the subject: "Do you want an elder brother who is going to advise, who is going to suggest, who is, if necessary, going to check his rash brother, or do you want merely a clerk who will simply cross the t's and dot the i's?"
May I suggest the following as the line that occurs to me along which we may safely travel? I believe, in the first place, that the Senate should be elected; I believe it should be elected by the provinces. If, however, any province should desire a different method of election, or desire the appointment of senators by the legislative assembly, if the majority of them should desire that and they are all prepared to accept it, I have no objection to that. But first of all, make the Senate, either by election or by provincial nomination, responsible to the people whose interests they are called upon to serve. I think also they should be reduced in number. If we had say 36 senators instead of 96, four from each province, if we could claim the services of distinguished men, I think that number would give a fair and adequate representation in that chamber. Then I think they should be chosen for a period of eight years, one half retiring every four years.


Mr. EULER:: What justification would
there be for giving the same number of senators to each province, so that the small province of Prince Edward Island would have the same number as the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I can only ask my hon. friend what justification there is for the present basis? The province of Alberta with many times the population of Prince Edward Island
has only six members whereas Prince Edward Island has four?


William Daum Euler: Would it not be better, if
you are going to make the Senate elective, to have its members elected according to population the same as in the case of the members of this House?


Mr. CRERAR:: They do not in the United States.


William Daum Euler: That would not necessarily
matter.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I was going to point out to
my hon. friend that in the United States the basis of Senate representation is two from each state. It is only fair to state that arrangement was a matter of compromise. However, it was felt that two members from each state could adequately safeguard the interests they were supposed to safeguard, namely, the preservation of state sovereignty. This has given a degree of security to the smaller states which otherwise they would not possess. For example, the great state of New York with a population greater than that of Canada has two representatives in the Senate, and, I think, some thirty-five or forty in the House of Representatives. The state of Rhode Island has only, I think, two representatives in the House of Representatives and likewise two senators.


William Daum Euler: There is a good deal of
objection to that in the United States.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I agree with my hon. friend
that there is some dbjection, but generally speaking it has worked out well. While it was a compromise plan at the outset I think it has, generally speaking, given considerable satisfaction.
Then I think, for the purposes of the election if that method is going to be followed, taking for example the province of Alberta, it should be divided into large constituencies. I would say that province should be divided into two large constituencies for electoral purposes, and the election should take place on the proportional representation plan which would ensure, as far as can be done, the representation of all interests and all phases of our national life. In addition to that I think the election for the Senate should be held at the same time as the election for the Commons. That could be readily done. It is a mere matter of detail. Then, and most important of all, the power of the Senate should be increased in certain particulars. Thus constituted I think it would be a body to which it would be desirable to apportion definite, specific matters. It would be desir
The Senate

able, for example, to place with the Senate the matter of our foreign relations because if there is any one thing we desire it is that our policy in that regard should be consistent -that it should not be changeable and variable according to the temporary or hastily formed feelings of the people.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend said that the time of holding the election for the upper chamber would be a mere matter of detail. How would he work out the responsibility of the government? The government decides to appeal to the people, will the Senate be consulted?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: No.


George Perry Graham: They would have to go
to the people if the government told them to go?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The experience in Canada
has been that there is an election every four years. That, of course, is not invariable. I remember that in 1911 the government of the day only survived three years; but if you say that a senator is to be appointed for four years-or for a shorter or longer period with a certain limitation, perhaps a year-then you can provide for practically any eventuality that may arise.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Perhaps I
might follow up the question of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) which deals with a very interesting point. I think it was what the minister had in his mind; I know it was something I have in my own mind. If the Senate is elected at the same time as the House of Commons is there not a danger that ultimately we may have a situation in Canada such as exists now in the United States under which the Senate is taking all the control away, at any rate very largely so far as legislative matters are concerned, from the representatives of the people themselves?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: No, not at all; that is only
a question of the division of the functions of the two bodies and that, I think, can be safeguarded without much difficulty.
Then, of course, it would be absolutely essential, it would be vital, and it would be necessary that ample provision be made in the case of a dead-lock arising between these two Houses. That has been done in other countries and, I think, generally speaking, although not always, it has proven satis-factor3r.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I just say this in conclusion: I have sought to ascertain what principles should govern us in the creation of
	,
a Senate; what defects in my humble judgment there are in the formation, organization, constitution and operation of that body; and then I have presented to the House various plans that have been presented from time to time. I suggest only in outline my own ideas; not that they have any particular value. I simply want to point out in conclusion that our Confederation Act was framed almost sixty years ago. There have been great changes since that time. Even differing theories on government, and on organization, have been propounded. All these are more or less in the melting pot, and have passed through various stages of development. Since that time too, our whole political, social, and industrial fabric has been almost totally changed, and so these rapidly evolving conditions necessitate that we should give some consideration to the institutions which are functioning for the purpose of .preserving and vitalizing our social, industrial, political and economic fabric.
We are not. without some very valuable illustrations as a result of that sixt}' years of experience. May I just suggest some of the things that have happened. The House of Lords in that period has been reduced to comparative impotence. New Zealand with a life tenure for its legislative council has found it necessary to reduce that tenure to a period of seven years. Australia in the interim has adopted an elective system for its Senate. South Africa has adopted a partly elective Senate, with safeguards in the case of a dead-lock which merit our very serious consideration. France prior to 1884 had a life tenure for her Senate. In that year it was changed to an elective system-elected not directly by the people but by the representatives of the various local departments. Since that time too new governments have sprung up. The war created many in Europe. In some of them where the people were homogeneous, where there were not great geographical barriers, where there was not a vast difference in race and creed, they have satisfied themselves with only one assembly. I refer to the states of Latvia and Esthonia. Other countries such as Czecho-Slovakia and Poland, where there were divergencies in these matters, have adopted the federal system, and in each case have provided for an elective Senate. In addition to that we have a most illuminating experience from the country of my hon. friend the member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), a part of the British Empire which furnishes one of the most striking illustrations as to how a second chamber may profitably be constituted. The Irish Free State has a Senate of some sixty members.

The Senate
elected for a term of twelve years. The act under which it is constituted provides that the senators must be citizens who have done honour to the nation by reason of useful public services, or who represent important aspects of the nation's life. One-fourth of the members are chosen by the electors for three years from a panel selected by the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. The Senate and the Chamber of Deputies choose a panel consisting of three times as many names as are to be elected, and these names are then presented to the public for their selection. In that constitution legislative authority in respect to money bills is reserved for the Chamber of Deputies alone. The Senate, however, is empowered to make recommendations. Other bills must be passed or accepted by both houses, but if the Senate does not pass a bill within two hundred and seventy days, or other longer agreed period, after it has been sent to the Senate by the Chamber of Deputies, the bill shall be deemed to have passed both houses in the form in which it last passed the chamber. The Senate, however, may demand a joint sitting of the two houses to debate, but not vote upon a money bill.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these are all the observations I have to make and in conclusion I desire to make a quotation.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member is a straight advocate of an elective senate. Has he any other alternative proposal? Suppose he cannot convince the majority of this House, or those who may have something to say, as to any amendment of the British North America Act to conform to his views, would he suggest any change in the method of the appointment of senators, the tenure of office, or kindred matters?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I certainly think that the
method of appointment, be it election or otherwise, should represent the views of the provinces. Even if the provinces desire the appointment, by this House, I think that is the proper method. If, however, the provinces consider that the method of election is the proper system, I think that is the method which should be followed. There can only be, so far as I know, two methods or perhaps three, nomination by the Governor General in Council, nomination by the provincial legislature, or election by the citizens of the province whose interests the senators are supposed to support. If the provinces as a unit desire the privilege of nomination by their legislative assemblies, that is the proper method to follow, and if they want to give
that power to the federal government, well and good, that is the proper method to follow. But if not, if they can agree upon the method of election, I think the particular method they agree upon should be followed.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Does the hon. member take into consideration the enormous expense of running an election in a constituency? He suggests that there should be only thirty-six senators in Canada.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Does the hon. member mean the expense for the candidate? If so, I am more concerned with the welfare of the country than the welfare of the candidate.


Milton Neil Campbell: Would the welfare of the country not be greatly involved in the proposition? Because if the candidates
5 p.m. a.re not able to put up the money themselves, it means they must rely on certain special interests.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Hon. members will understand that in making my suggestion I am merely proposing that the Senate should consist of thirty-six members. I think that is a reasonable proportion considering the vast extent of the country, and I know it will mean a great saving to the country. If my hon. friend wants to make the number fifty-four, I am not going to raise any special objection. I will conclude my remarks by reading a statement made by a farmer member of the present Senate. The debate was initiated by Hon. Sir Richard W. Scott in 1909 on Senate reform. He urged that some action be taken before public clamour demanded action, and that debate went on intermittently from_Jan-,uary until some time in May, and like all other debates on Senate reform, no conclusion was reached. One hon. senator spoke as follows:
But it is to the future we must look. This is a new country, immense in territory, unlimited in possibilities, now in its formative period. We are composed of nine provinces to-day, all living in peace, harmony and good-will one towards the other. Who can say what antagonism may develop in future years? What strain there may be on the unity of our country later on? It has been said that but for the Senate of the United States, a Senate representing in fact the several states of the union, the commonwealth of our neighbours to the south, would stand to-day dismembered, rent asunder.
There is no doubt that we shall not endure eternally in universal harmony; future difficulties are sure to come, because the beginnings have been too harmonious. We shall have our trials as a confederation. What will keep the provinces together if there is no proper, strong, trusted link to hold them? That link should be here as it is in the United States, as it is in Switzerland, as it is in Australia, as it is in Germany, a Senate appointed by and truly representing the several provinces of the Dominion. As it is now constituted, it would not be equal to the task, nor trusted to perform it.
The Senate


Mr. J. W. FINDLAY (South Bruce):: I
feel it my duty, as it is the ddty of every other hon. member in this House, .to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) upon the very instructive and lengthy address which he has delivered to us on the question of Senate reform. His remarks indicate great study and research and I desire to say at the outset that his proposition has my hearty support so far as it goes, but I do not think it goes far enough. I come from the province of Ontario, where this matter of Senate reform has occupied the minds of the people to a very large extent and has become a public and practical question. Reading the press of Ontario, and mingling with the people of that province, we find that there is a strong demand for the abolition of the Senate. The fact that the question of Senate reform occupies the attention of the people to a large extent is evidenced by the fact that it has been discussed many times in this House, and through all that discussion there has been a unanimous declaration in favour of some kind of reform, 'but apparently, the difficulty has been to arrive at some conclusion as to the nature of that reform. I hare taken the trouble to go into some of these debates, and through them all I find a general agreement that reform is necessary, and I also find that the great Obstacle in the way of bringing aibout a reform is the fact that no two people are able to agree as to what the nature of that reform should be. The fact is that you cannot find any individual who can propose a reform which will produce the benefits which that individual expected would result. As an instance of that, may I quote from the remarks of the Rigjhit Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the difficulties which 'he saw in the way of reforming the Senate. Speaking on a resolution introduced during the session of 1906, he used these words:	[DOT]
Well, what would be the nature of a reform which would be acceptable to all? This is a question which has puzzled more than one. My hon. friends, the mover and seconder of the resolution, both referred to the convention of 1893, which was held in this city, and in which the reform of the Senate was declared necessary; but while we made that affirmation, the difficulty has always been to settle practically what reform would be acceptable. At once we were met, when we thought of reducing the idea to legislation-and it is a subject which has more than once perplexed the present advisers of His Excellency- with the difficulty of agreeing upon such reform as would be satisfactory to all.
So we find all down through the discussion the main difficulty is to arrive at some method of reform which would be satisfactory to all sections of the country. Because of that difficulty no progress has been made so far. I fMr. Shaw.]
thoroughly agree with the resolution introduced by my hon. friend from West Calgary, but as I have already stated, its fault, if it has any, is that it does not go far enough. I shall therefore move an amendment which I hope w ill meet with the approval of the House and which at least goes some little distance further in the direction of providing a satisfactory measure of reform.
Why is it that all through the discussion in all these years no progress has been made in the matter of reforming the Senate? The answer is to be found largely in the fact that there has never been proposed any system which would be acceptable to the country as a whole. It is conceded on all hands that in order to bring about any measure of Senate reform acceptable to the country at large such a proposal would have to meet with the approval of the different provinces. And how are we to arrive at anything of that nature? In discussing this matter, it seems to me that the most logical thing to do if we are to make any headway at all would be to consult the people. What are the chief functions of the second chamber? It has been already stated that one of those functions is to revise hasty legislation. But can we find on an examination of our parliamentary history any instance in which the Senate as it is now constituted has discharged that function? I think we shall all agree that so far as revising hasty legislation is concerned the Senate has not served any purpose of that kind. Again, I wish to quote a distinguished leader of the Liberal party on this point. Speaking in a similar debate in 1906 Sir Wilfrid Laurier, referring to the Senate as an institution for the revision of hasty legislation, said:
But this is an idea which has never made much impression on my judgment at all events. Considering the course of such legislatures in the Dominion which are composed of a single branch, elected by the people -the legislatures of Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, and some others-I do not believe that we need seriously apprehend any danger from the existence of one branch only of the legislature.
We have, I think, all agreed that the Senate as it is at present constituted does not discharge the functions of a body whose purpose is to revise hasty legislation and to act as the champion of provincial rights and minorities; and the fact that some measure of Senate reform is necessary is borne out by the proposal in the Speech from the Throne to call an interprovincial conference in the recess to deal with this and similar matters. This being the case, I do not think there should be any hesitation on the part of this House in adopting a resolution looking to that end. While I approve of the declaration of the government, that it intends calling this inter-

The Senate
provincial conference, I do think that the better method of proceeding would be to take a vote of the people of the different provinces in the first instance. How would the delegates to this proposed interprovincial conference know what the views of the people in their respective provinces might be regarding the question of Senate reform? I have grave doubts, for instance, whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and, say, the Attorney General of Ontario, if they met in consultation on a matter of this kind, would be in a position to represent the will of the people of Ontario on the question. I have no reason to know what the opinions of these gentlemen may be on this question, but I have strong reasons to suspect that the feeling of Ontario is greatly in favour of the abolition of the Senate, and I do not know that the Prime Minister and the Attorney General of Ontario are of that mind. I say therefore that before any interprovincial conference is called, or before any such conference can properly function, it is indispensable that the government should first learn the will of the people of the various provinces which would be represented at the gathering.
Two years ago, I think, the Canadian Council of Agriculture sent down to the United Farmers of Ontario in annual convention assembled a number of recommendations for improvements, and among those recommendations there was one calling for the reform of the Senate. The United Farmers of Ontario declined to endorse that recommendation but decided to substitute for the word "reform" the word "abolish". This, it seems to me, is evidence enough of the opinion on this question of the people of Ontario, at least in the rural sections of that province. And I would ask, where can you get a sounder or saner expression of opinion on public matters affecting the welfare of the country than in the rural sections of Ontario?
I am not a lawyer and am not trained in presenting my arguments in any sylllogistic form, but I feel that this parliament is prepared to go a step further than the resolution presented by my hon; friend asks us to go. What does the resolution say? It declares that in the opinion of this House the Senate as at present appointed and constituted "is not of the greatest advantage to Canada". Well, surely there is no hon. gentleman who will say nay to that resolution. The fact of the matter is that thirty-two or thirty-three years ago the Liberal party at a convention in this city made a stronger declaration than that, and I venture to say that if any gentleman here went on the streets of Ottawa and asked
the first man he met whether he would endorse that resolution the reply would be, "Yes, everyone endorses it". For the reasons I have stated, I move that the resolution be amended by adding the following after the word "Canada":
Therefore it is expedient that an humble address be presented to His Majesty the King praying that the British North America Act be amended so as to provide that the Dominion of Canada may have the power to make the Senate an elective body or to abolish it, as may be decided by the people in a plebiscite to be taken at the next general election.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I notice there is already
on the order paper a motion in practically the same wording as this amendment, and it is a rule of the House that a question already appointed for consideration cannot be anticipated 'by way of amendment. In the 13th edition, at page 272, May says:
A matter already appointed for consideration by the House cannot b2 anticipated by an amendment, while a notice of motion as long as it remains upon the paper, whether for a specified day or not, prevents its subject matter being discussed by m ans of an amendment to a motion or of a motion for the adjournment of the House, including a motion under standing order No. 10.
But I find in the next line power, in my humble judgment, to permit the amendment which has just been read by the Chair.
In determining, however, whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, the Speaker must have regard to the probability of the matter
anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time.
The main motion reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this House, the Senate as at present appointed and constituted, is not of the greatest advantage to Canada.
As I listened to the address delivered by the mover (Mr. Shaw) I noticed that one of his main objections to the present constitution of the Senate is the mode of appointment. The amendment also refers to the mode of appointment, and is germane to the main motion. Therefore as there will be no other opportunity for the hon. mover of the amendment (Mr. Findlay) to move later on his proposed resolution, No. 37, basing myself on May, I am disposed to allow the amendment. Let me again read what May says, because I want to live up to the rules of the House:
In determining, however, whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, the Speaker must have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time.
I find that this justifies the Speaker in allowing the amendment. Therefore the question now before the House is the amendment. Is the House ready for the question?
The Senate


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have spoken on the point of ordter, but unfortunately Your Honour has already ruled that the amendment is in order.


Hewitt Bostock: I should not like to disbar any hon. member from stating whatever views he may have on the point of order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to have submitted this to your consideration, Mr. Speaker, before making your final lulling. Your Honour rests your ruling upon the assumption that the order referred to, No. 37, is not likely to be reached.


