Mr. HENDERSON:

I think you had

better take it.

Mr. OLIVER:

I want to say that my

memory is that I did not use such language as the hon. member has stated I did use in regard to members on the other side of the House.

Mr. BENNETT:

I am bound by the observations of the hon. gentleman, and I hope he will now withdraw his statement.

Mr. OLIVER:

I am willing to do so

under proper circumstances, but what I deny is that I used these words during the remarks which I made here to-day. If my hon. friend asks me what my opinion is in regard to himself or in regard to members on the other side of the House, I am quite ready to give it, but that has nothing to do with the discussion.

Mr. BENNETT:

I have heard the opinion of the hon. gentleman on many occasions, but it is not a matter of very great importance. I hope I may be able to exchange opinions with him during the next few weeks, or the next year or two, in a manner that will not be disconcerting to me, however interesting it may be to him.

I say that the instances multiply as to what the disposition of the. Senate is towards the legislative enactments of this Government, and the records of the Senate show it. I rose as a representative of a western constituency to say that so far as I am concerned I agree with the statement made by the right hon. leader of the Government when he reluctantly asked this House to concur in this amendment. It is insulting to this House in the sense that the Senate asks us to subordinate the will of the Commons branch of this Parliament to the arbitrary will of a non-representative and irresponsible body. That I can say with safety and assurance, and about that there can be no doubt. But the feature that I desire to protest against is that this Government has not been permitted, by the deliberate, by the considered, and by the well-advised conduct of the Senate, to give effect to that legislative programme which

it had designed and which it should have been permitted to carry out. My country has suffered by the conduct of the Senate; western Canada has suffered by the action of this irresponsible body, and whenever farmers endeavour to carry grain from their farms to the railway stations in order that they may not pay ten or fifteen cents to haul a bushel of grain to the market, they will think, and they will properly think of the action of that irresponsible body which thwarted the will of democracy, as expressed by this House of Commons.

I protest against the destruction of the legislation for a Tariff Commission, a Highways Act, a Naval Aid Act, and all those Acts that represented the well-considered legislative programme of this Government. The people of western Canada protest against it, because they have been deprived of proper representation in the Senate. And, because we protest against it this Government must reluctantly be compelled to acquiesce in the amendments now proposed. The language used last year in a message from this House to the Senate fairly indicated that there was a unanimous opinion on the part of this House of Commons against the action of the Senate, and that unanimous opinion of the Commons should not lightly have been set aside by the Senate. But, of course, it is in furtherance of that scheme and plan that was formed and framed at the very moment that this Government came into existence

Mr. PUGSLEY:

Order. 1 venture to

say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman is using language in reference to another branch of this Parliament which is contrary to the rules. He said that the action of the Senate in respect to legislation has been to pursue a scheme which was devised when this Government came into power. That is insulting to the other branch of Parliament and is contrary to the rules.

Mr. BENNETT:

My hon. friend has entirely misunderstood my observation. I did not say the scheme was planned or framed in any branch of this Parliament;

I said that in furtherance of a well-defined scheme or plan that the will of this Government, as expressed by the majority of members in this House of Commons, was thwarted and destroyed and rendered nugatory by the action of an irresponsible and partisan majority in the Senate. That is what I said and that is all I have to say.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

That is contrary to the well-understood rule of this House, and ihe

hon. gentleman should withdraw the language he has used in regard to the other branch of Parliament.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I do not think, as the phrase was given to the House, that it is exactly within the rule which would compel me to ask the hon. member to refrain from making reflections upon the other branch of this Parliament, but I do think that it ought to be a well-understood principle that it is not in good taste to reflect on the other branch of this Legislature.

Mr. BENNETT:

I entirely concur in your decision, Mr. Speaker. I do not desire to reflect on the other branch of this Parliament; I merely desired to make certain observations as to its conduct and to let the public make the reflection.

Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):

One is at a loss, when we are considering in this Parliament a (question as to whether the constitution of this country should be amended, to understand why all this violence should be exhibited by hon. gentlemen opposite, because another branch of this Parliament undertook to express a view as to the wisdom and the methods by which that change in the constitution should be carried out. We must remember that the proposition contained in this resolution is a proposition to amend the constitution of Canada.

