Mr. SPEAKER:

I am afraid that the hon. member is departing from the question before the House.

Mr. OLIVER:

I do not wish to trespass, bat my hon. friend did lay some stress on the question of redistribution, and I thought it was only fair to follow him. However, I do not wish to dwell on that point. I say it is a most unheard of proceeding that a minister of the Crown should stand in his place in Parliament, and, on the strength of the facts laid before us, give the reasons which he has given to-day for throwing this country into the turmoil of a general election while a world war is in progress. I assert that the reasons which he gave will not be accepted by the loyal people of Canada.

Mr. A. A. McLEAN:

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents and the people of Prince Edward Island, I wish to thank the right hon. gentleman for this modicum of justice which is conceded to Prince Edward Island by the passing of the second part of this resolution. Of course it applies to other provinces, but the one to which it particularly applies at the present time is the province of Prince Edward Island. We have for 40 years attempted to have the terms of Confederation carried into effect, that is the terms of Confederation as we thought and believed them to be, and as we believe to-day should have been carried into effect in 1873 and then enacted into law in the Confederation terms. We have placed before this House on many oc-

casions the contention of the people of Prince Edward Island. We claimed that the terms of Confederation were that we should be represented in this Parliament by six members. Resolutions were introduced in this House on many occasions with reference to that matter. In 1907 the first resolution was introduced in terms with the one contained in the paper now in your hand. The right hon. leader of the Opposition was then leader of the Government and he coolly turned down the proposition. He would concede nothing to Prince Edward Island.

* Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member is rather departing from the usual rule followed in this House. The question before the House is concurrence in the amendment made by the (Senate, and to that so far as I can see, the line of argument of the hon. gentleman has very little relation.

Mr. MdLEAN: The Senate passed a resolution or an address to His Majesty, in which it is stated that the number of members for this House shall not in any province be less than the number in the Senate.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The only question before the House is concurrence in the amendment, I imagine that the hon. member has it in his mind that the original resolution, with this amendment, is equally before the House and equally open to debate. But the rules of the House do not permit that; they require that members shall speak only to the amendment, the last motion put to the House.

Mr. McLEAN:

I was just following the course that was taken by other hon. gentlemen. Of course, if they were wrong I am wrong, and I must give way. As you, Mr. Speaker, will not allow discussion on anything except the question which is now before the House, I shall simply repeat that although the second part of this resolution or address is now being put into law we in Prince Edward Island will not give up the fight to have the representation which we consider we should have had since 1873.

Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):

Mr. (Speaker, there was an old established principle of Liberalism, one I often heard referred to in my boyhood days by those engaged in fighting the battles against the Family Compact and the battles for responsible Government in the different provinces of Canada, that the Government of a country should be according to the well-understood wishes of its people as expressed through their

elected representatives in Parliament. I am afraid the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has no respect for that principle of Liberalism as enunciated in the past. Judging from his remarks to the House this morning, the hon. gentleman's idea is that government should be according to the well-understood wishes of the leader of the Liberal party in this House, as expressed by the partisan majority in the Senate of Canada. My hon. friend has said that the hon. the Minister of Public Works, if he has any complaint at all, has a complaint against the Fathers of Confederation who provided and recommended the constitution which this country now enjoys. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members of this House, if they think it possible that the fathers of Confederation, in the wildest flights of their imagination, 'could ever have believed that the time would come when the Senate of the Dominion of Canada, instead of being an independent body, a body viewing legislation only from the public standpoint, would become more partisan than the House of Commons itself. Because I think the assertion can be made safely and without fear of successful contradiction that the Senate of Canada as it exists to-day is a more partisan body than the House of Commons. We have found during the last few years the Senate turning down measures that have been approved by this Chamber, and turning them down because they believed they saw some advantage to the Conservative party if those measures became law. We had an illustration of their course in their amending a Bill passed by this House authorizing the 'taking over of the branch lines of the Intercolonial, passed after amendments usggested by hon. gentlemen opposite had been inserted in it, thus, in effect, killing the Bill. They refused to endorse the unanimous feeling of this House, because they believed the passage of that Bill would be to the advantage of the Conservative party in this country. We have the fact that they defeated a Bill designed for the purpose of improving the highways of this country, and one reason for doing so and no doubt the underlying one was given from the public platform in the province of New Brunswick by a member of the Senate, who said they did not want to pass the Bill as it would prove of great advantage to the Conservative party. So I think my hon. friend, in stating that the Minister of Public Works should find fault with the fathers of Confederation and not with the