Hewitt Bostock: Oh yes, it can be reached, but then objection would 'be taken that the subject matter having already been discussed it could not be revived. However, I should like to hear further from the hon. member.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would submit to Your Honour that before this resolution could1 be moved as an amendment it ought to be dropped1 from the order paper. I would further submit that 'the resolution now moved as an amendment has been called at least five or six times, precluding any possible excuse of its sponsor not having had an opportunity to discuss it.


Hewitt Bostock: I had' that in mind when I gave, perhaps a little too hurriedly, my ruling. The hon. member is right, this motion cannot be revived now that it is being moved as an amendment. As I stated a moment ago, the Speaker, according to May,
In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, must have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time.
Resolution No. 37 could not be brought again before the House, because this amendment which reproduces it, but which as such, is germane to the main motion, could not be revived later on. It will be expunged from the order of the day as a matter of course.


William Findlay Maclean: And, Mr. Speaker, do not We deal with the two resolutions on the order paper, and therefore discharge something which is before the House?


Hewitt Bostock: Certainly. The question is on the amendment.
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Jolaette):	Mr. Speaker, in rising I wish to pay my most sincere compliments to the mover of the resolution (Mr. Shaw). More than once privately I have had the opportunity of telling him that I share his views entirely with regard to Senate reform. I say so now. The 
only question is:	What is the constitutional
way of obtaining that reform? I had thought that the motion as presented by my hon. friend in the negative was the best form. After considering the question again, I intend to move an amendment to the amendment in substantive form. Might I say, however, that in my opinion my proposed amendment to the amendment does not destroy the motion of my hon. friend, but simply makes it more applicable and more practicable. Again I congratulate my hon. friend on the very able speech which he made this afternoon in support of his resolution. It has been one of my weaknesses to admire men of talent, and I hope that that weakness will always remain with me. I admired my hon. friend this afternoon for the excellence of his address on the question of the reform of the Senate, and I think I can safely say that by it he has greatly added to his reputation in this House.
My hon. friend has offered several suggestions. I do not say that I do not agree with him, although it is true that the moment one turns in the direction of absolute reform he is subject to all kinds of criticism. I had this experience myself two years ago, when on the 21st of March, 1923, I addressed the House on the reform of the Senate. On that occasion I presented a substantive motion, that is, I proposed something definite, and I suggested that if the motion was not accepted as drafted, some other method might be adopted. The wording of my motion was:
or by any other mode of election as may be determined by parliament.
In my resolution I asked that the Senate of Canada be made elective, but my idea was that if my motion was not adopted as it stood, some other method could be determined upon as decided by parliament. On that occasion the Minister of Finance (Mr Fielding) ^ declared very emphatically that a reform of the Senate was due. I wish to quote from page 1375 of Hansard of that year-and I desire to be excused for reading a compliment which the hon. minister paid me on that occasion; the sentence would not be understandable otherwise. He said:
I will say this, however, that the hon. gentleman has rendered a very valuable service to the country in opening for discussion-
This is what I wish particularly to call attention to:
-a question of great importance, one that arises from time to time and one which, if not to-day certainly at no distant day, will press for a solution.
That was the declaration of the Minister of Finance at that time, speaking undoubtedly for the government. However, in the same

The Senate
speech the minister asked that the motion be not pressed because the . time for definite action had not yet arrived, and upon his advice I decided not to ask for a division of the House on my motion.
Now the hon. member for West Calgary comes along with a negative resolution. He has tried to avoid the difficulties which a substantive resolution might meet, and I can only commend him for that. On the other hand, rightly or wrongly, speaking in the interests of the cause I frankly and honestly think that his ends might perhaps be better achieved if a substantive resolution was substituted for his negative resolution, and that is the reason why I intend to move a substantive amendment.
From what I have said it will appear as though the necessity for the reform of the Senate is something which nobody in this country disputes. When I had the honour of addressing the House on the 21st of March, 1923, my whole argument, after long and careful study of the question, was an attempt to demonstrate that a reform of the Senate was necessary. I am happy to-day to see that what I was preaching two years ago has now been accepted by the government itself. In the Speech from the Throne this year we see that the government proposes to bring about some scheme for the reform of the Senate. I take it for granted that my friends opposite me are in favour of the reform of the Senate, and for that they must be congratulated. I must take it for granted that the government are in favour of it, and if the Progressive party, as well as many members, I hope, of the Conservative party, are in favour of it, it is evident that the great majority of those who sit in this House are favourable to a reform of the Senate. I will therefore abstain from discussing the merits of the question; in other words, I shall not go into the question whether such a reform is due, because in my humble opinion that has already been abundantly proved. As to what the reform should be, that is another question, which I hope will be settled shortly.
What I propose to do at this juncture is to move an amendment to the amendment, for two reasons. My first reason is that although I approve absolutely of the resolution of the hon. member for West Calgary, that the Senate as at present constituted is not in the best interests of this country, I think the matter should be placed in a more positive form. If the positive form in which I want to place the motion is negatived-in other words, if the subamendment is rejected-then the House will have an opportunity of voting on my hon.
friend's resolution, and assuredly I will vote for it.


William Findlay Maclean: Will my hon.
friend allow me a question? He says he understands that the government propose to deal with the matter. Let me put it in the words of the Manitoba Free Press:
It is to be presumed, however, that it is the purpose of the government to have this conference consider methods by which the constitution can be amended at the will of the Canadian people, rather than itself to consider particular changes in the constitution such as the modification of the powers of the Senate.
My hon. friend is basing part of his argument upon a presumption, upon something in respect to which we have not any information except that the government may take some action. I would ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) if he will make that point clear before we hear what the amendment is.


Ernest Lapointe: Has my hon. friend read the Speech from the Throne?
M-. MACLEAN (York) :	Well, that may
keep for five years.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: I understand that
my hon. friend wants a positive declaration from the government, but it is not in my power to give that declaration. I take it for granted that the government meant what they said in the Speech from the Throne, and it will be up to them to accomplish in some form the intent of that declaration.
The purpose of my subamendment is twofold; first, to add to the main motion and make it more practical, and secondly to destroy the amendment, because the amendment seeks the abolition of the Senate, and I am not and never have been in favour of the abolition of the Senate. If one examines the constitutions of all the most important countries in the world, one will see that with but one or two exceptions an upper chamber or a senate or a first chamber, as it is called in some countries, exists. Practically every country in the world has an upper or first chamber or a senate or superior council, which are all about the same thing. Therefore I am not in favour of the abolition of the Senate; but I am in favour of the Senate being reformed, and that is why I want to counteract the amendment; with my subamendment. The subamendment which I propose reads as follows:
That all the words after the word " that " in the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The Senate
commons
The House approves of the convening at an early date of a conference between the government of the Dominion of Canada and the governments of the various provinces to consider the advisability of amending the British North America Aot with respect to the constitution and -the powers of the Senate.
I will now in a few short words try and explain my subamendment. Practically all of us, I presume, are in favour of reform of the Senate; but how can this be carried out? A few days ago in this House this question was raised indirectly on the resolution of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean): How can we amend our constitution? We cannot reform the Senate without amending our constitution, and my hon. friend was asking that the constitution of Canada be amended, whenever that was found necessary, according to the terms of his resolution. The two questions in my opinion are very correlated. I followed that debate very closely, and in my opinion the arguments which were made on that occasion by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), after a thorough examination of the question, were perfectly sound. He said in substance that confederation is a pact or contract. This everybody admits to-day. This was, in fact, declared at the time of confederation by the Fathers of Confederation, and is to be found in the debates on confederation. Therefore, if we start from that principle, that confederation is a pact or contract, we have to come to the conclusion that this contract cannot be altered unless all the parties to it are invited.


William Findlay Maclean: Might I ask the hon. member to state exactly who are the parties to that contract?


Mr. DENIS:: (Joliette): I do not think I should begin all over again the arguments that were brought forward the other day. I do not see exactly what my hon. friend is driving at. Does he mean that the other provinces that came in after the four original provinces are or are not parties to the contract?


William Findlay Maclean: No, I go further. I say this: While you speak of the provinces, or of the thirteen original states in the United States, as making a constitution, the constitution of Canada is now practically in charge of this parliament as wall as the original provinces, and I have not heard anyone yet proposing to protect the rights of this parliament in connection with this matter, or that the Parliament of Canada should be represented dn the conference when it is held.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I think we are making a big mistake to compare the constitution of Canada with that of the United States.


William Findlay Maclean: I did not do that altogether.


Jean-Joseph Denis: If my hon. friend will follow me, we can no more compare the constitution of Canada with that of the United States than we can compare one contract with another that is drawn in a different way, although the two might bear on the same subject. The United States framed their constitution according to their wishes and desires; that is one contract. We framed our constitution according to our wishes and desires; that is another contract. And simply because there is a constitution on the one side and a constitution on the other, it does not follow that we can compare the two. We can no more compare -our constitution with that of the United States than we can compare it with that of France or Germany or Ireland, the last constitution to be written. Therefore, I cannot accept any argument derived from a comparison of our constitution with that of the United States. We have to examine our own contract and determine our own status; we have to find out what was the purport of our contract, and what was the intention of the Fathers of Confederation. Now that intention is to be found in what they said at the time, and that is why the debates on confederation are so famous. I imagine that every member of parliament has read those debates, if not entirely, at least in part. They are so important and so illuminating as to the meaning of the Fathers of Confederation when they framed this pact. My hon. friend has taken me a little away from my subject and I do not want to detain the House too long.
I was saying that confederation is a pact or a contract, and that this pact or contract cannot be altered unless all the parties to it are first brought into a conference. That is the object of my subamendment. Supposing this parliament should pass a direct and specific resolution declaring that the Senate of Canada shall be reformed in this way or that; what would be the consequences? If the provinces should be satisfied with it, all well and good; but supposing one province should say: You have no right to do that; you cannot use the supreme power of the Parliament of Canada to break a contract or to alter our status in the Dominion. Now there is no question that the reform of the Senate might bring about an alteration of the status of the different provinces of Canada. It might bring about an alteration of the status of the ipinorities in Canada. It is all very well to talk -of Senate reform. I am in favour of it; there .is no man in this House more in favour

The Senate
of it than I am; but we must approach the question in a legal and a constitutional way. If this parliament should take into their hands the power to reform the Senate without consulting the provinces, I am afraid that might give rise to very serious difficulties as between the Dominion and the provinces. That is why I am asking in the amendment to the amendment that the provinces convene with the Dominion in order to confer upon that subject. A few days ago the National Council of Agriculture passed the following resolution:
That the council expresses its pleasure at the announcement that an international conference is to be held to consider the question of the reform of the Senate, and expresses the hope that the result of this conference will be a real measure of Senate reform.
We all know that the National Council of Agriculture have been preaching Senate reform. They are in favour of a reform of the upper house, and they are asking that a conference should be held with the provinces to consider the subject. Why? Because, rightly or wrongly, they believe as I do, that a question of such importance cannot be settled by the Parliament of Canada alone; it must be settled in a conference between representatives of this parliament and representatives of the different provincial legislatures.


Mr. GOOD:: Did not my hon. friend commit an error in reading the resolution as he did? Did he not use the word "international " for the word " interprovincial "?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Did I say "international "?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member certainly did say " international ".


Jean-Joseph Denis: It certainly should be " interprovincial ".


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman now admits the very point I raised in the House. He says it is to be a conference between the provinces and the Dominion parliament. We have got that fact now, and it is the first time it has been stated in the House. That is what I want, I want the Dominion to be represented in that conference.


Ernest Lapointe: You had that announcement before. The Speech from the Throne announced a conference between the federal and provincial governments.


William Findlay Maclean: At any rate, we have got that far now.


Ernest Lapointe: You had that statement before.


Jean-Joseph Denis: There could be no mistake as to that. It was announced that there was to be a conference between tlie federal and provincial governments. Resuming my argument may I state my position in two words? I am in favour of the reform of the Senate, but because it seemed to me that everybody favoured that course I brought no argument to establish it. My only argument is as to the best way of reforming the Senate, and in my opinion the best course will be to follow the method suggested in the amendment to the amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman'-* amendment is not an amendment to the main motion, it is an amendment to the amendment.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis). Of all the motions before the House, the subamendment is yet the best solution, and for want of a better one, I sincerely -give it my approval.
However, I think it behooves this Parliament, when it is a question of possible amendments to our constitution in regard to the Senate, to invite the provinces to a conference in order to inquire as to the need of these amendments. I do not approve of this subamendment for the same reasons given ;by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis), but I do so on entirely different grounds. It is well, if for no other reason than courtesy towards the contracting parties of the British North America Act, that the provinces be consulted when it is a question of important amendments as the one which refers to Senate reforms, and, on these grounds I think, we should submit this question to the provinces. Moreover, if such a conference had no other result but amendments in regard to the representation of the provinces it would equally, be proper to consult the provinces.
It is a fact, Sir that a certain agitation has taken place in regard to the upper house, and it is perhaps well at this time that parliament should consult the provinces so as to settle once for all that our constitution, as it exists to-day, is still the best and that we have no reason to amend it. It would perhaps be the best means of putting an end to this agitation.
The Senate

On March 23, 1923, the hon. member for Joliette moved in this House a resolution asking for the reform of the Senate. He wished to have the Senate elective, so that senators should be elected for six years in special electoral divisions, half of them being returned every three years. I must say that the hon. member adopts, to-day, an attitude which is in keeping with the stand he took in i923. He is most sincere in his convictions and I congratulate him in rising again to-day in the House to support a motion for a reform based on the same grounds as in 1923.
I had the honour, at that time, to move the adjournment of the debate. If I had spoken then, I would have done so in the same way as to-day, I would have said that this reform must be proceeded with the greatest precaution and only after a conference with the provinces. I am attached to our constitution, I like the British North America Act such as it is, because it is a pact agreed upon by the provinces, a solemn pact under which our legislative powers are defined and which confides certain powers to the provinces and certain others to the Dominion government. This legislative power of the Dominion government is exercised by the King, the Senate and the House of Commons. The Fathers of Confederation had an aim in view, in 1867, when they created a Senate composed of members appointed for life and chosen by the Governor in Council, and the reasons given at the time were very sound. After many a long discussion, at that time, between the representatives of the various provinces, it was agreed to compromise by creating an upper house composed of life members appointed by the Governor in Council. Had we thought of following the example of other countries, we could have turned our eyes beyond the 45th parallel and seen a Senate with an organization different from that of our upper house; we might have found in other countries an elective Senate; but I think, the Fathers of Confederation were right in giving us an independent upper house, composed of senators appointed for life. I prefer our constitution to that of other countries. The constitution of 1867 is much better than the * one in force in the neighbouring republic or that of other nations. I am attached to our constitution and the manner in which the Senate is constituted, because I think we have in this organization an upper house composed of men unswayed by influences. Such is the opinion of all those who have made a study of the constitution of 1867. The distinctive character of the upper house is that its members are independent; they are legislators as independent as one can find in a country.
TMr. Fortier.]
They are independent because they are appointed for life and chosen by the Governor in Council, and, they have over and above the representatives of the lower house, this liberty of conscience necessary to a legislator which gives him the freedom on certain occasions to resist popular passion and to stick to the veiy last to his convictions for the welfare of his country. I have been told-not that I have personal knowledge of the fact because when I compare my way of thinking with that of my electors I must say that there is nothing that divides us-I have been told that it may happen that a member might be forced to take, under certain circumstances, an attitude contrary to his personal convictions. Yes, this may happen. We represent, in the House of Commons, a section of the country, various elements which, at times, may demand from members a certain line of conduct on a public question. The freedom of action of the members of the lower house is thereby curtailed. It is well to have some display of independence and to state that a member occupies a seat in the House so as to express his personal views, but when the said member returns to his county to ask for a renewal of his mandate, will not the elector call him to task for having aired his personal views contrary to the wish of a faction or party of an electoral district? I would not have thought of it myself if my attention had not been drawn to such a fact, for in aill my political career never did such a case present itself where my electors bad not in me this entire confidence with which they always entrusted me. Here, as well as in Quebec, I had but to rise to express my views in regard to legislation introduced and I always found myself heart and soul in accord with the wishes of the electors of my county. I cannot imagine that at any time, I might have to set aside my personal convictions, for when I express them, I express those of my electors; I trust in them as they trust in me. It is nevertheless a fact that a representative of the people may at times be called upon to handle with tact public passion roused by certain issues and he is thus unable to entirely assert his views. On the other hand, the representative in the upper house, the senator appointed for life, is totally independent. On all issues brought before the Senate, he can enjoy full liberty of conscience and freedom of action. I think it is a well established fact that the existence of an upper house is sometimes very necessary. At times, the Commons obliged to surrender to popular clamour, adopts certain legislation, however it does so with the conviction that the Senate will deal with such a measure on its merits, that it will,

The Senate
if necessary, throw it out if it considers in its wisdom and from its unbiased viewpoint that such a measure is contrary to the interest of the country.
This is one reason why I am the more pledged to upholding the British North America Act and to maintaining the Senate as constituted.
Since reference has been made to constitutional law, I shall take the liberty of quoting a few comments which sum up the views of all those who have made a special study of our Constitution:
The part played by the Senate, as a legislative body, is about the same as that of the House of Lords in England. It has the well defined right to throw out any measure passed by the House of Commons, however, it exercises its powers with prudence and discretion. We are indebted to it for the rejection of quite a number of bills inspired by ill-considered zeal or the effervescence of public opinion. With us, the ponderation of powers is settled; the Senate, in regard to legislation is absolutely the equal of the House of Commons and it has the advantage over the latter of being mdependent of both the power and passions of the people. If it takes its part seriously it may render us important services.
Let us now, Mr. Speaker, consider how the upper house is, at present, constituted. Does the fact of its members being appointed by the Governor in Council lower it in the esteem of the citizens of this country? Does it not compare favourably with any other chamber both in dignity and usefulness? What higher authority than the Governor in Council can make the appointment of senators. It has been stated in this debate that the upper house might be better constituted if the provincial governments were entrusted with the selection of its members or if the government requested people of high standing in this country to join them as advisers for the purpose of appointing senators. Let us be rid forever of these so called all important people without responsibilities whatsoever to advise on the appointment of members to the Senate! The best guarantee we have that the upper house is composed of citizens able to fulfil their important duties, is that the appointment of senators is left to the government. Moreover it is the government, holding ministerial responsibility, who appoint the -members to the Senate, and the government represent authority, established power, in fact the country. Indeed, we have no fault to find as to appointments made up to now, for most of the time-and the government has been well guided in the matter-senators have been chosen amongst members of t'he House of Commons; it is precisely here where they are recruited in greater number.


