Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :

I desire that the first reading of this Bill be taken up, and in doing so I wish to make a statement to the House as to the purport of the Bill and .the necessity therefor. Under the amendment to the Canada Temperance Act, passed at the session before last, various provinces of the Dominion were enabled by the process of taking a plebiscite to decide whether or not certain provisions of that Act would become applicable to the province so deciding. If it became applicable, then the prevention of the importation of, and some other transactions in, liquor, making in effect total prohibition, became the law of that province. Under the Dominion Elections Act which passed last session there was a provision that in the event of any vote in any province taking place before the end of the year 1920, that vote should be held upon the then existing lists, which were compiled a year or so before, but that should the vote take place subsequent to the 31st December, then there should be a total revision of the lists for the purpose of the vote. It was the intention that polling for this purpose in the province of Ontario should take place on the 25th October, which was the day fixed for the vote in the three western Prairie Provinces and in Nova Scotia. Representations, however, were made to the Government from various organizations, including particularly' the Great War Veterans,

which established that should the vote be taken on the 25th October, or any date last year, it would result in the disfranchisement of very many thousands of men, principally returned soldiers. These men would be disfranchised because of the fact that when the list was compiled they had not returned. In other words some thirty thousand had returned after the compilation of the lists and before this vote could take place. Of this number, it was represented, a very large proportion would be in the province of Ontario, possibly one-half. Many thousands of others, at the time of the compilation of the lists, were in hospitals in Toronto, or elsewhere, and these, it was stated, would have dispersed to their homes in distant parts of the province and consequently could not be on the lists and so would be disfranchised. These considerations seemed to make it imperative indeed that the vote be postponed. We could not see how we could justify allowing a vote to take place which would be so unsatisfactory as one taken on lists disfranchising so many of those who should really be entitled to have a voice. The difficulty that then confronted us was this: Should the vote be postponed to a date immediately succeeding the New Year, or any date in the New Year, it would necessitate a revision of the entire Ontario lists merely for the purposes of this vote, whereas, as a matter of fact, in the rural districts of Ontario, under the statute, a voter is enabled to swear his name on the voters' lists, and consequently the necessity for revision in those districts was very slight, if indeed it existed at all. The practical difficulty, then, in the way of the Government was that it would cost the Treasury of the country, for a complete revision of the Ontario lists, according to the figures submitted to us by the Chief Electoral Officer, Colonel Biggar, approximately $330,000 to $350,000. On being asked for an alternative plan Colonel Biggar suggested that if the vote were postponed to a date which would enable a Bill to pass this parliament designed to meet his viewpoint, there could be a revision in the cities and towns, and inasmuch as a voter could be sworn on in the rural districts, in his opinion, that would meet all the practical necessities of the case, and result in an expenditure only approximating $30,000, thereby saving the country an outlay of $300,000. That is the suggestion the Government accepted, and accordingly the vote

was fixed for the 18th of April of this year. This Bill has been prepared by Colonel Biggar for the purpose of enabling that revision to take place in cities and towns in Ontario at the cost that he estimates, and of saving the country the sum of approximately $300,000 that would otherwise be entailed. I have very briefly, and I hope clearly, stated to the House the objects of the measure. In a word they are these: To enable such revision to be made as meets the situation, gets rid of the injustice of a disfranchisement, and at the same time saves that wider general revision throughout all the rural districts which, under the present state of the law is not really necessary, but which the law actually calls for; and thereby to save the Treasury a sum of approximately $300,000. '

Mr. SPEAKER:

Perhaps I should poinl out that the motion for the first reading of a Senate Bill is not debatable, but in this instance, inasmuch as the first reading is, in effect, the introduction of the measure to this House, I felt it was due to members that a Prime Minister should have the right of making his explanation, hence the rule in that respect was relaxed. Should the leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) desire to make- any remarks on the motion, I am quite sure the House will grant the same indulgence to them.

Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :

Mr. Speaker, I

think it is proper to direct your attention to the amendment to the Address that is before the House at the present time. My right hon. friend, in the first motion to be made by him as Prime Minister this session moved

That the Speech .of His Excellency the Governor General to both Houses of Parliament be taken into consideration on Tuesday next, and that this Order have precedence over all other business except the introduction of Bills, until disposed of.