Senate as it is constituted to-day, must have lost sight o>f the fact that the fathers of Confederation believed that the Senate would be an independent body, composed of a superior class of men, men of a judicial cast of mind, giving fair consideration and judgment to questions brought before it, irrespective of political considerations, and would not degenerate into a body which paid more attention to party politics and was more partisan in its action than the House of Commons. Every one, I think, knows that the majority in the Senate to-day are influenced solely by partisan considerations; and there has been no more striking illustration of this fact than the example that we have before the House and the country to-day of their refusing to give to the western provinces of Canada that representation in the Senate to which they are clearly entitled under the Constitution, and which, Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the statement made by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, I say they are entitled to at the present time. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring them to wait until after a general election has taken place. Under these circumstances, I contend that the Minister of Public Works is absolutely within his rights, and not only within his rights but within the facts, in calling attention to the partisan conduct of the Upper Chamber as it is now constituted.

Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (St. John):

Mr. R. B. BENNETT:

What else could they do?

Mr. PUGSLEY:

What else would they

think of doing? No one can find fault with the Government for having acted in this way. The principle has worked out in a

very satisfactory manner. The Government did not ask for authority first; they made an arrangement which was binding on the railway companies, and then came to Parliament to have the contracts ratified. And that is all that the Senate asked the Government to do in 1913.

Take their action this year. On the suggestion of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, that portion of the Bill which gives general authority to acquire branch lines, was amended to provide that the purchase price should not be paid until there was a vote of Parliament. That was recognizing the authority of Parliament to deal with the disposition of the moneys of the country. That Bill passed this House unanimously, and when it went to the Senate was concurred in unanimously, so I think that so far as branch lines legislation is concerned there is no evidence of partisanship.

My hon. friend says that they also threw out the highways measure. They did nothing of the kind. They improved the Bill by providing that the money which was to be given by this Government in aid of highways should be divided among the different provinces in the same way that the British North America Act provides that subsidies shall be apportioned, namely, according to population as determined by the last census. I think that if we were to make an argument on the question, the most reasonable men in this country would say that that was a proper provision to make, because under the terms of the British North America Act all federal aids to the provinces in the way of subsidies, of which this highways measure was necessarily one, must be divided according to the population of the various provinces. I can see no evidence of partisanship in that, but my hon. friend says that a senator stated in New Brunswick that, if the Bill passed it would be a great aid to the Conservative party. I venture to say that my hon. friend has incorrectly summarized the statement which 'that senator made; I do not think he has given the meaning of what the senator said; and I am inclined to think that if he got a copy of that gentleman's speech he would find that the senator expressed the view that if the Bill had become law in the form in which it passed this House, it might be made a vast engine of corruption in the interests of the Conservative party. I have heard of senators making that statement, and I have no doubt that if the senator referred to

made any reference of the kind at all, it was along those lines. If the Minister of Railways could spend the money wherever he pleased, without any regard to population or the requirements of the different provinces, my hon. friend can see that the Act might be made a great engine of corruption in the interests of the Conservative party; and if my hon. friend would search in his own heart he might feel that that was perhaps one of the strong reasons which induced him as a member of the Government to agree with the measure in that form, for he must have realized what an engine for improper influence it might be.

My hon. friend has given no other evidence of partisanship; but he says the Senate is a partisan body. Was it a very partisan body when the question of the Farmers' Bank came up? That Bill passed this House, and when it went to the Senate Liberal senators and Conservative senators, if there are any 'such-perhaps I should say senators appointed by the Liberal Government, and senators appointed by the Conservative Government-joined in defeating the Bill which they thought involved a most dangerous principle.

Mr. A. A. McLEAN:

I think the hon. gentleman is not speaking to the question. I was ruled out of order a few moments ago, and I would like a ruling from the Chair whether the hon. gentleman has any right to digress from the subject before the House, as he is doing.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I am afraid that the point is not well taken.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