Ernest Lapointe: Is that the best system?


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: It is without doubt the best system. Rightly has the government, in numerous instances, appointed to the Senate members who enjoyed the full confidence of their electors and had faithfully served their country during a great number of years.
It is apparent that members of this House, who have been here for a long time and have built up an enviable reputation, are most qualified to sit in the upper house, and we may rest assured that they will allow only sound legislation to be enacted. The course followed by all governments-this one as well as others that have preceded it-is the best; it is a pledge that the Senate will always be composed of worthy and experienced men, the custom followed being to select among the well deserving servants of the state, either in the House or anywhere else. I, therefore, trust, Mr. Speaker, that we shall maintain the present system of appointments to the upper house which exists since Confederation and to which there is no reason- I again state-to effect any changes.
When the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) spoke, a short while ago, with so much enthusiasm upon his subamendment, he stated, as he had done with such eloquence in 1923, that he thought the whole of the province of Quebec was behind him on this question of Senate reform. I shall not wound him by asking him to lay a wager-because I know he is very strongly adverse to wagers- but I shall take upon myself to inform him that he is greatly in error, because the province of Quebec is, by tradition, in favour of maintaining the constitution and the Senate as they are. For all the above reasons I shall vote for the sufoamendiment.


John Livingstone Brown: I should like to join with hon. members in congratulating the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) on the way he presented this matter this afternoon. I must say that I find myself in almost perfect accord with the views he expressed both as to the desirability of the second chamber and as to the method of reform which he, perhaps I should not say advocated, but suggested. I think it was wisdom on his part to introduce the resolution in this negative form. By introducing it in that way, he wished to give us an opportunity to express ourselves as to the present condition of things without any reference at all to possible changes that might be made. I know it has been urged by some who have already spoken that the resolution of the



The Senate
hon. member for West Calgary did not go far enough because it did not advocate any definite proposal. They claim that there is practical unanimity in regard to the resolution as placed upon the order paper. That may be so. I hope it is so, but it seems to me it would have been well worth while, if that be the case, that we should have had a clear-cut plain statement going forth to the country that the Commons of Canada are not satisfied with things as they are at present. Instead of being able to express ourselves on that clear, plain, simple proposition, we have had the matter somewhat entangled by amendments and subamendments. I think our experience of a week ago has shown us that we sometimes get into almost inextricable confusion with amendments and subamendments, and it might possibly be that some members will find themselves again in an embarrassing position. I greatly regret, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members have seen fit at this stage to introduce any amendment, because it does not leave us free to express ourselves on the clear-cut proposition that the Senate of Canada as appointed, and as at present constituted, does not meet the needs of the Canadian people. Are we unanimous on that subject? I believe we are. Certainly the government committed themselves to that proposition when, in the Speech from the Throne, they promised that a conference of the provinces on the subject would be called. So far as those who sit in this corner of the House are concerned, we earnestly endorse the principle, and I have some reason to believe that those who sit on my right, the Conservative party, are also behind this proposition. Certainly their leader is on record at one time as having endorsed the proposition for the total abolition of the Senate, and if that statement is questioned-


Arthur Meighen: I have not heard what
the hon. gentleman said, and therefore will not contradict it.


John Livingstone Brown: Perhaps the House would
like to have my authority for that statement. In January, 1909, Mr. E. A. Lancaster of Lincoln and Niagara, introduced a resolution in the House which, after a long preamble, concluded in this way:
We therefore respectively pray that the said British North America Act be so amended as to provide for the abolition of the said Senate.
That proposition was debated at considerable length, and at the close of the debate was voted upon and the proposition was defeated by some 22 to 111. Among the 22 I find the name of Mr. Meighen. If that is not the right hon. gentleman who now leads

the opposition, then of course my most humble apology is due to him. I am the last man in this House who will deny to any man the right to change his mind; but if his mind on this subject has been changed we will naturally expect to hear from him; but until we have a definite announcement as to such a change we will hold that the Conservative party, as represented by their leader, is in favour of the proposition that the Senate as at present constituted is not for the welfare of Canada. I should like to suggest that we have some reason to believe that the Senate itself would be behind such a proposition. The hon. member for West Calgary this afternoon mentioned the fact that Hon. Sir Richard Scott is on record as having recognized the necessity for Senate reform. I might quote the following in this connection. Hon. Sir Richard Scott moved in the Senate a resolution beginning:
That, in the opinion of the Senate the time has arrived for so amending the constitution of this branch of parliament as to bring the mode of selection of senators more into harmony with public opinion.
Not only was Sir Richard Scott in favour of Senate reform, but we have also Sir Richard Cartwright on record as at one time being in favour of it; and I have no evidence that he changed his mind, although he occupied a place in the Senate. Mr. Lancaster, speaking on the resolution which he introduced to the House, referred to the fact that Sir Richard Cartwright, upon the eve of a general election, speaking in Massey Hall, Toronto, used this language:
The Senate was a millstone around the neck of the Canadian people which he prayed that Providence would soon remove.
Mr. Lancaster goes on to say, somewhat humorously:
I presume the right hon. gentleman is still praying. But he is not praying in the form in which this House should pray, by a concrete motion to bring about a result. And if I may say so, without being flippant, I do not think that the locality in which he is praying is quite consistent with his prayer, for he is now a member of the chamber which he hoped Providence would abolish.
I referred to the debate that took place in the House on Mr. Lancaster's motion, when the right hon. leader of the opposition voted in favour of abolition. I find in the same connection. another well known gentleman, Mr. Sharpe of Lisgar. Mr. Sharpe also voted in favour of the abolition of the Senate, and he too occupies a seat in that honourable body. Now, until we have evidence that these men have changed their minds we can only believe that they accepted these positions in the conviction that they could serve the country there better than anybody else.

The Senate
We must take it therefore that these and other hon. gentlemen, when the time comes, will willingly throw up the life appointment which they evidently accepted1 in the public interest. We must believe that when there is a sufficiently strong public demand they will resign their seats and do what they can to bring about the reforms which we advocate.
The hon. member for West Calgary very wisely pointed out the anomaly that exists in the Senate as it is at present constituted, its chief function supposedly being that of protecting provincial rights. Surely it is anomalous that a body should be specially charged with the protection of provincial rights when it is in no way responsible to the provinces. During a debate that was held in the session following that in which Mr. Lancaster's motion was debated, Sir Wilfrid Laurier made some remarks in this connection. There was introduced into the House by Mr. M. Y. McLean of Huron a resolution very similar to the one we have before us at the present time-
That, in the opinion of this House, the Dominion Senate as at present constituted is not in accordance with the representative institutions of this country, and the government should take the necessary proceedings to have the Senate made representatives of and directly responsible to the people.
In this connection Sir Wilfrid Laurier, while defending the system of appointments, made these remarks:
I will go further and I will give this as my very deliberate opinion, that if there is to be a reform of the Senate it should be in line with the purpose for which the Senate was instituted in this country, that is to say, to protect minorities, and to make it representative of the provinces rather than any other body of men.
He closed the debate with these words:
I am prepared to approach this question without any bias, and I am prepared to have the question examined whether or not, while we should keep the nominative appointment in the government, we should give a share of the responsibility to the different provinces. That is a suggestion which is well worthy of consideration. I agree with my hon. friend that something should be done. This is the last of the reforms which we promised the country, and which we have not yet carried out. It is a reform which we are anxious to carry out, but we wish to carry it out on lines which, I think, would be more in consonance with the spirit of our constitution.
That mtoti'on was not voted upon but was withdrawn. The member for West Calgary, in offering suggestions for possible reform, alluded' to the constitution of the Irish Senate. When the act constituting that body went through the British parliament the constitution of the Irish Senate was brought to my notice and it made a more favourable impression upon my mind than any proposition 59i	,	,
I bad1 seen presented up to that time. I think there is much in it that is well worth our consideration, and in my judgment that plan that has worked in the case of the Irish Free State, with the modifications that would be necessary to suit our conditions, might very well serve the purpose we have in view.
I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be well worth while for me to read from the British statutes a few clauses of that act relating to the constitution of the Irish Senate. The British statutes in this form are not very rleadily available to many sections of our people, .but Hansard is now widely circulated through the country, amd if this matter is to be understood by the people it is well that they should have access to the British statute constituting the Senate of the Irish Free State. For that reason I shall ask leave to place it on Hansard, and in the meantime I propose to read a few clauses of the act.
Article 82
(a)	The first Seaimd Eireann shall consist of sixty members, of whom thirty shall be elected and thirty shall be nominated.
(b)	The thirty nominated members of Seanad Eireann shall be nominated by the president of the Executive Council who shall, in making such nominations, have special regard to the providing of representation for groups or parties not then adequately represented in Dail Eireann.
(c)	The thirty elected members of Seanad Eireann shall be elected by Dail Eireann voting on principles of proportional representation.
(d)	Of the thirty nominated members, fifteen to be selected by lot, shall hold office for the full period of twelve years, the remaining fifteen shall hold office for the period of six years.
(e)	Of the thirty elected members the first fifteen
elected shall hold office for the period of nine years, the remaining fifteen shall hold office for the period of three years.	[DOT]
(f)	At the termination of the period of office of any such members, members shall be elected in their place in manner provided by article 32 of this constitution.
(g)	Casual vacancies shall be filled in manner provided by article 34 of this constitution.
There are four short articles referring to this matter. It will be noticed that the article I have read has reference only to the first Irish Senate. After it is constituted these rules will apply:
Article 30
The Irish Senate shall be composed of citizens who shall be proposed on the grounds that they have done honour to the nation by reason of useful public services or that, because of special qualifications or attainments, they represent important aspects of the nation's life^
Article 31
The number of members of the Irish Senate shall be sixty. A citizen to be eligible for membership of the Irish Senate must be a person eligible to become a member of Dail Eireann, and must have reached the age of thirty-five years. Subject to any provision for the constitution of the first Irish Senate the term of office of a member of the Irish Senate shall be twelve years.
The Senate

Article 32
One-fourth of the members of Seanad the Irish Senate shall be elected every three years from a panel constituted as hereinafter mentioned at an election at which the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State shall form one electoral area, and the elections shall be held on principles of proportional representation.
I shall refer to that again. Article 33 provides for the panel:
Before each election of members of the Irish Senate a panel shall be formed consisting of (a) Three times as many qualified persons as there are members to be elected, of whom two-thirds shall be nominated by Dail Eireann voting according to principles of proportional representation and one-third shall be nominated by the Irish Senate voting according to principles of proportional representation; and
(b) Such persons who have at any time been members of the Irish Senate (including members about to retire) as signify by notice in writing addressed to the president of the Executive Council their desire to be included in the panel.
I am satisfied that some modification of this scheme could be well applied to our own situation. Granting that we accept the provision that the representation should be made more directly by the provinces, why should we not have a province, such as Manitoba, with a given number of senators, constituted into one electoral division, just as is done in the case of the Free State. Nominations would be made under a system agreed upon and then the requisite number of senators elected according to proportional representation. I know proportional representation is anathema to some bon. gentlemen who sit in this House.


Mr. McMASTER:: That is because they
do not understand it.


John Livingstone Brown: Yes. I think if the hon.
member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) had understood it clearly he would not have placed on Hansard the figures that he gave us some time ago. I am quite satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that proportional representation in such a case would secure the desired result of having the members of the Senate from any given province representative of the thought, feeling and desires of its people. I am not satisfied that it wouild be well for us to depart from the principle of representation by population. That has been suggested, and the United States has been cited as an example. It is true that if the functions of the Senate were only to protect state rights, then the fact of the smaller states having equal representation with the larger might ensure their interests not being jeopardized by the action of the larger states. But the Senate of the United States does not by any means confine its activities to protecting the rights of the smaller states. And when it comes to dealing with larger matters of policy, I

cannot at present see that it would be wise for us to depart altogether from the principle of representation by population. It may be that the numbers are too large as at present, although even that may be a matter of doubt.
I hope Mr. Speaker, that if we can vote on the original proposition as submitted to the House we will have an absolutely unanimous expression of opinion, and while that may not satisfy some hon. members, it seems to me it would be no small achievement, for it would go forth to the country that on this matter the Commons of Canada are not in favour of things as they are.


Mr.  A. J. LEV IS@Swift Current: Mr. Speaker, like other members, I should like to congratulate my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) on bringing this important matter before the House. I am not so sure that I can congratulate him on his tolerance of the Senate. With the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), I should like to see everyone have an opportunity of stating his position either in regard to Senate reform or possibly to its abolition.
What is all the hue and cry about? Why is it that since 1874 various resolutions have been brought forward in this chamber and long discussions have taken place with respect to Senate reform, and yet in the end nothing has been done? What has brought this important subject once more before the public, what has focused their attention upon that honourable body? It is because in the past that honourable body has nullified certain legislation passed by this chamber. It seems to me that no matter how you may endeavour to reform the Senate, just so long as you have such a body enjoying that prerogative the wishes of the people will be thwarted. I have before me at the present time a statement of the number of bills thrown out by the Senate since 1867-about fifty-seven years-numbering approximately 150. Some of those measures, of course, were of minor importance, but many of them were of major importance and would have been of decided advantage to the Canadian people had they been placed on the statute book of this fair Dominion. It cannot be expected that the Senate will acquiesce in everything that this House does, otherwise it would be simply a duplication of the legislative machinery; and if we are to have a second chamber without power either to initiate or nullify legislation, the only logical course, it seems to me, is to abolish that second chamber.
Of course, arguments have been advanced against the abolition of the Senate, and those in favour of its retention tell us that a second

The Senate
chamber is necessary to check hasty legislation. But I cannot see any reason for an intelligent democracy such as ours to have its representatives held in check by an appointive body. If that body was removed altogether this chamber would be far more careful in passing legislation. There are many instances on record where parliament has passed legislation with the direct intention that it shall be nullified by the Senate, the object being to make political capital. It seems to me that the only ground upon which the issue can be sidestepped is that of political expediency; it cannot be done if the wishes of the people or the well-being of the country are kept in mind.
That the Senate exists to safeguard the interests of the provinces was a point brought out, I believe, by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) as well as by the hon. member for West Calgary. Well, when the Senate had an opportunity to safeguard the interests of the three great prairie provinces, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, in connection with their natural resources, they failed miserably. That was the time when they should have stood four-square to the wind and have seen to it that these three provinces entered the confederation on the same basis as the other provinces. If those responsible for this resolution rest their case on the argument that the Senate exerts its prerogative against the wishes of the people, the only logical thing to do is not to reform the Senate but to abolish it.
In his trip west, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) once again stirred up public opinion and focused attention on the Senate by his references to the subject, and a great many people out there hoped that something definite would be done by this parliament. Of course, the more serious minded people realized that this parliament could not accomplish anything of itself; that the only constitutional way to reform or to 'abolish the Senate was to call a conference of the provinces. Apparently the Prime Minister has also reached that conclusion, because what he hoped to do was announced in the Speech from the Throne this year. It seems to me that this is the only logical way out. The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) in a speech delivered last year, pointed out that under the British North America Act the Parliament of Canada consists of both Houses and the only way to reform or abolish the one or the other is to get the consent of the parties to the confederation, namely, the provinces. He showed that the power was not given this parliament to change the constitution of either House.
Senate Teform involves a constitutional question. This aspect of the matter was discussed the other day and I shall not enter very fully into it. There was no unanimity in the discussion that took place in the House on that occasion. Constitutional lawyers and other lawyers and hon. members generally expressed their views, but no definite conclusion was arrived at. Since abolition of the Senate is really out of the question, logical as it may seem to be, I wish to refer for a few moments to certain reforms that I think might be considered.
The hon. member for West Oalgary read a part of the speech delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) dealing with this question. You will remember that the Minister of Finance, speaking two years ago, said that the Senate was a check, not a block; that our country was variously constituted, the people of different sections of the country having different ideas on many questions, and that it was necessary to have a senate in order to place a check upon hasty legislation. Well, have they really checked any hasty legislation? In 1919 legislation which had the effect of taking away the right of trial by jury of persons born outside of Canada was passed in this House, and it was also passed in the other chamber in almost less than an hour. They failed miserably to check that legislation. Some years afterwards when we of the Progressive party came into this House we attempted to repeal that legislation, which we regarded as a blot upon the fair name of British and Canadian people, but that attempt was blocked; so I submit that the Senate has miserably failed either to check hasty legislation or-in many cases- to permit the passing of legislation of real value to the Canadian people.
The government has promised to proceed along constitutional lines, and I do not see the value of continuing this discussion unless it be to give the government the benefit of the opinion of representatives of the people when the conference of the provinces is held during the summer. I can readily understand that if this body is to continue to exist it must have certain power and it must have the right to safeguard the provinces. Some measure of control must rest with the second chamber. But when a measure has been before the people and has been discussed by them; when an issue has been placed before the electors and they have decided upon it in no uncertain way by returning representatives who, they believe, will introduce those views in the form of legislation, then I do not think it is logical that there should be any power on the part of another body to
The Senate

nullify that legislation. Of course if a government introduces legislation that has not been fully considered by the people, then the second chamber, if we are to have one, should have the right to nullify that legislation until such time as the electors have an opportunity to examine it fully. Subsequently, if there is no hue and cry against it; if no serious objection is urged, in the following session this House should have the right to introduce that legislation again and enact it into law.
The hon. member for West Calgary was on good ground when he referred to the equalization of representation among the provinces. I do not see any reason why Ontario and Quebec should dominate all the rest of Canada. I believe myself that the only fair thing to do would be to give equal representation to each of the provinces, especially since it is claimed that the Senate exists for the safeguarding of the provinces. I do not agree, if we are going to have a second chamber, that a membership of thirty-six would be sufficient. Canada is a great country and it would be very difficult for four representatives from each province to keep in touch with affairs in all the provinces. If there is to be a second chamber I believe those who represent the provinces should be able to keep fully in touch with them; accordingly eight or ten representatives at least for each province would be necessary to safeguard the interests of the people.
With regard to the election of the Senate, I do not see that that is at all practicable or desirable. The people have already spoken as to who should represent them in parliament; they have elected their representatives to the House of Commons. Shall they elect another body to supervise or exercise jurisdiction over the first? It does not seem to me to be necessary or even logical to have two bodies of men, both representatives of the people and one working against the other. An elective Senate would be a duplication of this chamber. I have before me the complexion of the Senate, not the political complexion, but the interests they represent. If we are going to have a Senate, it should be representative of the masses, and I would like to ask, how many representatives have the farmers of this country got in the Senate? The agriculturists number at least 52 per cent of the whole of Canada, but how many representatives of agriculture can you find in that chamber? How many working men can be found in the Senate to-day? Surely they have a right to be represented there; surely the farmers have a right to be represented there. If you will go over the list, you will find that the great majority of the men comprising the