He now comes forward with a second motion to defeat the purpose of the first. As I understand the motion which my right hon. friend has just made, it means the adjournment of the debate on the amendment expressing want of confidence in the administration, and taking up the consideration of a new measure. That raises a rather important consideration, it seems to me, to those of us on this Side of the House who have taken the position that the hon. gentlemen opposite are usurping power in presuming to continue to

occupy the Treasury Benches. We take the position that without the confidence of this House and of the country they are not entitled to introduce a hill or to spend a dollar; and unless my right hon. friend can show us some precedent for adjourning the debate on a motion of want of confidence in the Government to take up another matter, we would be justified I think in adhering to the position which we have taken from the outset, namely that the Government lacks the confidence of the country, and therefore is not entitled to proceed with any legislation. -

May I say, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House are certainly anxious not to embarrass any section of the public in the matter of an expression of opinion on a question of public interest, and we are ready to do anything constitutionally possible to enable the people to have the benefit of such expression of opinion as may be in the public interest. It is unfortunate, however, that in our desire so to do we have to take steps to make good the limitations and defects of the Government. I might point out to my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) that if he had acted upon the suggestion which we on this side of the House made at the close of the last session of Parliament, and had summoned Parliament at an earlier date in the year-which I think would have made for the convenience of all hon. members-he would not now be pleading with Parliament for this opportunity to reverse his first motion and * to take up other business while we are engaged in what may be perhaps the most important debate which we shall have this session.

I might also point out to my right hon. friend that when the Dominion Elections Act was before Parliament last session we on this side called attention to the fact that so far as Ontario was concerned the Government was adopting a course which would lead to great expense in the preparation of lists, and we suggested that the municipal lists should be accepted as the basis in that province. Had that suggestion been accepted, my right hon. friend would not now be obliged to come along with his request.

I do not wish to take up the time of the House unduly, Mr. Speaker, but I would point out to my right hon. friend that if our action on this side of the House in permitting the Government to proceed, even to further the public interest, were likely to be construed in any way as an evidence of lack of sincerity in the amendment which we have before the House, I

would not for a moment consent to consider his request. But I would say to him that if he can cite a precedent indicating wherein it would be proper to adjourn the debate in order to take up another matter, while a vote of confidence in the Government is being considered by Parliament, we will be prepared to consider such precedent and give him an answer perhaps to-morrow as to the position which the Opposition will take. I think I am justified in asking my right bon. friend to allow me an opportunity of conferring with my colleagues before I come to a conclusion regarding his exceptional request. If he is prepared to do that, I am prepared to say that we will if possible consider sympathetically any precedent he may cite which will enable the public to give expression to its views on any question of public interest at the least possible cost and with the least possible delay.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I omitted to state,

when I addressed the House first, Mr. Speaker, that the will of Parliament on this Bill requires to be known within a reasonable time. There is time enough for Parliament to consider it, but there is not time for delay because the revision is called for before the 18th April; or if the will of Parliament should be that this Bill do not pass, then it is necessary to know still earlier, because in that event, should the plebiscite go on, the entire revision would take still more time.

I am not endeavouring to controvert my hon. friend, and to have the last word, as to the statement that if the municipal lists had been taken this Bill would not be necessary, for that is entirely aside from the mark. We have lists which would be a much closer basis than the municipal lists. It is the revision that takes time and expense, and it is unnecessary revision only that we are trying to avoid in order to effect a saving of $300,000.

I may say that I assume, and I think correctly, that first readings of bills do not require unanimous consent and do not come within the purview of the motion which I made: the second reading, of course, would, and there is no use having the first reading without the second.

Inasmuch as my hon. friend takes the stand which he has stated to the House- and I may say that he was good enough to advise me of it before the House met-I will ask only for the first reading to-day. Then I will give notice of such motion as may be necessary to enable the House to proceed with this Bill, notwithstanding the

order which was passed, and which is the usual order at the opening of the House. In the meantime my hon. friend can come to such conclusion as he may deem advisable on the stand he should take. The blatter of precedent therefore need not be discussed now. I do not apprehend that I will have much 'difficulty on the point.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I do not understand the hon. the leader of the Opposition to press his point of order as to whether it is competent to move the first reading of this Bill. But the motion which was carried is, that the Address shall be considered and that that debate shall take precedence of all other business except the introduction of Bills. I think undoubtedly the first reading of a Senate Bill may be properly regarded as the introduction of a Bill, and therefore would come within the spirit at all events, of the Order of the House; and therefore it would be quite competent to give first reading to the Bill.