If there is any subject upon which both Houses of Parliament have the most perfect and absolute right to express their views and to exercise their judgment, it is upon a question of that character. My hon. friend (Mr. R. B. Bennett) has made a general attack upon the Senate because he alleges that it has entered into a conspiracy for the purpose of setting aside all Government measures. He or any other lion, gentleman opposite who speaks of the lack of wisdom, as they call it, on the part of the Senate with regard to Government measures, is really saying that the Senate should be a body existing solely and wholly for the purpose of registering the decrees of the Government of the day. Hon. gentlemen opposite declare that there should be a second chamber because, although they have been in power for four years, we have had no suggestion from any one of them requesting that an address be presented to the Imperial Parliament asking that the constitution of the Senate should be amended, or asking that it should be abolished, or anything of that kind. Therefore, we are bound to assume that hon. gen-

tlemen opposite accept the constitution of the Senate as laid down by the British North America Act and the various amending Acts. If the second chamber constituted in 1867 is to exercise any part in the functions of Government, it is not open to hon. gentlemen who do not dispute its right to exist to say that it should be condemned because it chooses to differ from the Government of the day. The rights of the second chamber under the British constitution are well recognized; every book on parliamentary government has laid down its rights as to the measures with which it may or may not deal, and in regard to the various measures on which the Senate may choose to take certain views and to submit certain amendments, and no hon. gentleman opposite, whose knowledge of constitutional law is of any value whatever, will dare to say that the Senate does not exercise the functions which Parliament and the constitution intended it to have the right to exercise when it was constituted in 1867. If that is. so, why do hon. gentlemen speak of Kaiserism? Why does my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works fan himself into a fury because, as he says, the Second Chamber of this Parliament, which has as much right to exist and to express its views within the four corners of the charter which constitutes it as we have, has chosen to express its own opinion, in Tegard more particularly to this matter under review. This House did not try to pass any legislation; it initiated a resolution which had within it two purposes: First, that the constitution of the Senate should be amended by the creation of a new area in the West which is entitled to senatorial representation, and, secondly, that the representation of the province of Prince Edward Island in this House should be increased. This latter part of the resolution involved an amendment, of the British North America Act, because it changed the interpretation placed upon that Act by the Privy Council and interfered with the arrangement which the Privy Council declared was the original intention of the Act. That it should have been in any way associated with the other provision regarding senatorial representation was quite out of place; but the right hon. gentleman leading the House chose to make in the draft of the resolution which he submitted to Parliament this provision in regard to amending the representation in the Senate. When that resolution went to the Senate, was there any matter upon which the Senate would have more right to

express an opinion than on a matter in regard to itself? Supposing the right hon. gentleman had asked that the constitution of the Senate be changed by lessening its number to fifty instead of by increasing it as he proposed to do; would he expect that the Senate would refrain from expressing its views as to whether or not its usefulness would be interfered with by that reduction? But because hon. gentlemen opposite have got into power, much to their own surprise, and because they want to impose their will upon the people of Canada in regard to the constitutional rights which were given to this Second Chamber, they affect the attitude taken by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, who does not like to have his will interfered with, who does not brook opposition with any good spirit, and who, if he finds that the constitution stands between him and the gratifying of his wishes, says: Let us smash this constitution to pieces, if necessary.

Mr. ROGERS:

When did I say that?

Mr. MACDONALD:

That is a metaphorical concentration of my hon. friend's speech. I was giving the intent which existed in the hon. gentleman's mind when he spoke.

Mr. HENDERSON:

He did not say that.

Mr. ROGERS:

My hon. friend had better apologize.

Mr. MACDONALD:

For what?

Mr. ROGERS:

For making a statement that is not correct.

Mr. MACDONALD:

For making the statement that, when my hon-. friend does not find an opportunity of gratifying his will on account of constitutional impediments, he makes the statement that the Senate is a bad body and ought to be condemned by the people of this country?

Mr. ROGERS:

There is no constitutional difficulty except in the mind of the Senate.

Mr. MACDONALD:

Are the senators so many automatons who jump at' the hon. gentleman's will, who act when he pulls the string? My hon. friend says there are no constitutional impediments except in the mind of the Senate, even though it is acting under its constitutional rights.