Senate are lawyers. I have nothing to say against the lawyers; they have a right to be represented there just as much as anybody else, if we are going to have a chamber of that kind; but if we are going to have representatives of the people in that chamber we have a right to see that our representatives are there. I have before me a tabulation based upon the Parliamentary Guide and the Annual Canadian Financial Review, showing the directorships which members of the Senate hold. This tabulation shows that Senators hold 266 directorships in various companies. This may seem to show that they are representative business men, but I contend that it shows also that the interests of these companies and of the great industries of this country are very particularly represented in the second chamber, and if you want any proof of that, without mentioning any names I can pick at random the directorships that some of these men hold. Take Mr. A., for instance who according to the Parliamentary Guide is a Conservative. He is a director in the following companies: Fire Insurance Company of Canada; North Railway Company; Dominion Steel Corporation; Atlantic Sugar Refinery; Canada Car & Foundry Company, Limited; Ames Holden, Limited; The Insurance Company of Canada; Mount Royal Hotel Company; Capital Trust Company; Dominion Coal Company; Nova Scotia Steel & Coal Company; Eastern Car Company; Acadia Coal Company, Limited. This one individual, Mr. A, a representative of the people, holds thirteen directorships; so I think these companies are ably represented in the Senate. I say that it would be most difficult so long as we have that type of man in the Senate to pass bills affecting any of these interests.
Here is another member of the Senate, Mr. B, a Liberal. He is a director in the following companies:	Canada Cement Company; British Empire Steel Corporation; Reliance Insurance Company of Canada; Canada Steamships Company. Here is another, Mr. C, a Conservative, who is a director in the following companies: Rhodes Curry, Company; Canada Car & Foundry Company; Canadian Steel Foundries, Limited; The Pratt & Lackworth Company, Limited; Canadian Land Company; Bank of Nova Scotia; Canadian Light & Power Company; Canadian Accident & Fire Insurance Company; Cuban Canadian Sugar Company; Montreal Trust Company; Montreal Tramways & Power Company; Travellers Life Association of Canada. What I want to make known to the Canadian people is this, that these men who have been appointed to the Senate by both Liberal and Conservative governments are

The Senate
men who are 'held in high esteem necessarily by these great companies, by the capitalistic class of Canada, and1 how can you expect that when any democratic government wishes to bring forward legislation for the well being of the Canadian common people that these men will not nullify it? You cannot expect anything else. I do not wish to read this list, but I would like to place it on Hansard.
The list referred to is as follows:
Mr. D. Liberal, director of the following companies: M. J. O'Brien Ltd.; Delora Smelting & Refining Co.; Great Lakes Dredging Co. Ltd.; Capital Trust Co.; Canada Gulf & Terminal Ry.; Missouri-Cobalt Co.; Bank of Nova Scotia; Yellowhead Coal Co.; O'Brien Mine C; Miller, Lake, O'Brien Mine Ltd.; Boundary Investments Ltd.; Canada Paperboard Co. Ltd.; Eastern Security Co.; Inter-Provincial Flour Mills Ltd.; Renfrew Machinery Co. Ltd.; Peabody, Houghton & Co.; Herron Lumber Co.
Mr. E. Conservative, director of the following companies:	Montmorency & Charlevoix Ry.; Webster
Steamship Co.; Can. Import Co.; St. Lawrence Stevedoring Co.; Holt, Renfrew & Co.; Can. Salvage Association; Can. Fur Auction Sales Co. Ltd.; Quebec Apartment House Co.; Nova Scotia Steel & Coal Co.; Montreal Tramways Co.; Goodwins Ltd.; St. Lawrence Sugar Refineries Co.; Travellers Life Assur. Co.; Dominion Manufacturers Ltd.; Hudson Bay Knitting Co.; British Traders Insurance Co.; Union Insurance Society of Canton; Dominion Flour Mills Ltd.; International Trading Co.; Bankers Trust; Dryden Paper Co. Ltd.; Mount Royal Hotel Co.
Mr. F. Conservative, director of the following companies: Montreal Gazette Printing Co.; Steel Co. of Canada; Hamilton Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.; Montreal Rolling Mills Co.; Canada Screw Co. Ltd.; Dominion Wire Manufacturing, Co. Ltd.; Canada Bolt & Nut Co. Ltd.; United Financial Corp.; Montreal Trust Co.; Mount Royal Hotel Co.; Canada Steamship Lines Ltd.; Northern Navigation Co. Ltd.; Inter-Continental Transport Services Ltd.; Tide Water Shipbuilders Ltd.; Davis Shipbuilding & Repairing Co. Ltd.
Mr. G, Liberal, director of the following companies: Boivin Wilson & Co.; Bank of Hochelaga; Canada Publishing Co.; Mount Royal Assur. Co.; The National City Co. Ltd.; Montreal Tramway & Power Co. Saguenay Pulp & Power Co. Ltd.; Windsor Hotel Co.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Can the hon.
member give us any example of legislation in the interests of the people that has 'been rejected by the Senate?


Mr. LEWIS:: An Act to provide for the salaries of two additional Judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
An Act to repeal the Acts respecting Insolvency now in force in the Dominion.
An Act to repeal an Act to regulate the construction and maintenance of Marine Electric Telegraphs.
An Act to legalize marriage with the sister of a deceased wife.
An Act to amend an Act to provide that persons charged with common assault shall be competent as witnesses.
An Act to incorporate the Don River Improvement Company.
An Act to amend the Criminal Law, and to extend the provisions of the Act respecting offences against the person.
An Act to amend the law respecting cruelty to animals.
An Act to provide for the punishment of seduction and like offences.
An Act to provide for the punishment of seduction and like offences.
An Act to further amend the law of evidence in Criminal cases.
An Act to amend, and consolidate as amended, the statutory provisions respecting Chinese Immigration. An Act to amend the Consolidated Railway Act, 1879. An Act for the further amendment of the Law of Evidence in certain cases.
An Act to incorporate the Ottawa, Morrisburg and New York Railway and Bridge Company.
An Act to permit Foreign Vessels to aid Vessels wrecked or disabled in Canadian Waters.
An Act to provide for the building and working of a line of Railway from Harvey to Salisbury or Moncton, in the province of New Brunswick.
An Act to incorporate the Ottawa, Morrisburg and New York Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Act for the prevention and suppression of combinations formed in restraint of trade.
An Act to incorporate the Elbow River Water Power Company.
An Act to incorporate the Cataract Power Company of Hamilton, Ltd.
An Act to confirm certain agreements entered into by Her Majesty with the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and the Drummond County Railway Company for the purpose of securing the extension of the Intercolonial Railway System to the city of Montreal.
An Act respecting the Kingston and Pembroke Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the pilots serving between Quebec and Montreal.
An Act to amend the Railway Act.
An Act respecting the Restigouche and Victoria Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Winnipeg, Duluth and Northern Railway Company.
An Act to confirm an agreement between Her Majesty and William Mackenzie and Donald D. Mann, and to incorporate the Canadian Yukon Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Manitoba School Fund.
An Act respecting the North American Telegraph Co.
An Act to further secure the safety of Railway employees and passengers.
An Act to incorporate the Supreme Grand Lodge of the Sons of England Benefit Society.
An Act in further amendment of the Trade Mark and Design Act.
An Act to incorporate the British Pulp, Paper & Railway Co.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code, 1892, so as to make more effectual provision for the punishment of : eduction and abduction.
An Act respecting the Portage du Fort and Bristol Branch Railway Company.
An Act respecting representation in the House of Commons.
An Act in further amendment of the Trade Mark and Design Act.
An Act to incorporate the Canada National Railway and Transport Company.
An Act to incorporate the Gaspe Short Line Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Act respecting the Judges of Provincial Courts.
An Act ta amend the Land Titles Act, 1894.
An Act to amend Post Office Act.
An Act to authorize the sale of the Yarmouth Steamship Company's property to the Dominion Atlantic Ry. Co.
1891
An Act to incorporate the Inverness and Victoria Railway Co.
An Act to incorporate the Whirlpool Bridge Company.
An Act to amend the Act to incorporate the School Savings Bank.
An Act to secure the better observance of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday.
An Act to incorporate the Canadian Order of Foresters.
1896. 2nd session
An Act respecting the Hull Electric Company.

An Act to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
An Act respecting Le Credit Foncier du Bas Canada, end to change its name to Le Credit Hypothecate du Canada.
An Act respecting the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway Company.
An Act respecting the South Shore Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Gaspe and Western Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Bishop of the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church for North America and Aleutian Islands and each of the parishes and missions of the said church in Manitoba and the North West
Territories.
An Act to amend the Petition of Right Act.

The Senate
1903
An Act to incorporate the Gaspe and Western Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Maritime Railway and Transportation Company.
An Act respecting Aliens.
An Act to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
An Act respecting the Hamilton, Grimsby and Beams-ville Electric Railway Company.
An Act respecting the New Brunswick Southern Railway Company.
An Act respecting Labour Union Labels.
1906-	07
An Act to incorporate the Western Rivers Improvement Company.
1907-	8
An Act respecting Co-Operation.
An Act to incorporate the Saskatoon. Saskatchewan, Peace River and Dawson Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
An Act respecting Insurance.
1910-	11
An Act to amend the Interest Act.
An Act respecting the Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway Co.
An Act respecting hours of labour on Public Works.
An Act to amend the Railway Act.
An Act respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Co.
1911-	12
An Act respecting the Vancouver and Lulu Island Highways.
1911-	12
An Act to provide for the appointment of a Tariff Commission.
An Act to authorize the granting of subsidies to the Government of the Province of Ontario in aid of the construction of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway.
An Act to amend the Inspection and Sale Act.
1912-	13
An Act respecting the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Co.
An Act to incorporate the Prudential Life of Canada.
An Aet to authorize measures for increasing the effective Naval Forces of the Empire.
An Act respecting Canadian Northern Railway Branch Lines. (Commons declined to accept Senate amendments.)
An Act respecting Government Railways, Amendment Act. (Commons declined to accept Senate amendments.)
An Act respecting Improvement of Highways. (Commons declined to accept Senate amendments.)
An Act for the relief of the Depositors of the Farmers Bank of Canada. (Six months hoist.)
An Act respecting the Post Office Amendment Act. (Commons refused to accept Senate amendments.)
An Act respecting the Labrador, Quebec and Southern Railway Company. (Commons declined to accept Senate amendments.)
An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act. (Six months hoist).
An Act to amend the Railway Act.
An Act to consolidate and amend the Railway Act.
An Act to amend the Inspection and Sgile Act (Food containers, firewood and cement).
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Sexual offences).
An Act to amend the Biological Board Act.
An Act to confirm the Order-in-Council of the 24th February, 1919, prohibiting the importation manufacture and transportation of intoxicating liquors, and the Order-in-Council of the 12th April, 1919, in amendment thereof.
An Act to incorporate the Northwest Route, Limited.
An Act to incorporate the Athabaska, Grande Prairie and Fort Vermilion Railway Company.
An Act respecting Electric and Power Companies.
1920-2nd session
An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
An Act to amend the Research Council Act, and to establish a National Research Institute.
An Act to incorporate La Compagnie de Telephone Quebec Union Electrique. (The Quebec Union Electric Telephone Company).
An Act respecting the Quebec Light Heat & Power Co.
An Act respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Co.
An Act respecting the Criminal Code.
An Act respecting the Lake of the Woods.
An Act for the. Repeal of the Lake of the Woods Regulation Act, 1921 (Six months hoist).
An	Act	to amend	the	Canada	Temperance Act.
(Commons declined to accept Senate amendments).
An	Act	respecting	the	Construction of	Canadian
National Railway Lines (Six months hoist).
An Act to amend The Post Office Act. (Defeated on second reading).
An Act to amend the Industrial Disputes Act, 1907.* (Commons declined to accept Senate amendments).
An Act respecting Trade between Canada and Finland. (Committee rose).
An	Act	respecting	the	Disposal	of the	Canteen
Funds. (Three months hoist).
Canadian National Railway Construction Bills:-
Bill 50-Kelvington Branch-Reported against.
Bill 30-Rousseau & Laurent-Reported against.
Bill 32-Guysboro-Reported against.
Bill .40-Nepawin-Reported against.
Bill 54-Rad ville-Reported against.
Bill 48-Turtleford-Three months hoist.
Lloydminster-Three months hoist.
An	Act	to amend	the	Criminal	Code.	Reported
against.
An Act to amend the Industrial Disputes Act, 1907. (Commons declined to accept Senate amendments).
In conclusion, I cannot see how there can be any logical reason for maintaining a second chamber to nullify the wishes of the Canadian people as expressed through men whom they have sent to parliament to put their wishes into effect. It is illogical, and any reforms we may advocate and try to bring into effect will only result in further
93S
The Senate

dissatisfaction so long as the Senate is constituted as it is. I believe the time must come when, if democracy is to prevail, you must trust,the people to legislate. It is the only wise thing to do, and if you say the Canadian people are not intelligent enough or are not educated enough to say what they want, then the quicker we get down and demand that they become educated, and the sooner we admit no one into this country who is not intelligent, the quicker we shall see the wishes of the people expressed in legislation that will be for the good of the whole country.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Mr. Speaker, the question at present uhder consideration is most worthy of our attention. For a number of years past the question of Senate reform has been discussed, however, up to now nothing has been done to reform this institution which dates back to 1867, year of the Confederation.
The present government has understood and is fully aware that nothing can be done without first consulting the provinces which are contracting parties to the British North America Act. Therefore, nothing can be accomplished without their consent. This is why the Speech from the Throne mentions that the House will in the course of this session be called upon to sanction the meeting of a conference between the Dominion * and provincial governments in order to consider the opportunity of amending the constitution of the Senate. Without considering the chances of success of such a conference, I 'think, Mr. Speaker, it is the only consistent course for us to follow. I shall not enter into the arguments for and against the project of the reform of the Senate which have been presented to this House, but I shall take the liberty of briefly expressing my personal views which are shared by a very large majority of my electors as well as those of my province. These views are that we should not interfere with the confederation pact and, in particular, the constitution of the Senate that we hold as the guardian of our rights.
I shall, therefore, for the above reasons vote for the subamendment, against the amendment and resolution.
The intention of the government is so clearly expressed in the Speech from the Throne that it seems to me that it should have been understood and the resolution should not 'have given rise to such a debate in the House. True, such a subject affords a splendid opportunity to some of our able debaters, but has very little economic interest for the country at large.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon):: In the Senate as at present constituted there are 24 members representing Ontario, 24 representing Quebec, 10 representing New Brunswick, 10 representing Nova Scotia, 4 representing Prince Edward Island, and 6 each for the four western provinces, or 96 in all. Nine millions of Canadians have the same number of senators as one hundred and ten millions of Americans. The members of our Senate are selected by the government of Canada really as a reward for partisan services; they are not elected at all by the provinces they purport to represent. And furthermore-


Mr. MARTELL:: What better services could a man be appointed for than for partisan services in respect; of either of the old political parties, especially when they have the endorsation of their constituencies?