I would point out further that it is not necessary to delay the debate on the Address, for the reason that the motion is not debatable; when the Bill is given first reading, not further action can be taken on the measure, unless the House changes the Order which has been already made.

Mr. MEIGHEN moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2 to amend the Dominion Elections Act.

Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

TRIBUTES TO DECEASED MEMBERS -THE LATE Mr. TOM G. WALLACE

Rt. Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, the House is called upon to lament the loss of one of our number by the hand of death. Yesterday morning there passed away Mr. Tom G. Wallace, member of Parliament for the electoral division of West York. Mr. Wallace was taken with a very severe illness immediately prior to the opening of this session-an illness to which he succumbed.

It is well known to all that Captain Wallace was a son of a former member of this House of much distinction, Mr. N. Clarke Wallace, who in his time was a member of the government. Captain Wallace himself served his country first in the capacity of a soldier in the South African war to which he went when only in his teens. His career as a soldier was marked by sincere devotion to duty in all capacities, however humble, and by a love of country that

has characterized every act of his life. Returning to Canada he contested a seat for this Parliament in the election of 1908 and was successful, and in the elections of 1911 and 1917 was again returned. His most marked characteristic as a member of this House was the degree of popularity and personal devotion which his character commanded. As a member of the House he devoted himself unstintedly to its work, with an entire thoughtlessness of self, a desire to help and advance others, and particularly a desire to advance legislation of the character that he was most interested in, such as went for the uplifting of Canadian national life. Captain Wallace enjoyed this distinction: that among all the members on this side of the House, where he was best known, no other member had a larger personal following, if I may use the term; no other could pass from us whose loss would be the subject of keener and more lasting regret. I came to Parliament with him. I myself shall very much miss his face here, and I am sure that all members of the House will share with me the unescapable and lasting regret that we shall know no more of his friendship, his companionship, and his service.

Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker,

I rise to join with my right hon. friend in, and to associate this side of the House with, the tribute which he has paid to the memory of our late colleague and the extending of our sympathy to his relatives and friends. Like my right hon. friend, I entered Parliament at the same time as the late Mr. Wallace, and have had the privilege, therefore, of a long personal acquaintance with him. Hon. members who have shared that privilege will, I am sure, feel that the Prime Minister has expressed sentiments which will be entertained generally among the members of this House.

My right hon. friend made reference to the circumstance that the father of the late Mr. Wallace was also a distinguished member of Parliament. That, perhaps, is deserving of more than passing mention. There is a tradition with regard to public service which is stronger, perhaps, in the Old World than it is in this, which unites families in a common devotion to their country. Mr. Wallace, by succeeding his father in the service of his country in Parliament and, jn addition, serving his country in the South African War, where he distinguished himself, maintained in a worthy manner this finest of family traditions. Let us hope that the example he set in this particular will prove an inspiration to the younger men of Canada. Mr. Wallace, though one of the older members of the House in point of service, was one of the youngest in point of years. I am sure we all feel that in his early death the country has lost not only a generous and chivalrous spirit, but one who; had he been spared, would have continued to render useful service to his country.

Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :

Mr. Speaker, I desire to associate myself with the right hon. leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition in the remarks they have made concerning the loss this House has sustained in the death of Captain Wallace. He was a much older member of this House than I am, but I had known of him before I came here and had known of the distinguished services rendered to his country by his father. All who have been associated with the work of this House will remember' the kindly greeting, the glad hand, the open spirit, that was characteristic of Captain Wallace. His taking away is an evidence of the shortness of the span of human life, but I am sure that his memory in the precincts of this building, and particularly in this Chamber, will be cherished to the end of their days by all who have been associated with him.

