Mr. SCHAFFNER:

More than fair.

Mr. THOMSON:

I say it was not fair.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I do not think that question can properly 'be discussed on this motion.

Mr. THOMSON:

I am replying to some remarks made by the Minister of Public Works.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

The statement was made by the Minister of Public Works that it was fair.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The statement may have been made, but I do not think that it involves the right to go into an analysis of another Bill while dealing with the question before the House.

Mr. THOMSON:

If you rule, Mr. Speaker, that I am not in order, I will accept your ruling.

Mr. KYTE:

In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am. also debarred from participating in this feature of the debate, but I do not wdsh the statement of the Minister of Public Works to pass unchallenged that there have been no complaints in respect to the Redistribution Bill passed at the last session of Parliament.

Mr. R. B. BENNETT (Calgary):

Mr. Speaker, I submit there is a principle involved in the discussion of the question of concurrence in the amendment of the Senate to which attention should be directed. This Commons House of Parliament came into existence in September, 1911, shortly after which this Government was formed. There is no doubt but that the hon. gentlemen opposite always contended that the election of this Commons House of Parliament was an election that did not properly represent the will of the people. They have never believed they were defeated. They have always assumed that they were still in power, and in the desperation and bitterness of their disappointment they have sought measures and means to give effect to those views and that opinion. It is common knowledge throughout Canada, and it has been indicated by statements and speeches not of a public character, by members of the other branch of this Parliament, that this Government would never be permitted to give effect to its large measures of policy affecting the well-being of Canada until there had been another election.

That is commonplace knowledge, and the right hon. the leader of the Opposition and his followers have Telied upon the will of the members of another branch of this Parliament to give expression to those views. They have endeavoured to destroy and to minimize the efforts of this Government to place in concrete form upon the Statute books of this country its policy as enunciated and 'declared before the elections of 1911. I am not going to travel the ground covered by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), but illustrations multiply. From the very first day this Government assumed office, from the time it began to give effect to its promises to the electors, from the moment it introduced into this Parliament a Bill providing for a Tariff Commission up to the time it carried through this House its most important legislation making for the strengthening of the naval defences of the Empire, hon. gentlemen opposite, with the aid of another branch of Parliament, made it their boast that they would not permit this Government to give effect to its policies until after there had been another election. I have stated it publicly and I repeat it in this House, that such action on the part of the Liberal party and of its majority in the Senate is a standing insult to democracy. These gentlemen opposite talk

about democracy, and they thwart its will whenever it pleases them; they rely upon an irresponsible body in another chamber to restrict and restrain democracy. We on this side of the House have not attacked publicly or privately the Senate of Canada because it is part of our constitutional fabric and our system of Government; we made no such promises as hon. gentlemen opposite made while in opposition as to what they would do to the Senate when they came to power. They talked about reforming the Senate and they were content to reform it by sending to it gentlemen whom the member for Edmonton has assumed to be more honest than the members of Parliament.

Mr. OLIVER:

I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. BENNETT:

The hon. gentleman referred in the House this morning to honest members of the Senate as distinguished from the members who sit on this side of the House, to whom he referred to as being actuated by corrupt motives in introducing legislation.

Mr. OLIVER:

I never used such language; I never used language that could be construed to convey any such idea.

Mr. BENNETT:

I am bound by the

denial of the hon. gentleman, but the words he used were " honest members in the Senate."

Mr. OLIVER:

I beg to repeat that I believe the members of the Senate are honest men.

Mr. BENNETT:

And the language that

he used just before that was that the members on this side of the House were influenced by corrupt motives and desires in endeavouring to pass certain legislation. If there is any one man in this House who should not make observations such as that it is the hon. gentleman from Edmonton, and that is all I have to say about that-so far as I am concerned.

Mr. OLIVER:

The hon. gentleman is

making an insinuation now, and I would like him to put it in plain words.

Mr. BENNETT:

I am making a direct

statement, as shown by Hansard. The hon. gentleman will surely understand what that means.

Mr. OLIVER:

Will the hon. gentleman

repeat his direct statement?

Mr. BENNETT:

The direct statement is, that if there is any member in this House who should not make statements such as those he has made, it is the hon. member for Edmonton. That is my statement exactly.

Mr. OLIVER:

Mr. Speaker, is that a

fair comment on anything I have said?