John Evans: If the hon. gentleman will
keep his seat and pay attention I think I will answer every question he may put. I repeat, all our senators are selected, by the government of Canada as a reward for partisan services, and not at all by the provinces they purport to represent. Furthermore appointees must be acceptable to members of the government representing Ontario and Quebec which provinces to-day hold half the veto power of the whole Dominion. The senators are all appointed for life. True they may resign but this is not very likely. The purpose of the Senate was primarily to protect the weaker provinces by preventing hasty legislation, and to temper the national action with national caution. That it has failed in this purpose is seen in the fact that it has tempered national action with partisan caution. That the Senate has failed to protect the weaker provinces is seen in the fact that it is controlled by the two major provinces of the Dominion, Ontario and Quebec, by the method of appointment, and also by the excessive representation of these two provinces. The excessive representation of Ontario and Quebec has, up to this time, served no legitimate purpose and is useless for any other purpose than domination. The Senate has maintained its domination of Canada by Ontario and Quebec, in conjunction with the domination by these two provinces in the House of Commons since confederation. This domination has made these two old provinces-or the old union of Ontario and Quebec-think consciously and sub-consciously of Canada in terms of two provinces only. It has really prevented these provinces from realizing the viewpoint of the other provinces. It has made them incapable of taking an ocean to ocean viewpoint of this Dominion, it has

The Senate
imbued them with an unwillingness to conciliate and compromise, and they are ever ready to use their power to dominate. These evidences of political unfitness are specially characteristic of the citizens of Montreal and Toronto, and the effect this has had upon the policies of Canada is that it has made them sectional rather than national. It has evolved a national policy based on the establishment of an industrial area within Ontario and Quebec, unique among industrial areas in that it is not founded on iron, or steel, or coal, it has imposed tariff restrictions and custom regulations on the whole of Canada for its own benefit, almostly exclusively for the advantage of this one industrial area. It has imposed or prompted the imposition of transportation rates both by rail and water, rates well calculated to prevent the establishment of industrial areas in other parts of the Dominion where coal and iron are abundant. It has evolved a domestic policy based on the appropriation of the public domain of the unborn provinces, and which has resulted in the disposition of very large areas of this public domain as public lands for Dominion purposes on the false assumption that these western areas were purchased and annexed by the Dominion instead of being admitted into the union of Canadian provinces. I refer to Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territory. In pursuance of that domestic policy the balance of confederation has been disturbed by increasing the area of the two major provinces out of all proportion, and has delivered to them for their sole use and benefit the public domain within the areas included by the extension of their boundaries.
It twice goaded the native inhabitants of Rupert's Land into rebellion as a protest against domination; and by persistent disallowance of provincial railway charters and prevention of railway competition all but precipitated an armed conflict at Fort Whyte in Manitoba in the early eighties. From the Atlantic to the Pacific disunion has resulted from the domestic policy of subordinating all other interests to those of the dominating provinces, a policy which has so recently found aggravating expression in preventing extension of branch lines of the Canadian National railway to productive areas lacking transportation; and in preventing competitive transportation routes by way of the Panama canal and Hudson bay.
What is the remedy? Real Senate reform: the replacement of the present Senate by one in which every province, large or small, will be represented on the floor of the Senate
by the same number of senators, preferably not more than five or six for each province. This is no new idea. It has been the basis of representation in the Senate of the United States since 1789. It is the basis of Senate representation in Australia and South Africa except as to representation of the natives in South Africa. It is the system adopted by all or nearly all nations having federal government except our own, and it is enunciated and but partially applied in our constitution. Sir Wilfred Laurier suggested this reform in the parliamentary sessions of 1906, 1908 and 1909. On both occasions he was discussing as premier, certain resolutions before the House of Commons relating to Senate abolition and Senate reform. In 1906 this great statesman said, among other things:
A second chamber seems to me absolutely necessary for two reasons. It is supposed to be a check on hasty legislation, but one consideration [DOT]which to my mind is absolutely conclusive and paramount is that under our system, composed of federal units, a second chamber is an absolutely necessary safeguard against a possible invasion of the rights of the smaller provinces. But if we are to have reform, I would not be averse to adopting the system of our neighbours and have each province represented by an equal number of members, whether that province be large or small.
In the session 'of 1907-08 Sir Wilfrid Laurier is reported by Hansard, page 1570, as having
said:
In the United States Senate, the state of New York has two members, and the state of Rhode Island has also two members, so that while in the House of Representatives each state speaks according to the numerical strength of its population-
Thirty-six against two.
-in the Senate each state has an equal voice.
He further states:
If I had to offer a reform it would be that all the provinces should be represented by an equal number of senators. There are nine provinces, and if each province were represented by, let us say six senators, that would give us a senate of fifty-four members, which would be a pretty strong body, a body sufficiently large and not cumbersome.
He further said:
I would like to ask the House to consider this proposition: that the number of senators ought to be limited to a fixed number, and that each province should be represented in the Senate by an equal number of senators. I mentioned six, but that is arbitrary; it may be five or it may be seven, or it may be eight, or it may be ten; I do not care which for the present moment. But what I would insist on is that each province should be represented by an equal number of senators.
He said further:
Beyond this and the suggestion that the appointment should not be for life but for a limited period I would not be prepared to go.
That Sir Wilfrid did not go the length we thought he was prepared to go in Senate re-



The Senate
form is due to the fact that it would have involved a change conferring on the provinces that right to equal Senate representation for which they had not asked, but for which they have a perfect right to ask. Canada is a federal union of nine provinces, legalized by the British North America Act of 1867. The object of the act was neither to weld the provinces into one nor to subordinate provincial governments to a centrail authority. It was to create a federal government in which all should be represented, such government to be entrusted with the exclusive administration of affairs within its own jurisdiction. The provinces were to have a common interest, each retaining its independence and autonomy, and these independent autonomous provinces have a right to seek changes in the constitution of that branch of the Parliament of Canada composed exclusively of persons appointed to represent them. Amendments have been made to the British North America Act on the address of the Dominion parliament without the -formally expressed consent of the provinces or even of a majority of them. One of these amendments violated a fundamental provision of the federation compact, upon which the British North America Act is based, namely that providing for representation by population in the House of Commons. During the war the Conservative government did secure such an amendment without the formally expressed consent of the provinces. This establishes a precedent that amendments may be made without the formally expressed consent of any of the provinces. It also establishes a precedent that fundamental provisions of the confederation compact may be violated on motion of a parliament of -Canada willing to be guilty of a breach of faith; provided the governments of the provinces again wilfully or negligently -fail to protest. But that does not preclude their formally expressing consent or protest. In respect of any constitutional amendment not involving a change in any of the fundamental provisions of the confederation compact, an, address from, a majority of the provinces asking for such change would weigh; but if a fundamental provision of that compact were involved, addresses from all the provinces would be necessary, or at least the protest of any province should be sufficient to prevent the amendment. By a fundamental provision of the confederation compact I mean that the union of the provinces was voluntary. Those provinces who did not express a desire to be federally united into one dominion were not included until they expressed that desire, Newfoundland is not yet included. Funda-

mental provisions are those, the inclusion of which in the compact was necessary to evoke a desire in any one or more provinces to be federally united with the others. That there should be a Senate was a fundamental provision of the confederation compact. Unanimous consent is necessary to its abolition.
The preponderant representation of Ontario and Quebec in the House of Commons would perpetuate their domination of Canada and make real national union forever impossible. The procedure necessary to reform the Senate requires addresses to the Imperial parliament from the House of Commons and from a majority of the provincial legislative assemblies, all of which being elective have an inherent right to speak for the people and provinces they represent. No address to the Senate is necessary. They being non-elective the Senate has no inherent right to speak for either the provinces as provinces nor for the citizens of Canada as citizens of Canada. It has a right to address the Imperial parliament independently of the House of Commons even as the British House of Commons and the House of Lords have from time to time addressed' His Majesty quite independently of each -other. After all the Senate is a -part of the Parliament of Canada. As such it has had delegated to -it by the British North America Act power to do certain legislative acts, but delegated powers must be construed strictly and addressing the Imperial parliament either in prayer or protest is not a legislative act. Anyone may do it. Amendments to the British North America Act are not amendments to an act of the Parliament of Canada where the consent of the Senate is necessary.
The constitution of Canada is the legal expression of the will of its people as to their machinery of government and its operation, and to allege that the consent of an irresponsible body in no sense representative is necessary to their deposition is to allege that constitutional change cannot be made constitutionally should the people of Canada so will. The fact that they have been appointed for life does not alter the right of the people to change their tenure of office. The tenure of office of other servants of Canada has been shortened, ostensibly in the public interest with the tacit approval of the Senate, and a precedent well established. Consent of the Senate is not necessary. The Imperial parliament will follow its time-honoured policy of bestowing on the dominions, whose equal status it acknowledges, all the powers they ask for. Failure to recognize the expressed will of the people of Canada -as to its machinery of government, or an attempt to

The Senate
make legalization conditional on the continuance of the present Senate in office, would raise a much larger issue than that of Senate reform. When Canada sees fit to cease expending any portion of its revenue in payment of sessional indemnities to appointed senators no British parliament will intervene. Constitutional fictions to the contrary notwithstanding, the fact is that the Briton abroad is not in Canada a subject of the Briton at home. The senators vigorously contend that the Senate cannot be reformed without their consent, but in doing so they are alleging that the Senate cannot be reformed except by revolution.
The reformed Senate should be chosen by proportional representation for fixed terms, not subject to dissolution, with the whole province as the constituency. They should be elected for some fixed period, not less than seven and not more than ten years. Why proportional representation? Proportional representation ensures the representation of minorities, and a Senate so elected will be more considerate of the rights of minorities than one elected by majority vote in single constituencies. It is desirable that it should be, and proportional representation will ensure it. Should each province elect six senators any minority numbering one-sixth of the population would be sure of representation. If partisanship be discriminated against by making senators ineligible for cabinet positions, election by proportional representation should fill the Senate with well assorted senators specially qualified to temper national action with national caution and to conciliate the conflicting interests of the provinces. The very existence of a real federal Senate would itself obviate the need for much conciliation and compromise.
Unlike the House of Commons the votes and proceedings of a real federal Senate will not be an accurate measure of its functioning. Sponsors of bills will inevitably consider before introducing them, their chances to pas the Senate on their merits.
Other unnamed "important particulars" are to be submitted to the conference. The omission from the British North America Act, of categorical mention of those provisions of the act which were fundamental to the confederation compact, should be supplied as one of the next amendments. So soon as, but not before, a Privy Council decision has determined whether the public domain in the three prairie provinces is vested in the crown in the right of the provinces or in the right of the Dominion; so soon as a real federal Senate is established, and provisions have been added to the British North America Act specifying what
provisions of our constitution require unanimous consent for their amendment; and so soon as the act shall have had its deadwood eliminated and its provisions consolidated, provision should be made .for the future amendment of our constitution. This must be made subject to the specified fundamental conditions of the confederation compact, but not before the aforesaid conditions shall have been fulfilled. Those provinces whose minority rights and privileges are incorporated in the British North America Act very naturally require assurance that these rights and privileges shall not be abrogated by a parliamentary majority in Canada. The underprivileged provinces may very properly demand that, before Canada is empowered to amend her own constitution, there shall be no overprivileged and no underprivileged provinces in Canada. The prairie provinces which believe and know that their public domain has been illegally appropriated by the Dominion, naturally do not intend to consent to Canada's being empowered to amend her own constitution until it shall, have become impossible for a Canadian parliamentary majority to confirm Canada's spoliation of the public domain within their respective borders. Unless and until these matters are settled, the conferring on Canada of power to amend her own constitution, will only jeopardize that _ national unity so necessary to the progress and prosperity of Canada. We must do first things first.
What then is the conclusion of the whole matter? That the British North America Act should be amended and consolidated, and that as amended and consolidated it should provide a categorical declaration as to those fundamental provisions of the act which shall not be amendable without the unanimous consent of the provinces. We need real Senate reform, and amendment thereafter by the Parliament of Canada, and for deferring the coming into force of the provision empowering the Dominion parliament to amend the constitution until the respective rights of the Crown, in the right of the provinces, and in the right of the Dominion, to the public domain of the prairie provinces, shall have been determined by the legal tribunal of last resort.


William F. Carroll: The question of Senate reform is about as old as confederation. There have been in this country very many people, among them some very eminent statesmen, who during their public and political careers have stood for Senate reform, and the advocates of this reform have been agitating from 1861 up to the present time. But so
The Senate

far there has been, no reform of the Senate, and in my opinion it will be some years yet before there will be any such reform of great importance. And that is due entirely to our constitution as it stands. A great many objections are offered to the present constitution of the Senate. Some of them may be well founded while others are not, but the principal objection as I see it is that the Senate is not in touch with the public pulse, it is not in touch with public opinion, and therefore its decisions on legislation received from the House of Commons is not at all times according to public opinion, Well, Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who think that sometimes even public opinion is astray, and that although a popular outburst may for the time being carry the Commons off its feet, that opinion may not be founded on mature consideration and cool judgment of the question at issue.
I have heard it said to-day by hon. gentlemen, who no doubt have given this question serious consideration, that the Senate should be abolished, indeed, that- it should never have been in existence. Well, I can point to two decisions of the Senate which, I think, have fully justified its creation. May I refer to the gold rush to the Yukon? At that time the public were carried off their feet, they were amazed at the marvellous gold discoveries'in that great northern country, but they did not consider for a moment how long those discoveries were going to continue. Insistent demands were made upon the Liberal government of the day for the building of a railway into the Yukon at a cost of millions of dollars, and public opinion was solidly behind those demands. The great statesman, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was Prime Minister, and a measure for the building of the railway passed this House with very few dissenting votes; but fortunately the Senate killed it. I think by that act alone the Senate fully justified its existence, for undoubtedly by the course they took they demonstrated that they had greater vision than those who at that time thought they were representing public opinion. On that occasion we had a Liberal House of Commons and a Conservative Senate. I do not say that the Senate killed the Yukon railway bill because it came from a Liberal government, for this would be tantamount to saying that any bill originating in this House might be thrown out by the Senate to gain a political advantage. That is not the history of the Senate in its attitude towards legislation initiated in this chamber. Again, in 1913-14 the Senate-then Liberal-threw out a measure introduced by the Conservative government. I happened to 	"*
be a member of this House in those days. I presume, Mr. Speaker, that never in the history of this parliament was there a greater debate than that which became known as the naval debate, when politics was at fever heat. The Conservative government took the position that this country should make a monetary contribution to augment the Imperial navy; the opposition took the stand that we could best help the imperial authorities by organizing a Canadian navy. The bill passed the House of Commons, but the Senate killed it. There again I say the Senate justified its existence.
The speech of my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) was a very fair presentation of the constitutional position respecting the Senate; but I do not agree with him that the Senate is undemocratic. The ideals of democracy, of course, have never been realized in this or any other country; but nowhere in the wide world has democracy achieved a greater practical success than in the British Empire. In this Dominion we have democracy in its truest form, and I am prepared to stand for a constitution which has weathered the storms of political crises and reached its present well-ordered development-the constitution of Great Britain. Some of the greatest statesmen of the world have helped in the development of that constitution which has made England supreme commercially and politically throughout the entire world. If democracy has been a failure, it has been so in those countries which did not have such safeguards as the House of Lords of England and the Senate of Canada. Certain hon. gentlemen referred to some of the European states before the war and to some of those created after the war where they had no second chambers. Well, when it comes to making a choice between the constitution of some of the European countries with unspeakable names and the constitution of Canada, I am for our constitution.
Some speakers on the other side, my Progressive friends I think, urged that the Senate does not feel the public pulse, that it is out of touch with public opinion. Are we so childish in this House, Sir, as to think that by our speeches and our votes we are always truly representing public opinion? For example, next year, the year after,-or ten years hence, a minority in this House may actually be representing the majority of the people. Can it be said that under those circumstances the House of Commons is responsive to public opinion? No. I venture the statement that very often in this House we vote against what we well know to be public opinion in

The Senate
order to satisfy our own conscience-those of us who have any; I hope we all have. After all, public opinion at times is just as mistaken as anything else in this world. I venture to say that on some of the questions that have been debated and voted decided in this House for the past twenty or twenty-five years, very often a private ballot would have resulted in those questions being negatived which were answered in the affirmative. I think that if it had been possible to have had a private ballot on some of the public questions which have been debated and voted on in this House, and which appeared to have public opinion behind them, it would have been a revelation-perhaps not so much to this House as to the country.


William Findlay Maclean: Would that be responsible government?


William F. Carroll: Oh, responsible government may be a myth. There are different ways of saying what is responsible government. Responsible government has been employed in the past in such a way as to make public opinion. We have responsible government, I say, in this country and in Great Britain on nearly as well developed a basis as we can get it; but like all other earthly institutions, governments-democratic, monarchical, communist or otherwise-make mistakes. If I were to point to the country which made greater progress in a short time than any other I would name the country which for four hundred years was ruled entirely by a senate. Rome became mistress of the world under a senate. She did have the happy faculty, of course, of getting the very best men-statesmen, generals, ambassadors, consular agents; these were the people who made the laws and guided the destinies of Rome. From a mere municipality she grew to be mistress of the world; there was really no civilization outside of Rome. So much for what a senate has done for one country.


Mr. IRVINE:: Does my hon. friend mean
to say that Rome fell under a senate?


William F. Carroll: No; I said Rome became great under a senate. She might have become great under any other form of government, but I could cite instances to my hon. friend of countries which have fallen flatter than Rome, and that under a supposedly ideal democracy.


William Irvine: Does my hon. friend mean to say we have irresponsible government now?


William F. Carroll: I know some people who are trying to carry on the government of
this country-not perhaps, in the inner circles -who are not very responsible.


William Irvine: Is the hon. member speaking personally?


William F. Carroll: My hon. friend may take it to himself if he wishes; or I may take it to myself. I know that my hon. friend has given votes in this House which he would not have given if he had his finger on the pulse of public opinion and was guided by its indications. So have I, and so, I daresay, has every man who has ever held a seat in this House.


William Irvine: I will have to protest
against that. The hon. member may confess his own faults, but he must not confess mine. I will do that for myself.