Let me say a word also in respect to the loss this House has sustained in another direction. Since the termination of our session last summer, the hand of Death has been heavy upon this Chamber: three other members distinguished in the House have also been called to the Great Eeyond. It was not my privilege to have had a very close acquaintance with the late Mr. Gladu, who represented Yamaska, but one was struck by the diligence of his efforts in the performance of his legislative duties. And he had also-no higher testimony can any man have-the respect and esteem of those who were associated with him.

Colonel McLeod was a well known figure in this House. In more fields than one he had rendered distinguished service to his country and his taking away in the very prime of his life came as a surprise and a shock to us all.

I was better acquainted with the late Mr. Sifton than I was with any of the others who have gone. Mr. Sifton's name was a household word in Western Canada. In many ways he rendered distinguished service to his country, not only in the

Legislature of the Northwest Territories, but on the Bench and in this House as well. It is not too much to say that Mr. Sifton's career on the Bench in Western Canada in the formative period of its development had a great deal to do with the establishment of law and order-and, more than that, Sir, with the respect for law and order which is inherent in British peoples. I recall very well a conversation I had with him upon one occasion. We were discussing the laws passed by our Dominion and Provincial legislative bodies, and how it not infrequently happened that laws were hastily passed, and, after the test of experience, found to be unsound. He made this observation: "Whether a law is a good law or a bad law, it should be rigidly enforced. If it is a good law, it will do good; if it is a bad law, the people will waken to the consequences of it. Above all we must have, in the development of this country with its cosmopolitan people, a respect for law and order; for only upon such a basis can we build up a true and solid society." These words struck me, Mr. Speaker, as being pregnant with wisdom. Mr. Sifton was not a "mixer," as the ordinary term is, but those more closely associated with him knew the value of his friendship. We can always look back upon his career as having been a distinguished one in the service of his country. Those who knew him best will miss him greatly; those who knew him less intimately will have the memory of the respect that he earned in all his associations in this House and in other fields of activity in Canada.

Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka) :

Mr. Speaker, the amendment which has been moved to the motion for an address illustrates two things: first, lack of courage on the part of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) ; second, the poverty of his political equipment. It had been heralded throughout this country that the leader of the Opposition had at last found his fighting spirit and that he was coming to this House with his batteries all massed and his artillery in order so that fMr, Crerar.] *

he could lead an attack that would wipe this Government and this Parliament out of existence. After he has spoken for Some two hours, what do we find? We find that he has not one word to utter in condemnation of any legislation of this Parliament and that he has absolutely no policy to offer to the people of this country. In my opinion, a vote of want of confidence is and should be and, I think, has in history been based upon one of two things: first, the exposition of some policy which the mover thought it was in the public interest to adopt: second, the condemnation of some legislative acts of the Government. What do we find in this case? After addressing the House for about two hours, the leader of the Opposition admits that he has no policy and proves that he has no case against this Government. He simply talks, crying, as it were, on the outside of the citadel in the hope that the ramparts will fall down and he may be wafted into office. Who could imagine a Gladstone, or a Salisbury, or a Disraeli, asking any Parliament for a vote of want of confidence without having some policy to offer or some condemnation of the Government? What I have said exemplifies two things: first, lack of courage on the part of the leader of the Opposition, and second, lack of political equipment on his part. Stripped of all its verbiage, what does this mean? It means simply this, that if this debate is to be carried on as it should be, we have nothing left to debate but the fitness of the leader of the Opposition to occupy the position of first minister of Canada. God forbid that this party and this Government should lead this hon. member to his political doom through a path so tortuous and rocky as that. Rather would I throw the curtain of oblivion over him and leave him in peace; for I can assure him that when he goes to the country he will find plenty to contend against without that.