It has been stated by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works that the amendment made by the Senate is contrary to soma understanding which was arrived at during the session of 1913-14. I have heard that statement made before, and I have seen it in newspapers; but I think that some evidence ought to be given that any agreement was made, or else hon. gentlemen ought to cease to -refer to it, and newspapers to talk about it. I put this forward as a reason why this amendment should be concurred in. I think I can show that the Senate has done the only proper thing which could be done in the interests of democracy in this country. When this matter came before the House in the session of 1913-14, in the presence of my Tight hon. friend the leader of the Government, and after he had spoken in favour of the resolution, I rose in my place and urged that the Act should only come

into effect upon, the dissolution of this Parliament. I urged that in the presence of my right hon. friend the- Prime Minister and in the presence of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. If there had been any understanding that the resolution was to go through the Senate just as it was presented to this House, was it not the duty of my Tight hon. friend the Prime Minister to rise and refer to that understanding? Neither by myself, nor, I venture to say by any member on this side of the House, was there any knowledge of any such understanding expressed or implied. There was the opportunity; why did not my right hon. friend get up and say to me that it was not quite fair, not quite in order, that I should urge such an amendment to the resolution because there was an understanding in connection with the Representation Bill that the resolution should go through Parliament in the way in which it had been presented to this House? I have never heard of any such understanding, and I believe that no other member on this side of the House has ever heard of it either.

The argument which I made then, the argument which I make to-day in favour of the amendment that is' made by the Senate, is that in this Parliament the people of this country, the democracy, is represented. This House is the mouthpiece of the people. Whom does the Senate represent? Does the Senate represent the people, the democracy? No, Sir, the Senate represents the Crown. The senators are .the appointees of the Crown. This is the popular branch of Parliament, the senators represent the Crown and they are appointed upon the advice of the Government. They are independent of the people. They hold their positions for life, and no one has the right to question their votes, because they are not responsible to any one or to any body, but are simply responsible to their own consciences for the manner in which they discharge their duties.

It occurred to me that as, by reason of the increase in the population, there ought to be an increase in the representation of the democracy in this House, and an increase in the appointees of the Crown in the other branch of Parliament, it was only reasonable and proper that the increase in the number of the appointees of the Crown should take place concurrently with the increase in the number of those who represent the democracy in this House. That seemed to me to be a reasonable proposition, and so far from the action of the

Senate being against the democracy, against the views of the people having expression in Parliament, it seems to me that their action is in favour of a fuller expression of that opinion, because they say that the appointees of the Crown, and therefore the authority of the Crown, shall not be extended until the authority of the people in this branch of Parliament is extended and that both shall take place concurrently.

Mr. R. B. BENNETT:

How does the hon. gentleman reconcile his observations with the remarks of his leader last year?

Mr. PUGSLEY:

I do not remember what the remarks of my leader were.

Mr. BENNETT:

That shows a very great oversight on the part of the hon. gentleman.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

I made no remarks then.

Mr. BENNETT:

I think I remember the remarks of my right hon. friend.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

I made none.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

At all events, it is the view which presents itself to me, and this is the reason which will actuate me in concurring in the amendment made by the Senate. The hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) has rather intimated that he would like to have an election to take the view of the people on this question as to when an increase in the Senate should take place. With my hon. friend the war counts for nothing. With my hon. friend the tragedy which is affecting this whole Empire, and no part of the Empire to a greater extent than Canada, counts for nothing compared with having his nominees appointed to the Senate at as early a date as possible. My hon. friend thinks it would be right to throw the people of the country into the turmoil of an election contest simply because he will be delayed a few months in having his friends appointed to what he hopes to be the vacant positions in the Senate. As has been pointed out, there is apparently no immediate need for an increase in the Senate because the Government has allowed many months to pass since vacancies have occurred without taking steps to fill them, and there are now some nine vacancies in the other branch of Parliament. Yesterday the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) was not able to say as to when there would be a dissolution. Has the Government changed its mind in the night so that it is possible to-day for the

hon. gentleman, who in some quarters, even by many of the friends of the Government, is called the master of the Administration, to announce a different decision? Is it possible that the hon. Minister of Public Works has induced the Government to .change its views in the night, and that the intimation which he gives to-day is made with the authority of his colleagues?

Whatever the Government may do they will not terrorize any of us who sit upon this side of the House. In this, as in all other matters, we shall endeavour to do our plain duty as we see it and in respect of this resolution, I, for one, believe that the Senate has taken the proper, constitutional and reasonable course, and that the amendment which it has made ought to commend itself to the members of this House, as I am sure it will commend itself to the good judgment of the people of this country.

Mr. LEVI THOMSON:

Mr. Speaker, if 1 am not out of order, I would like to reply to a remark made by the hon. Minister of 'Public Works (Mr. Rogers) in regard to the late redistribution. He has intimated that it was fair and satisfactory to every one.