William F. Carroll: My life, I am afraid,
would be too short to admit my undertaking that stupendous task.
Now, one of the cure-alls for the defects of the Senate is alleged to be the appointment of our senators by the provincial legislatures. Well, from what body would they appoint them? What would prevent our legislatures from appointing partisans to the Senate? There is no provincial government that is not more or less partisan, and if a vacancy occurred in the Senate the provincial government would appoint, I have no doubt, a partisan supporter. Would the mere fact that the government or the legislature of a province appointed a senator make him nonpartisan? Would it raise ham above the ordinary man we find in the Senate to-day? I do not see how it could. Under our present system senators are appointed by the Governor in Council, and the appointment must be made from the province where the vacancy occurs. It is part of our constitution that t h e ^ senator must have his residence in the province he represents. By what manipulation of imagination can one conclude that a man would make a better senator from Ontario, from Quebec or from any other province simply because he was appointed by the provincial legislature or the provincial government rather than by the Governor-General-in-Council?
Another reason offered by an hon. member for the abolition of the Senate is that the Senate was designed for the protection of minorities, and he says he has failed in his reading to come across any case in which the interests of the minorities in this country were protected by that body. Well, I have not gone into that question, but I have faith enough in humanity, faith enough in even
The Senate

the present Senate, faith enough in this country from having read its history, political and otherwise, to come to the conclusion that we have not had and will not have a Senate which would deliberately attempt to dominate minorities in such a way to as take away from them any of their rights.
Another hon. gentleman contended that provincial rights had not been properly adjusted and protected, and in this respect he attributed fault to the Senate. If my hearing served me rightly, I think he urged that the western provinces-and I am not entering upon a discussion of this question; I will leave it to the western members to discuss it and decide it for themselves-would have 'had control of their natural resources were it not for the Senate. I may have misunderstood the hon. member, but I do not know that when the provinces were carved in the great west any senate did anything to prevent the people of those provinces from having their natural resources.


Arthur John Lewis: It was I who made that
suggestion, but not in the way the hon. member has put it. The argument was raised that the Senate had been designed to safeguard the interests of the provinces, and I said that they had faded to safeguard those interests when the bill creating the provinces went through.	.


William F. Carroll: Well, by twice as much
did the people who represented western public opinion at that time fail to respond to the needs of the provinces which were being formed. Moreover, there were a large number of western people in this House at that time. But there were no western provinces until provision for them was made, therefore there were no provincial rights to protect, speaking of provincial rights in the sense of those supposed to be protected under the terms of the British North America Act.


Arthur John Lewis: Was it not necessary to change the British North America Act in order to withhold from the newly formed western provinces the right to control their own natural resources?


William F. Carroll: If that is so I would
point it out to those who are so very anxious to make it easy to amend the British America Act.
One of the hon. members who spoke on this question urged that there was too large a representation in the Senate, and I think the same hon. member went on to say that all provinces should be equally represented in that body. I do not argue against that principle, but I would point out that there are insur-

mountable difficulties in the way of its adoption. We are told on the best of legal authority that before we can amend the British North America Act we must have the consent of all the provinces. Do youi think that Quebec or Ontario, with their larger populations, would gracefully submit to Prince Edward Island having the same number of representatives in the Senate as they did?


Arthur John Lewis: I certainly do not, but just
the same I think Nova Scotia would be in a much better position to-day if she had equal representation in the Senate.


William F. Carroll: She might have a preponderance of right on her side. I am not saying anything with respect to Nova Scotia at the moment, but I simply warn my western friends of this:	It may not come in our
generation, but those of us who know anything about the west will have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that before very many decades the bulk of our population will be west of lake Superior, and then hon. gentlemen from the west who to-day say they have not sufficient representation in the Senate may have another song to sing.


Arthur John Lewis: By that time I hope the
Senate will be abolished.


William F. Carroll: My hon. friend has made several assertions. First, he said he wanted the Senate abolished; then he said it could not be abolished in view of a learned opinion given by the hon. member of Hants (Mr. Martell). Then he went on to tell us how the Senate might be reformed in this, that and the other respect. Suppose the hon. gentlemen who have spoken in this debate to-day from the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba,-if any have spoken from Manitoba-suppose they represented the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta and Manitoba; what a nice fix We would be in then! They would undertake to fix the constitution of the Senate, to reform it and do other things. Would there be any unity amongst them? I am simply pointing out the difficulties we will have under our constitution in amending the Senate in any particular.
The mover of this resolution, who has given the subject serious study and is a good sound lawyer, has made a splendid presentation of his case. He did what every man should do when he asks that a change in our constitution be made; he indicated what he thought that change should1 be; but hon. gentlemen who followed him, the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis), the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans), and other hon. gentlemen have not followed him in that

The Senate
respect. It simply goes to show that the way set out in the Speech from the Throne is the only way by which we can arrive at any conclusion as to what amendments the people as a whole or the provinces as a whole are prepared to make. There is very little use in our discussing the question in this House in an academic way. We are going to arrive at no unanimous conclusion because the reforms which we have in our minds are so numerous and so varied that they will not be accepted by one-third of the other members of this House. I believe that eveiy member of this House has some ideal in his mind. Ideals are splendid things to have, but they are difficult to bring into effect. I do not think you could get ten members of this House who would sit down and come to a unanimous conclusion as to what reforms of the Senate they would undertake in order to improve it. That is going to be just our difficulty when we get the representatives of all the provinces together. We talk of public opinion, but whom are we going to get from the provinces to represent public opinion? Does the government of a province represent public opinion in that province? Maybe so, maybe not. Does a provincial government which got its mandate four or five years ago on the question of, say, prohibition-I mention that just for the sake of illustration, I am not sneering at it in any way-would that government represent public opinion in its province to-day on the question of reforming the Senate? This question is far more serious I believe than any person who has not given it serious thought conceives. Let us take the province of Nova Scotia, for example. Supppose there was a conference held at Ottawa to-morrow on the question of Senate reform. The government of Nova Scotia has been in power for five years the next 10th of July. Will anyone say that the government of Nova Scotia could come up here and would fairly represent the people of that province on Senate reform when they say: This is what we think should be done. They might, and they might not, be representing public opinion in that province; I would rather think they would not be representing it, after being four or five years in power without making an appeal to the people of that province.
My own idea is that if we are going to get any Senate reform, we must have a definite and concrete proposal to place before the people of the various provinces, and I think that if we will attempt to live up to our ideals of what a democracy should be, the question should be presented to the people by means 60
of a plebiscite. I would, as a matter of fact, ask the Dominion and provincial governments to set aside a sum of money for the purpose of placing before the people of this country from the constituency of Cape Breton South all the way across the country to Vancouver the pros and cons of the definite and concrete proposal which should be submitted to them. In that way, and in that way only, can you ascertain what public opinion is in this country on the question of Senate reform.
According to the Speech from the Throne,
' perhaps next May or perhaps the middle of June, there will be a conference of provincial premiers, probably accompanied by their provincial secretaries and attorneys general, and possibly by their whole cabinets, held here at Ottawa. They may decide on some concrete proposition. But will any gentleman in this House dare to say that in that they will be representing public opinion in this country?
I say no, decidedly not, for the very good reason that they do not know what public opinion is on this question, and therefore cannot represent it, even though they might stumble into the way of doing what the people think should be done.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Supposing the question
was submitted in a plebiscite, and one province voted in favour of the retention of the Senate and the others against; what would be the outcome?


William F. Carroll: The outcome would be, if my hon. friend is right in the law he gave us in his address the other day, that the Parliament of Great Britain would not grant us a change in our constitution 'by which we could make effective the reform that the majority of the provinces had voted for. That is why I say we are going to be up against a proposition that is far more difficult, far more momentous than we think, perhaps even than the government itself thinks, though I presume they have given this matter serious study.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the question were submitted to the people in a plebiscite, and the people of a province should not vote in harmony with the position taken by the government of that province, where would we be then?


William F. Carroll: The hon. member for
Hants asked me the same question in a different way. I say that the Imperial parliament would not consent to the amending of our constitution if any one of the provinces said no to the concrete proposal put before it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think the hon.
gentleman hardly caught my question. I said



The Senate
that- supposing within the bounds of one province, in carrying out the plebiscite he suggests, the people should vote in contradiction to the expressed will of the government of that province; which should prevail, the plebiscite or the will of the government?


William F. Carroll: If a provincial government consented to the plebiscite and there was a strong majority one way or the other I would say that that government would not dare to enter the conference and say that notwithstanding the popular vote it would take another course.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How about the temperance act in Ontario?


William F. Carroll: I have heard that name
before.


George Perry Graham: We can compromise on
4.4.


William F. Carroll: I am not going to discuss the Ontario Temperance Act m connection with our constitution.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I was referring to the
plebiscite there, and the action of the government, not to the merits of the Ontario Temperance Act.


William F. Carroll: That is a proper question but I am not going to say anything about it.


Lewis Herbert Martell: That has nothing to do with amending the British North America Act.


William F. Carroll: If the Premier of Ontario did wrong he will be punished. I am not saying that he did wrong. I think, after reading the speech which he made in the legislature of Ontario the other day, that he is pretty nearly right. However I am not to be led away into a discussion on a question of that kind. I am discussing a concrete proposition as to the reform of the Senate. If we reform the Senate we must amend our constitution, and I am pointing -out some obstacles in the way of that amendment.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the hon. gentleman have any Senate reform?


William F. Carroll: I would not have very
much. I was going to take that point up later. I was dealing with propositions which have emanated from other hon. members, and I was arguing the point that the only way in which we can get the proper pulse of the people of this country on the reform of the Senate, or any other change in our constitution, is by a plebiscite, in view of the fact that we may have governments that should have gone to the country long ago and do not at present represent popular opinion. I am

not mentioning any particular government. I referred to the government of Nova Scotia because it has been the longest in power. I hope it represents public opinion in that province, but it cannot say that it represents public opinion on a question which has never been submitted to the electors of the province, and if we are going to live in accordance with democratic institutions in Canada such a question as this should be submitted to the people.
I was asked the question what amendments I would suggest, and I replied very few. I am not one of those who think that because the Senate should, forsooth, use its constitutional veto and turn down legislation which has been sent to it by this House, we should therefore reform the upper chamber. I think the members of that body have as much brains, as much judgment, and as much good sense as the members of this House, and they can focus their views on any particular question with just as much acuteness and intelligence as we can. I have been at some of the Senate committee meetings occasionally and have been impressed by that fact. I say this because the Senate is spoken of sometimes as a body of old, worn out politicians. I venture that statement and I say it boldly- and it is no insult to the members of the *Commons to make the statement. In any event such a statement does not justify making constitutional changes in the Senate.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is my hon. friend going to the Senate?


William F. Carroll: I am afraid that I will
never have the financial qualifications to get into the Senate. If there was a Senate vacancy to-day and the Prime Minister and his government should come to me at midnight and ask me to take a seat in the upper chamber unfortunately I could not do so, because I have not the necessary financial qualifications; I have too many mortgages attached to my little home. Therefore I am not looking for a Senate position for the next few years to come. However, that is by the way.
Some hon. members say we should reform the Senate because it is partisan. Do the gentlemen who advance that statement consider for a moment how they are going to render the Senate non-partisan? In British countries we have had partisan government for generation on generation, and I say on the whole we have been fairly well governed. As I said a few moments ago the British Empire has progressed under partisan government through the ages, and is to-day as great in her strength and glory as she ever was. The United States has progressed under par-

The Senate
tisan government; so have all Anglo Saxon countries. They have all made mistakes but who in this world does not err. Point me out a man who has reached maturity and who has never made any mistakes in his life, and I will show you an individual who has never accomplished anything. There is only one way to avoid criticism, it is to do nothing, to say nothing and to be nothing. Criticism is indispensable. Governments, at times, should be criticized. It is a good thing to criticize, but when an hon. member says the Senate is partisan how is he going to make it otherwise? Would the Senate be rendered less partisan by appointing a few of the followers of my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke)? They would be Progressive partisans. Would the Senate be made less partisan by appointing followers of the gentleman who leads the labour forces of this country? I presume they would be partisan also. I have only to point out to those who say we should make the Senate non-partisan that there are partisans in the upper chamber to-day and will be for many generations in the future. To have it otherwise as things are would be an impossibility. I am not blaming our farmer friends for being partisan; they must be such, their very constitution requires them to be partisan.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Narrow-minded partisans.


William F. Carroll: I do not say they are
narrow-minded partisans.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Well, of one class.


William F. Carroll: I do not say they are
of one class either. I affirm that they are just as broad-minded as the Liberals or Conservatives in this House. Still they are partisan, the very nature of the constitution to which they give their adherence, makes them partisan; and if we to-day put six representatives from each of the prairie provinces in the Senate they would be Progressive partisans, and would look out, perhaps, more for their own friends than they would for persons of the Conservative or Liberal stripe of politics. I repeat I should like to get some concrete illustration of how hon. gentlemen are going to reform' the Senate so as to make it non-partisan.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Abolish it.


William F. Carroll: I am against the abolition of the Senate.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The hon. gentleman
asked for our opinion.


William F. Carroll: I am not finding fault
with the hon. member. However, I am against 60i
the abolition of the upper chamber upon what
appear to me to be very strong and sound grounds. The abolition of the Senate would perhaps result in greater difficulty than would be the case if the upper house were simply reformed. Another hon. gentleman states that we should abolish the Senate because it does not represent the national life of this country. That is a question which I have not studied.
I presume the Senate should represent all phases of our national life-commercial, political, religious, and all the rest. However, I do not know what the present complexion of the Senate is in these respects, I have never gone into that phase . of the matter. If such is the case it is not the fault of the constitution of the Senate but rather the fault of the persons who made the appointments to the Senate; and if the appointments were to be made in some other way I do not see that it would mend the situation in the least.
I would not have an elective Senate because if its members are partisans now they would then be twice as partisan. We have too many elections in this country at the present time under our present system, and we do not want to have any more.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William F. Carroll: Some hon. members laugh, but I say that we are cursed with too many elections, civic, provincial and federal. I would not 'have an elective Senate; I would not amend the constitution from that viewpoint. I would have the Senate appointed as at present. I am now coming to the question of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean):	Would I reform the Senate? Very
little. I am no prophet, but I want to make a prophecy here to-night, and it is this: we will see no reform in the constitution of the Senate of this country for many years. We may have our conferences with provincial premiers and attorneys general. I am not criticizing the government for calling these conferences, because that is the first tangible step which has ever been taken in this country to arrive at a realization of what should be done towards the reform of the Senate. I prophesy to-night-it does not cost much * that when that conference meets here there will not be one concrete proposition on which the representatives of all the provinces of Canada will agree, and that will cause the breaking up of the conference.


William Findlay Maclean: And of the government perhaps.
The Senate


William F. Carroll: No. I do not think the government is bound by the result of a conference. I think all the government has promised to do or is bound to do, after the Speech from the Throne, is to call a conference, and I think that is all that will be done. I hear applause from the other side of the House, but I would rather have it come from this side. When I say that is all they will do, I mean that is all they are capable of doing. I hear loud applause. What little things my friends will applaud. They will not give me a chance to finish a sentence. That is all they can do or are capable of doing, in so far as this .conference is concerned.


Mr. HOEY:: Why not have the conference bring down its proposal first and have that constitute a basis of negotiation?


William F. Carroll: I would say the government has already brought down its proposals, if we consider what the Prime Minister said in the closing days of last session.


Robert Alexander Hoey: That was a year ago.


William F. Carroll: Yes. Does my hon. friend suggest that the Prime Minister should undertake to amend the constitution during vacation.


Arthur Meighen: He did undertake it.


William F. Carroll: I do not think my hon. friend would consider he was capable of doing that; and I think he is capable of doing almost anything.


Arthur Meighen: I quite admit that he is
capable of doing anything.


William F. Carroll: He cannot do anything that is impossible and to amend the constitution in vacation time is an impossibility.


Arthur Meighen: It was not amending the constitution in vacation time that was suggested. What my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Hoey) suggested was that the undertaking given last session be made the subject of a government measure now for submission later at a conference. That seems a pretty good idea. What does the hon. member think of it?


William F. Carroll: My hon. friend has spent a long enough time in public life to know that that would be a clumsy way of doing business It would be dictation to the provincial governments, and if there is anything the provincial governments resent, it is dictation from the federal government,.


Arthur Meighen: Is it any' more than a declaration of policy, without any suggestion of conference?


William F. Carroll: The suggestion is that the conference should take place first. The first intimation given of the conference was in the Speech from the Throne.


Arthur Meighen: No. WThen the bald announcement was made I asked the Prime Minister if he had considered the matter, and asked the provinces what their -will was, and he made no reply; on the contrary he went through the western provinces and never mentioned the conference at all, but declared to the whole country that he was going to reform the Senate.


William F. Carroll: I know the Prime Minister loves the leader of the opposition very much, but he does not love him well enough to tell him six months ahead of time what the government policy is going to be.


Arthur Meighen: I told him.


William F. Carroll: I doubt if he would fo; low the hon. gentleman's advice.


Arthur Meighen: He has followed it-a year late.


William F. Carroll: That is the situation as I regard this matter. I believe there should be some suspensory power in the Senate. And why? Three, four, five or six bills are sent to the Senate in the dying days of parliament. They are thrown in there. They may have passed this House with little or no debate. They are sent over to the Senate, to be dealt with in one day, or perhaps two or three days. I think that is very unfair to the the Senate. I say that in a case of that kind the Senate should have what I would call a suspensory power, and should say to the Commons, " We do not know sufficient about this particular measure to say whether we will agree to it or not. We will suspend judgment for the present session of parliament and will take the matter up next year". If they do not deal with those bills the next year or the following year, say in two years, then I say there might be, in connection with that suspensory power, the right in the House of Commons to pass those bills, so long as they obtained the signature of the King's representative in this country. I think that is a fair proposition; it would be a different matter if some important question arose which should have full, free and fair discussion, and in regard to which the Senate was aware of all the intricacies and the pros and cons of the measure. In such a case I would say they should have the suspensory power. I can well understand why the Senate of this country would be loth-and we would all be loth- to vote on a subject without knowing anything about it.