But, supposing this amendment should carry and this country should be precipitated into the throes of an election,

I should like the hon. member to say where he stands on the great question of taxation. Wh^t are his plans and projects for carrying and paying off the great debt which the war has placed upon this country? Has he any policy? If he has, he is entitled to place it before this Parliament. What is his policy regarding the great railway mixup which this country is in at the present time, and which is incidentally due to the party of which he is at present the

leader? What is his policy as regards repatriation of Canadian soldiers? What is his policy regarding pensions for those who were wounded in the battlefields of France? These are some of the things on which the hon. member should have stated his position before this House when he asked this House to vote a want of confidence in the present Government. What also, might I ask, is his policy regarding some of the things mentioned in the speech from the Throne? He has occupied the position of Minister of Labour in the Government of this country, and I should like to know, and the country would like to know, what his attitude is to-day on unemployment insurance. Unemployment is, to my mind, one of the great causes of unrest to-day; nothing is so conductive to unrest on the part of the labouring man as when he finds that his employment is wanting; that he has nothing laid by for his wife and family, and that poverty is more or less confronting him. In a country like Canada, where, by the nature of her climate, employment is more or less seasonal, this is one of the great problems that has been laid before Parliament during the past two years and one on which the leader of the Opposition is called upon to give an opinion. I hope the Minister of Labour may be successful in finding some solution for this problem and also for the question of old age pensions, mentioned in the speech from the Throne. Nothing is so sad in my experience than to see a man or a woman who has passed the earning point of life and who, through sickness or disaster, is faced with poverty. In Canada no man or woman has a right to be placed in that position. I do not agree with the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) that this is something to which the country should pay no attention. The aged and the poor are just claims upon-I was going to say charity, but it is not that-the Government and the people of this country. Many men and women have reached that state through no fault of their own, and it is the duty of every country to look after its citizens who have become impoverished through sickness or death or accident, and to see that they are not left in want in their old days.

Let us look for a moment at the official Opposition and see where they stand. I have stated that the leader of the Opposition has no policy to offer why we should vote this Government out and them in. Some one may say that they set a platform before the people in this country in 1919. That is quite true, but where do they stand now?

Shortly after that, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) through a paper which he owns, stated that platforms were made to get in on and not to stand on. Following that up he went to Peterborough where he told the people they could trust the Liberal party because they had failed for fifteen years to carry out their promises in relation to the tariff, and what they had done once they could do again. Another member of the Opposition stated that they had a platform and in that there were certain provisions for tariff revision, but he would have nothing done until he had gone once or twice before the people of Canada for their endorsation. What kind of a government would you have, if elected on issues like that? Then, the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMas-ter) who so often amuses this House has another theory; he has gone into the subterranean passages of time and there amidst the dust and cobwebs of antiquity he has got hold of that bundle of straw called free trade, and he hands that out to the people of this country in 1921 as a means for their national sustenance. These are some of the views held by hon. members who sit opposite us and who hope to be voted into power. The hon. member for Brome may speak for the county of Brome, but I doubt if he can speak for the province of Quebec. I am quite positive he cannot speak for Ontario, a province the product of whose people last year, if converted into dollars, would be sufficient to pay off the whole national debt of Canada; a province in which are invested hundreds of millions of dollars in manufacturing plants, employing some four hundred thousand men. That is the condition of affairs in the province of Ontario. What would be the condition if the hon. member for Brome had his way? I say that free trade would mean industrial stagnation and poverty for the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. It would mean the turning out of employment of hundreds of thousands of working men, and throwing their families destitute, more or less, upon the rest of the province. I ask any man who will look over the history of this country. Are you prepared to vote for a party that takes no stand on the fiscal policy of this country? Are you willing to trust a party that does not even know its own mind or its own policy for twenty-four hours at a time. That, I think, is the great issue before this country to-day. It is a question that has affected every country in the world, and

nearly every nation has been driven to the policy of protection to protect its own interests. Here, in Canada, an agitation has been started to tear down the bars and make this country practically an adjunct to the United States. Free trade in Canada would mean industrial stagnation, particularly in the East, and I think that before any hon. gentleman attempts to lead the Opposition in this country, or is entitled to seek power, he should tell the people of this country just where he stands on the fiscal question, and what he intends to do if he gets into power.

The hon. leader of the Opposition also says that we do not represent the people, and he asks Parliament to vote the Government out on that ground. I would like to ask by what right or authority he speaks for the people of the province of Ontario. Twice the people of Ontario had a chance to elect him to this House, but he was ignominiously defeated on both occasions, yet he stands up and tells the House that we do not represent the constituencies which we are here to represent at the present time. I would like to know by what right or authority a man makes such a statement who has been twice defeated for a seat in this House, and was eventually returned only through the courtesy, more or less, of this Government. I think it is an arrogant assertion for him to make, and that it is only made in desperation because he has no other case to make out.