The Senate
I do not blame the Senate for their conduct in the past, because they refused to pass bills in the dyings days of the session when they could not give them fair consideration, nor will I criticize them adversely in the future for such conduct. Hon. gentlemen may tell me they have a right to remain here and give these measures consideration. Well, we know that some members in this House do not love them very much, and we know how very much less we would have loved them if, on the eighteenth day of July last, we were told by the Senate that they were going to remain in session another month to give further consideration to certain measures. I say the only solution is the suspensory power, coupled with the provision that there should be no return made of a bill suspended by the Senate unless they had taken some specific action on it, and if they failed for two years to take that specific action- there should be some power in the House of Commons, with the signature of the Governor General, to make that bill law. That is as far as I would go in any reform as far as the Senate is concerned.
I have spoken a great deal longer than I intended to owing to a great many interruptions, for which I am not criticizing my hon. friends. I think the Senate as at present constituted is a very important part of our constitution, and in looking over the political history of this country, I do not know if there is any great reason for any reform of the Senate, either the one suggested or any other reform. I do not think they are made of the stuff which on all occasions would like to be opposed to public opinion in this country all the time.
I do not see why the Houi-:e of Commons should assume an attitude of superiority and infallibility; why should we presume to say that we can never go wrong? Kings have been beheaded for having that obsession, and it is tantamount to taking up that pos.hon for this branch of parliament to say that, because it has passed a bill, in the belief that public opinion is behind it, it therefore follows that the Senate must be quite wrong if it takes a different view, and that in consequence the Senate should be reformed or put out of business or both. There is nothing faulty with the resolution of my hon. friend from West Calgary in so far as it asserts that steps should be taken to consider the reform of the Senate. Nor do I think that any hon. member in this House, whatever may be his opinion on the question of Senate reform, will vote against such a proposition. As to an}' amendment to the resolution, I must vote against the first one that has been proposed, inasmuch as it declares for the abolition of
the Senate. The amendment states in effect that in the opinion of this House it is expedient that an address be presented to the King praying that the British North America Act be amended so as to provide that the Dominion of Canada,
-should either have the power to make the Senate of Canada an elective body, or to abolish it, as might be decided by the people in a plebiscite vote to be taken at the next Dominion general election.
I am opposed to that because I am opposed to the abolition of the Senate, and I am opposed to an elective Senate for the reasons I have given. I shall therefore be obliged to vote against the amendment.


John Walter Findlay: Is the hon. member opposed to obeying the will of the people?


William F. Carroll: No; when the will of
the people is right I always bow to it.


John Walter Findlay: Well, the amendment
simply asks that the people be consulted in the matter.


William F. Carroll: I am afraid that they
might go wrong in this instance and vote for the abolition of the Senate.


John Walter Findlay: Then the hon. member
would not obey the people?


Mr CARROLL:: This is one of the cases
where I would think the popular will had gone astray. Hon. gentlemen should not forget that we are all part of what the hon. member is pleased to include in the term "popular will". Now, there is no popular proposal which has ever been before any government that has not had some opposition; there has never been any question that has come up in this country, never any proposal, except in trivial matters, which has not been opposed by some section or -other of the country. And surely my hon. friend will concede to an opposition,, even though it be in a marked minority, the right to consider its own opinions right. That is entirely a matter for the conference to consider. I shall vote for the amendment to the amendment because I think it is in keeping with the only course we can pursue to-day, either in the matter of amending the constitution or reforming the Senate, and that is the calling of a conference. I do not say that it will necessarily amount to very much, but I do think that the members of this House are desirous of ascertaining what is, not the -public opinion but the sound public opinion in this country on out constitution so far as it relates to the Senate.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: It would be rather amusing to fol
The Senate

low some of the arguments which have been advanced on this question if there were not other matters of very great public importance demanding the attention of parliament. We have heard a good deal during the present session about amending our constitution, and this talk is becoming so general that I do not feel like sitting in my place and allowing it to go unchallenged all the time. I question whether there has ever been a session of parliament during which so manj' hon. members have expressed dissatisfaction with the existing constitution as during the present session. I regret that this should be so. The constitution was framed by those who brought about confederation in Canada, at a very difficult period in the life of our country, and it seems to me that the mere fact that it has stood the test of time so far and so well is a great tribute to the wisdom and the foresight displayed by the Fathers of Confederation. I am inclined to think therefore that this passing wave of attack on the constitution will not amount to very much.
In the present instance I would point out how the viewpoint of some people changes according to the different positions in which they find themselves. It is apparently a very common and a favourite relaxation on the part of some when in opposition to attack the Senate and make every effort they can to concentrate the attention of the people to the institution, with a view to representing the constitution in this particular respect as being all wrong. I have heard this line of argument advanced quite often by gentlemen who were afterwards members of the upper chamber, and once they entered the sacred precincts of the Senate no more was heard of their objections to the constitution of that body as it stands.
Personally, I do not say that there are not times when the people have reason for finding some fault with the way in which the Senate is constituted; this has been the case in the past, and I suppose that occasions will arise in the future when the same thing may perhaps be felt. The method of appointment and the lack of care shown sometimes are doubtless responsible for this. I think that on the whole my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Carroll) has indicated that he does not attach very much importance to the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne relating to this question of Senate reform, nor to the resolution which was moved this afternoon by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw). And he does not anticipate that the government will take any action in the matter. So that the discussion is not going

to bring about any very great results. I think myself that the resolution might very well have been ruled out of order by reason of the fact that it is beyond the jurisdiction of this House to deal with- the matter therein suggested. But I am not going to argue that point.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond, however, touched upon a matter which I do not feel like allowing to pass without some comment. When asked about his personal ambitions, and whether he had any inclination or desire to qualify for the Senate, he replied that he had not the necessary financial qualifications for a senator-ship. Let me point out, he has the financial qualification to be elected as the representative of his constituency, and he has had those qualifications for quite a number of years. I have known the member for Cape Breton South and Richmond for a long time, and if senators are to be appointed from the different parties, I dp not know of anyone that I would rather see in the Senate from the other side of the House than my hon. friend, and I am sure that he would render good service to the country in the upper chamber, for we all admire the frankness with which he discusses public questions in this House. But for the present at least I think he will render better service where he is.
Now, I happen to have on my desk a report of a committee of the Senate. I was looking at this when the member for Cape Breton South and Richmond spoke, and I had no intention of taking part in this debate had he not referred to the financial qualifications necessary for a seat in the upper house which this report refers to. It may be remembered that some years ago there was quite a scandal about the sale of senatorships, it being charged that a price was placed upon them. Some of you may not have remembered the circumstances as I have, for the reason that the member for the constituency which I now have the honour to represent was the minister who to a certain extent was implicated. An exmember of parliament alleged that a demand had been made upon him for $10,000 for a seat in the Senate. This naturally caused a good deal of comment throughout the country and resulted in a special committee of the upper house holding an investigation, the charge being considered to be a serious reflection upon the members of the Senate. The investigation took place in 1901. I remember it very well because one of the parties implicated had also sent a letter which was read at the Liberal convention in my constituency. When the Liberal candidate was nominated,

The Senate
in which he pointed out the reason why a certain candidate who was much talked of and was likely to be selected by the Liberals should not be given the nomination, simply because he had absolutely refused to contribute funds towards running the machine, and had stated he had no money to contribute for elections and consequently he was not deemed to be a desirable man even to receive a Liberal nomination. Such things have caused a good deal of discontent and suspicion among the people with regard to appointments to the upper chamber, but fortunately we have not had any such scandal for many years. I think I might very well read some of the evidence which was taken before the special committee of the Senate on that occasion. The party who made the charge was Mr. H. H. Cook at one time Liberal member for South Simcoe, I think. He was defeated in 1896 and felt himself entitled to a senatorship by reason of his party services. With respect to Mr. Kerr's appointment to the Senate, Mr. Cook referred to the agent who had approached him in the matter and who claimed he represented the government or Sir Richard Cartwright. He was asked to tell what took place between him and the agent. He answered:
The party wrote me a letter. I was away from home at the time. The letter was written stating-
The question was objected to.
Q. Just tell the the interview, what took place.
By the Hon. Mr. Dandurand:
Q. Could you fix the date?-A. No.
Q. Or about?-A. No, it was before this appointment was made, before Mr. Kerr was appointed. He came to my office and said that he had just a short time ago come from Ottawa, and he was instructed to ask me for $10,000 for a senatorship.
By Counsel for Mr. Cook:
Q. How did he greet you?-A. When he came into my office, from the corridor, from the hall, to my outer office, he passed through the outer office, and he said, "Good morning, Mr. Cook"-or rather, "Good morning Mr. Senator." I said, "Good morning." Then he walked in and closed the door behind him and said that he had returned from Ottawa, and was instructed to ask me for $10,000 for the appointment. He told me either-I have forgotten w*hether he said the government or Sir Richard Cartwright told him to come and see me, and I told him most emphatically that I would not give him $10,000, or the government, or Sir Richard Cartwright, or anyone else, for a senatorship. "Well," he stated, "if you don't give it to me you wont get the appointment."
And he did not.
"They are very desirous of giving it to you, and want to give it to you, but they wont give it to you unless you pay them $10,000. You are able to pay it, and they want the money for party purposes." That is about the gist of the conversation, and he went out of the office.
Now the evidence which Mr. Cook gave was substantiated by the evidence of Mr. Hieland Hancock. He was sworn and examined by Mr. Ritchie, counsel for the committee, as follows:
Q. You are bookkeeper for the Ontario Lumber Corn-pay?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Of which Mr. Cook is president, I understand? -A. Yes.
Hon. Mr. Dandurand suggests that as this is a witness for the prosecution he should be examined by counsel for Mr. Cook. Mr. Ritchie, counsel for the committee, assents.
By Mr. Marsh, counsel for Mr. Cook:
Q. You remember the occasion of Mr. Preston visiting the office of Mr. Cook?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you tell us about what time that was?-A.
It was in the fall of 1898.
Q. Tell me what happened when he visited the office?-A. When he came into the office, as soon as he reached the door of Mr. Cook's room, he said, "Good morning, Mr. Senator."
Q. And then what happened?-A. Then he went in and closed the door.
Q. He went into Mr. Cook's private room then, and closed the door?-A. Yes.
Q. About how long were they together?-A. I should say about fifteen or twenty minutes, I would not be positive as to that.
Q. I presume you could not hear anything that took place while they were together?-A. No, sir.
Q. Then what next happened?-A. Mr. Cook and Mr. Preston came out, and Mr. Cook saw Mr. Preston to the outer door of the office.
Q. They came out of Mr. Cook's private room?- A. Yes.
Q. Through the room where you were?-A. Through the room where I was.
Q. And then what was done?-A. Mr. Cook saw Mr. Preston out.
Q. Out of the door?-A. Out of the outer door.
Q. Then what happened?-A. Mr. Cook came back to the desk where I was, and seemed very indignant- Mr. Blake, counsel for the accused parties, objects to this evidence. Objection overruled.
Q. You say that when Mr. Cook took Mr. Preston to the door, immediately upon closing the door Mr. Cook returned to you. In what frame of mind was he or what condition did he appear to be in?-A. He appeared to be very angry.
Q. And what did he say?-A. He said to me, "What do you think of that damned scoundrel Preston?"
Q. And then what happened?-A. I said, "What is the matter Mr. Cook?" He said, "He wanted me to pay $10,000 for a senatorship."
Q. Anything further?-A. Nothing further.
And so on. Now, this was one Mr. W. T. R. Preston, at the time of this investigation immigration agent over in England, brought back to give evidence at this inquiry; formerly organizer for the Liberal party; librarian at the parliament buildings, Toronto, at the time of the famous election episodes throughout, this province; the man who was responsible for raising the funds to grease the machine; the man who sent the famous telegram to Donald McNish the night of the election in West Elgin in 1899 to hug the members of the much abused threshing machine for the days of auld lang syne. Fortunately there was an end to the regime of those years, and a general clean-up took place in 1905. Mr. Blake, who was counsel at that time for the accused, was the man who came out and denounced more vigorously than anyone else in the Liberal party the things that had been done
The Senate

by those whose names I mentioned in a previous debate and the members of the machine. Fortunately for the public life of this country and for the reputation of the people of this Dominion we have not lately had much of that sort of thing to contend -with. I had hoped that we would hear nothing further with regard to those who were connected with these events of about a quarter of a century ago, but I regret very much indeed that there is considerable evidence to-day of their activities in the public life of this country.


William Charles Good: Mr. Speaker,
however interesting the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Sutherland) may be to certain members in this House, they do not pertain very directly, I think, to the resolution under consideration.
I have sometimes wondered whether the Canadian Senate might be described as a comedy or as a tragedy. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether this House is a comedy or a tragedy. I remember a few years ago being told by a friend of mine who was rather prominently connected with the farmers' movement in Ontario that he had been offered a senatorship. I do not think he spent two seconds in deciding what to do, and I should have decided the same as he did'; because if he had ever consented to accept a senator-ship under the existing conditions he would have been everlastingly condemned by the farmers of Ontario. There is no doubt that the farmers of Ontario, generally speaking, are strongly in favour of the abolition of the Senate. I would suggest to the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll)-I am sorry he is not in his seat,- that there is another motto different from the one which his speech exemplified, namely that "the wish is father to the thought." There is another motto, I say, that he ought to keep in mind and it is "Where there's a will there's a way." He has magnified the difficulties before us in the way of Senate reform. I am free to admit the difficulties; we face difficulties wherever we turn. But I should like to commend to him and to the House that old motto, "Where there's a will there's a way." In regard to the point raised by the last speaker, I too, heard some years ago about the purchase of senatorships. I hope that is something of the past. But there is no doubt in my mind that the evidence which was presented and the tales that were told some years ago have helped to bring our Senate into disrepute. The views that are current regarding our Senate are very well exemplified in the following clipping from the Victoria Times:

The Canadian Senate is the most reactionary legislative body in the English-speaking world. There is no other institution with such far-reaching powers in any British Dominion. It would not be tolerated in Britain, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and the fact that in its present form it has been tolerated so long in Canada is not a healthy symptom in our people. It should be made more responsive to those who pay for its maintenance and whose will it ought to carry out. Its members should have to give an account of their stewardship to the electors from time to time, if for no other reason than to remind them that they are the servants and not the masters of the public. If this were done the Senate would cease to be the trump card of small but powerful elements who for selfish purposes desire the rejection of legislation affecting them which has been passed by the House of Commons.
Whether right or wrong, that is the situation that faces us; that is the opinion that prevails very largely throughout this country and it is something which we shall have to reckon with.
I hold in my hand a rather interesting document which has been referred to by a former speaker, A Political Cathechism, written by T. A. Patrick, who, I understand, is a resident of the province of Saskatchewan. Let me quote Just a few sentences from this document, which I presume has been sent to all members of the House:
Q. Who other than senators are opposed to real Senate reform?-A. Every actual or prospective political derelict, lacking sad, ballast, or cargo, fearful of foundering, is eager to be taken in tow. Every political jobber who values the Senate patronage for the support it will buy; every sectional interest, and every selfish interest that thrives best on unfair advantage and special privilege.
Such is another expression of public opinion in regard to this matter, and in spite of all difficulties, whether public opinion is right or wrong, it is going to make itself felt pretty soon in one form or another. I should like further to direct the attention of the House [DOT]to something which I think is also partly responsible for the formation of public opinion in regard to the Senate. I have in my hand a clipping from the Farmers' Sun of 1922-
I have not the exact date of it, but it is some time during that year. It contains a copy of a letter sent out by a certain W. O. Sealey, of Hamilton, who was at that time striving for a senatorship. This letter is quite worth while placing on Hansard. I read:
Hamilton, Ont., March 8, 1922.
Dear Sir:
Owing to the death of the late Senator Milne, the Hamilton senatorship is now vacant.
Having been a continuous worker and supporter of the Liberal party for the past forty years, a candidate in five campaigns for the Dominion parliament, necessitating the expenditure of the greater part of my time, I acquired a good parliamentary experience, and our continued success seemed assured until we were defeated with the government in 1911.

The Senate
My political merits appear to be most worthy, and at least a good average for the whole province.
I am now a candidate for the Senate vacancy, so if my comparison of merit appeals to you as being about correct, then I wish you would be kind enough to write the Premier, Hon. Mackenzie King, Parliament Building, Ottawa, (as well as any other Ontario member of the cabinet you may know), immediately, recommending and urging my appointment, believing that if honoured with the appointment, I could still continue to be very useful to the party and community-
Party first, of course.
-as most people feel I was during my parliamentary career-
I do not quite understand him, Mr. Speaker, when he refers to his parliamentary career. I presume it was his participation in five campaigns. I continue:
If by chance you don't find the time or convenience to write quickly, and the enclosed draft letter expresses your sentiments, then kindly date, sign and mail at once and much oblige.
Our Wentworth candidate, Mr. W. T. Evans, suggested that he would be glad to have the views of the Liberal friends of Wentworth on matters of patronage or appointments, so if the enclosed card expresses your views, kindly date, sign and mail same.
Thanking you in anticipation for your immediate attention to the above, and with best wishes as usual.
Yours truly,
W. O. Sealey.
And enclosed there are very eloquent appeals to the Prime Minister and to Mr. Evans on behalf of Mr. Sealey, so as to save the recipient the labour of composing a letter of his own. I shall not read them, as it is not necessary.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read them.


William Charles Good: Very well then; they are not very long. This is the one to the Prime Minister :
Dear Sir:
I am informed that Mr. W. O. Sealey is a candidate for the Hamilton vacancy in the Dominion Senate.
Having known Mr. Sealey for many years as a consistent and enthusiastic Liberal, I take pleasure, as a member of the Liberal party in giving Mr. Sealey my support, and I respectfully ask your favourable consideration. I assure you that should he be thus honoured (which I trust he will be), the appointment would be very much appreciated in this locality, as well as the province throughout, and that you would find him a most useful and creditable member of your upper House.
Thanking you in anticipation of your personal support and action, believe me to be,
Sincerely yours,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon.
friend say that Mr. Sealey has been appointed?


William Charles Good: Oh no. I am sure I can
commend the Prime Minister for not listening to such appeals as these. I think it is greatly to his credit, if I may be allowed to express an opinion, that an application of this kind was turned down.


George Perry Graham: Whose upper house did the letter say?


William Charles Good: "Yours," referring: to the
Prime Minister.


George Perry Graham: That is hardly borne out
by history.


William Charles Good: Not as yet, but the time may come, if the right hon. gentleman remains in power long enough, when he can with some propriety call it "his" upper house. The letter to Mr. Evans is as follows:
Dear Mr. Evans:
I am informed there is a vacancy in the Dominion Senate, and I heartily recommend Mr. W. O. Sealey for the appointment.
I would consider it a favour if you will write the Premier, endorsing Mr. Sealey, and also use your utmost influence to urge his appointment.
I remain.
Sincerely yours,
I suppose this is comedy in a sense, but after all, from the standpoint of the country's welfare, it is very tragic; and if I may be allowed to say so, I think it is a very serious reflection upon the party system. Surely we can develop a system which does not lend itself so well to iniquities of this sort as our present party system seems to have done.
I do not wish to speak at any length in regard to the matter under discussion. I would like to suggest, however, that a number of thoughtful people have really turned their attention to methods of reform. We have a number of proposals that have been put forward, and I sincerely trust that these may receive sympathetic consideration at the proposed conference. I am not going to take the time at this late hour to outline any of these proposals.
I should like, in conclusion, to refer to the resolution, the amendment, and the subamendment that have been moved. There is a little confusion possible in the minds of hon. members regarding the subamendment. I think it would be wise before we vote on the subamendment to have this possible confusion cleared up. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) moves in amendment to the said amendment:
That all the words after the word "That" in the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The House approves of the convening at an early date of a conference between the government of the Dominion of Canada and the governments of the various provinces to consider the advisability of amending the British North America Act with respect to the constitution and the powers of the Senate.
Now when, this subamendment was moved I thought it might have reference to the first "that" in the first line of the resolution, but I think, however, that the meaning is, and it
The Senate

ought to be, that the reference is to the second "that", namely, the word "that" in the first line of the specific amendment. If that is the meaning, which I take it to be, the subamendment will read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Senate as at present appointed and constituted is not of the greatest advantage to Canada.
Therefore it is expedient that the House approves of the convening at an early date of a conference between the government of the Dominion of Canada and the governments of the various provinces to consider the advisability of amending the British North America Act with respect to the constitution and the powers of the Senate.
That, I take it, is thei motion as sought to be amended by the hon. member for Joliette. If that is the correct interpretation, I would like to say that I shall support the subamendment heartily. I am prepared to go further than the negative resolution. If the subamendment is carried it will include the original motion. If it is defeated, then we shall have to vote on the amendment. I intend to vote against the amendment, not because I am not in sympathy with its purpose, but because I think that at this juncture it is the wrong way of tackling the problem, and I therefore feel compelled to vote against it. If the amendment is lost and we reach the original motion, I shall vote for it.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I rise to the point of order that the amendment is void for ambiguity and inconclusiveness. The last speaker (Mr. Good) has made reference to the fact that the word "that" referred to in quotation marks in the subamendment may be the first "that" or the second "that" in the amendment. He seems to assume it is the second, but the House has no right to refer to anything but the words of the resolution in determining its validity and its order. One member might vote for the resolution on the assumption that the word "that" in quotation marks was the first "that" in the amendment; another on the assumption that it was the second. The resolution has a different meaning altogether according as one assumes it to be the first or the second. Nor can the effect be cured by any statement of intention on the part of the mover. It can only be cured by amendment, and an amendment now cannot be made. I think I have made my point clear. There is nothing more clearly established than that any motion that is ambiguous as to meaning, which may mean one thing or may mean another, which has not stated its purport altogether cannot be under consideration in this House. I am free to admit that if the subamendment had read so as to make
[Mr. Good,!
it clear that the quoted "that" was the second "that" in the amendment, it would be an amendment perfectly in order. Therefore I say it is void for ambiguity and inconclusiveness.


Mr. PUTNAM:: Would the right hon.
leader of the opposition kindly give us the full reading of each branch of what he alleges as the ambiguity?


Arthur Meighen: If the quoted "that" in
the subamendment refers to the first "that" in the amendment then I would argue that the subamendment is wholly out of order. But I am not arguing that now; it may mean one thing or it may mean another. It would then read in this form: The first motion would be:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Senate as at present appointed and constituted is not of the greatest advantage to Canada.


Harold Putnam: What would be the reading if we take the tangent at the first "that"?


Arthur Meighen: Assuming that the quoted
"that" means the first "that" then the subamendment would read as follows:
That the House approves of the convening at an early date of a conference between the government of the Dominion of Canada and the governments of the various provinces to consider the advisability of amending the British North America Act with respect to the constitution and the powers of the Senate.
It would be another resolution altogether, it would not be in the nature of an amendment to the main motion, consequently it would be out of order. But I am not on that point at all.


Harold Putnam: The word "therefore" does not settle it?


Arthur Meighen: The word "therefore"
would not be in it at all if it refers to the first "that". The point I am on is this: That the subamendment as it readte is void for ambiguity in that it has no definite meaning whatever. It may mean one thing, it may mean another thing, and each is equally applicable and equally open. Hon. members of this House cannot be asked to vote on an amendment in that condition.


Hewitt Bostock: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to the point of order?


Andrew Ross McMaster: It seems to me that the purport of the amendment to the amendment is not difficult to discover, and that anyone who brought to the consideration of the resolutions before the House not only a critical mind but a desire to arrive at a decision, and a desire to have the opportunity of arriving at a decision,

The Senate
would find no difficulty in understanding exactly what the amendment means. I also would submit that a rule of construction of statutes is applicable to the rules of this House, namely, that you are to construe a statute in order that it may have a meaning rather than that it should not have a meaning ; and I think that you are to construe the resolution in such a way that the amendment will fit into it, rather than in a manner in which the endeavour is to make the amendment a misfit to the resolution. It seems to me, also, that there is a further argument in support of the contention that the amendment to the amendment is in order. The resolution as originally moved is as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House the Senate as at present appointed and constituted is not of the greatest advantage to Canada.
That is the substantive resolution placed before the House. Now then Mr. Findlay, seconded by Mr. Black (Huron) moves an amendment thereto:
That the following words be added to the main motion.
Then follows what he proposes should be added to the main motion:
Therefore it is expedient that a humble address be presented to His Majesty-
And so on. Then Mr. Denis (Joliette), seconded by Mr. Mercier, moves an amendment to the said amendment:
That all the words after the word " that " in the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The House approves of the convening at an early date of a conference-
And so on. There is no difficulty to those who really wish to arrive at the meaning of what is before the House in coming to the conclusion that the "that" referred to is the "that" in the amendment proposed by Mr. Findlay.


William Irvine: Which "that?"


Andrew Ross McMaster: The "that" which follows the "therefore," because that is the substantive amendment:
Therefore it is expedient that the House approves of the convening at an early date of a conference between the government of the Dominion of Canada and the governments of the various provinces-
That is the expression of opinion that it is desired the House should give. Both amendments are true amendments in the sense that they add something to the original motion. The original motion is the substantive proposition ; the two amendments are amendments of procedure as to how this expression of opinion should be put into effect. Two members have proposed that the expression
of opinion should be put into effect by "the presentation of a humble address to His Majesty." Two other members have proposed that the substantive expression of opinion should be made effective by the summoning of a constitutional conference. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is no necessity to have the issue beclouded by any technical objection as to the impossibility of knowing what "that" is meant. Surely the resolution and the amendments should be interpreted in a way to give them an effect. A reasonable interpretation rather than an unreasonable interpretation should be given to the resolution and the amendments before the House, and I have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that what is meant is that the "that" mentioned in the first amendment is the "that" which follows the word "expedient."


Arthur Meighen: I should like to add a
few words in reply, I am, of course, suffering from the natural humiliation of being lectured by the hon. member for Brome.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There was no intention to lecture, merely to enlighten.


Arthur Meighen: I am going to try to
reflect a little light back on his very brilliant dome. The hon. member says that the real construction should apply, that the reading should be taken which gives a meaning. One reading gives a meaning, the other reading gives a meaning. Both meanings are perfectly clear and perfectly distinct; I am sorry if the hon. member has difficulty in seeing either. I will read the amendment in the form in which he says it is not a meaning which appeals to him. It would read this way:
That the House approves of the convening at an early date of a conference between the government of the Dominion and the governments of the various provinces.
Has any hon. member of this House any difficulty in discerning the meaning of that? I have not. It is a perfectly good piece of English construction; its meaning is as plain as day:
That the House approves of the convening at an early date of a conference between the government of the Dominion and the governments of the various provinces to consider the advisability of revising the British North America Act with respect to the constitution and powers of the Senate.
This is the way it reads if the first "that" is taken to have the intention of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis). That is the main motion is amended to read this way.
That in the opinion of this House the Senate as at present appointed and constituted is not of the greatest advantage to Canada, and that the following words be added to the main motion:
The Senate

Therefore it is expedient that the House approves of the convening at an early date of a conference-
The meaning is perfectly clear, it could not be clearer, but the English is not as well expressed as in the first motion. As the hon. member intended, his resolution would probably have read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Senate as at present appointed and constituted is not of the greatest advantage to Canada, and therefore the House approves-
He would not say "Therefore it is expedient that the House approves." I am not saying that the latter is not perfectly clear as to its meaning. It is. But it is not the natural method of expression. The words, "It is expedient" are wholly superfluous. So that if there is any argument at all, the argument would tell in favour of the first "that" as having been in the mind of the hon. member. All I am submitting to the House is that it is open to two constructions with a wholly different meaning and effect, and the House cannot be asked to vote upon it in that condition.


Hewitt Bostock: Does any other hon. member wish to be heard on the point of orderT
I have listened with great care to the point of order raised by the right hon. member (Mr. Meighen) and much as I respect his ability to discern and interpret the rules, I am of opinion that the amendment to the amendment is quite intelligible as it is drafted, and as I understood it when I put the question to the House. The objection is purely technical in my humble opinion. And what is the question? The main motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Senate as at present appointed and constituted is not of the greatest advantage to Canada.
That motion is moved by Mr. Shaw and seconded by Mr. Irvine. Then an amendment is moved by Mr. Findlay and seconded by Mr. Black (Huron), which purports to add to the main motion the following words:
Therefore it is expedient that a humble address be presented to His Majesty the King praying that the British North America Act be amended so as to provide that the Dominion of Canada may have the power to make the Senate an elective body or to abolish it, as may be decided by the people in a plebiscite to be taken at the next general election.
Then Mr. Denis (Joliette), moves, seconded by Mr. Mercier, in amendment to the said amendment: That all the words after the word "that" in the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The House approves of the convening at an early date of a conference between the government of the Dominion of Canada and the governments of the various provinces to consider the advisability of
[Mr. Meighen.J
amending the British North America Act with respect to the constitution and the powers of the Senate.
Which "that" is to be taken into consideration at the present moment? Clearly the one in the amendment. The hon. member for Joliette, mark well, states "all the words after the word 'that' in the amendment." The first "that" is in the formula preceding the amendment, but the essential " that " is in the main body of the amendment. The hon. member says quite logically that all the words after the word " that " in the amendment should be struck out. Having that in mind, how will the amendment to the amendment read if accepted by the House? It becomes the main motion amended and reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Senate as at present appointed and constituted is not of the greatest advantage to Canada; therefore it is expedient that the House approve of the convening at an early date of a conference between the government of the Dominion of Canada and the government of the various provinces to consider the advisability of amending the British North America Act in respect of the constitution and the powers of the Senate.
It seems to me that it reads very clearly and very intelligibly. It is true that the hon. member for Joliette might perhaps have omitted the words "it is expedient", but I am sure the right hon. member (Mr. Meighen) does not think that this is more than a technical objection. At most, it is surplusage in the phraseology and quite easy to understand in the case of an hon. member who does not use the English language as his mother tongue. A mere surplusage does not render the amendment unintelligible.
The amendment is on the contrary quite intelligible. If the word "that" applied to the formula preceding the amendment I would agree with the right hon. gentleman and I would rule the motion out of order; but with ordinary common sense I must accept the second "that" and thus construed, the amendment is intelligible. My ruling is that the amendment is in order. There are three principles put in concrete form before the House; the main motion which sweeps away the Senate as appointed and constituted; the second principle indicates the procedure which ought to be followed to reform the Senate; that is to say, by an amendment to the British North America Act; the third principle put forward by the hon. member for Joliette favours the calling together of a conference of the governments of the Dominion and of the various provinces to deal with the issue. That is my understanding of the three questions before the House.

The Senate
The question is on the amendment to the amendment.
The House divided on the subamendment (Mr. Denis, Joliette) which was agreed to on the following division.
YEAS Messrs:
Archambault,	Lapierre,
Baldwin,	Lapointe,
Bancroft,	Leader,
Beaubien,	Lewis,
Beland	Logan,
Benoit,	Lovett,
Binette,	Lovie,
Bouchard,	Low,
Boucher,	Lucas,
Bourassa,	Macdonald (Pictou).
Brown.	MacLean (Prince, P.E.I.),
Caldwell.	[Maclean (York),
Cardin,	Mactphail (Miss),
Carmichael,	McBride,
Carroll,	McConica,
Carru there,	McKay,
Casgraiiij	Me Master,
Chevrier,	McTaggart,
Coote,	Marcil (Bona venture),
Crerar,	Marcile (Bagot),
Davie*,	Martell,
Dechene,	Mercier,
Delisle,	Millar,
Denis (Joliette),	Milne,
Denis (St. Denis),	Morin,
Descoteaux,	Motherwell,
Deslauriers,	Murdock,
Desrochers,	Ouimet,
Elliott (Dundas),	Papineau,
Ethier,	Pelletier,
Evans,	Pritchard,
Fafard,	Putnam,
Fiset (Sir Eugene),	Rankin.
Fontaine,	Raymond,
Forrester,	Reed,
Fortier,	Robo,
Fournier,	Roberge.
Garland (Bow River),	Robichaud,
Good,	Robinson,
Gordon,	Ross (Simcoe),
Gould,	St. Pere,
Graham,	Sales,
Halbert	Savard,
Hammell,	Seguin,
Hanna,	Sexsmith,
Hatfield,	Shaw,
Hoey,	Sinclair (Oxford ),
Hopkins,	Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.).
Hughes,	Snowball,
Humphrey,	Speakman,
Hunt,	Spencer,
Irvine,	Steedsman,
KePy.	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Kellner,	Stewart (Humboldt),
Kennedy (Edmonton),	Stork,
King (Huron),	Tobin,
King (Kootenay),	Wallace,
King, Mackenzie (York), Warner,	
Knox,	Woods,
Lanctot,	Woodsworth.-120.
 NAYS Messrs:
Arthurs,	Bowen,
Bird,	Campbell,
Black (Huron),	Chaplin,
Black (Yukon),	Church,
Dickie,
Doucet,
Drummond,
Fansher,
Findlay,
Gardiner,
Grimmer,
Hodgins,
Kennedy (Port Arthur &
Kenora),
Meighen,
Preston,
Ross (Kingston),
(The list of pairs
Clifford,
Powex
Kyte,
Malcolm,
McMurray,
Kay,
Gendron,
Senn,
Simpson,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Leeds), Stirling,
Sutherland,
Thompson,
Thurston,
Tolmie,
Ward,
White.-32.
Stansell,
Mewbum,
Boys.
Duncan,
Ryckman,
Wilson,
Garland (Carleton).

is supplied by the chief whips.) Messrs:
Motion agreed1 to on division.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I was paired with the
Solicitor General (Mr. McMurray). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. KAY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. GENDRON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Garland). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.
ADJOURNMENT-CORRESPONDENCE, Dr. MAGILL
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the House.


Arthur Meighen: I want to call the
attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to a file of correspondence tabled this afternoon. The correspondence is manifestly incomplete as filed. For example there is a letter from myself to Dr. Magill, but the reply of Dr. Magill does not appear. There was also some further correspondence subsequent to that. I am sure this correspondence is on file in the department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I observed, as
my right hon. friend has mentioned, that there was communication with Dr. Magill and I have been inquiring of all the departments to find out if there was a reply. I have not been able to trace it. However, there are further papers that have come from the Department of Trade and Commerce which will be tabled to-morrow, although they do not include any communication from Dr. Magill.
Ocean Shipping Rates


Arthur Meighen: It must be there even
though it may be difficult to locate it. I would suggest that the government get a copy of Dr. Magill's reply from him. He was here last week but I did not think of the matter then.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have already suggested that he be telegraphed to concerning it.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.45 p. m.
Tuesday, March 10, 1925