What is the record of the present Government? Has the leader of the Opposition any fault to find with their war record? Has he any fault to find with taxation in this country, or with the way the public moneys have been spent? Does he find fault with the Government's efforts to repatriate the soldiers, or in the matter of pensions? If so, he has been beautifully silent. This Government spent $1,600,000,000 of the people's money in our war effort. Has the hon.*gentleman ever challenged the expenditure of one dollar of that amount on the ground that it was being misspent? If so, he has not done it in this House. Has he challenged any of the acts of the Government? He says we are extravagant, but he produces no figures to prove his contention. I would like to ask him whether he finds fault with the great prosperity this country has enjoyed during the last five or six years, in which time almost every branch of commerce has doubled or trebled. Field crops, for example, have grown from 33,000,000 to 55,000,000 bush- %

els in the last few years, and their value has increased from $660,000,000 to $1,500,000,000 per annum. Land has increased in value from $35 to $52 per acre. Mineral production has increased from $91,000,000 to $173,000,000. Fisheries have increased from $29,000,000 to $60,000,000. Manufacturing industries have increased from $1,000,000,000 to $3,000,000,000. Do these figures show that the country has been mismanaged, or that we are now struggling in the throes of poverty? These are a few of the questions which the hon. gentleman might ask before he attempts to turn out this Government on the ground of extravagance or carelessness.

But we are going to have an election, and it may not be so very far off. I do not speak for the Government, but I want to tell the leader of the Opposition and hon. gentlemen opposite that if he thinks we on this side of the House are afraid to go to the country, he is quite mistaken. There will be an election, and when it is over and the leader of the Opposition surveys the political battlefield, he will see many an ambulance carrying the political corpses of his friends. Could the hon. gentleman himself find g. political asylum other than Elba or St. Helena? If he could, he would be very lucky indeed. I do not think he will find it in the province of Ontario.

The leader of the Opposition says the Government has made mistakes. Supposing it has. Where is the man that has not made mistakes? Has the hon. gentleman's career been so free from mistakes that he can hold up to ridicule any party or Government that may have made mistakes? Is the history of his party free from mistakes? Did they not make a mistake when they guaranteed the bonds of the Canadian Northern from Port Arthur to the East? Did they not make a mistake when they built the Grand Trunk Pacific forty or fifty years before its time? Have they not made mistakes later than that? Did Mr. Balfour not make a mistake when he opposed giving to South Africa perfect political freedom? Did Webster not make a mistake when he refused to join the Abolitionists, and Lee when he joined the Secessionists in the United States? Did Hannibal not make a mistake when he crossed the Alps? Did Mark Anthony not make a mistake when he succumbed to the bewitching wiles of the Egyptian Queen that cost him the sceptre of Rome? Who does not make mistakes?. Does not even

the sun suffer an occasional eclipse? It is only the leader of the Opposition who stands out on the great canvas of time and says: I am the spotless one; vote the Government out because their record has not been perfect. I ask, is that fair? Is not the fair thing to test the Government by the average working of its legislation and its effects? I ask this House to look over the Government's record during the last five or six years-trying years when the people of this country have been forced to do things they did not want to do, and pay taxes they did not want to pay, and eat things they did not want to eat, and say whether or not the Government has done well on the whole. I believe that when the time comes to appeal to the country, the people will endorse the Government's record which was made, let us remember, in the most trying times in history.

But there is more than that. This Government has duties to perform, and I think that one of them is to see that when a new Parliament is elected it will fairly represent the people. And I think that the western members are the ones who will gain most by this. Personally-and I think this applies to many in Ontario-I am of the opinion that we should be much better off going to the country before rather than after redistribution. But that is not the principle. The principle for this Government and for Parliament is that of administering justice, and only strict justice, to the people of the country, and when a Parliament is elected it should be elected on an honest and just franchise. But, Mr. Speaker, if those from the West, who have most to gain by this, think differently and vote accordingly, then I say to this Government that they can well consider their obligations in that respect fulfilled, and they might be justified in appealing to the country at any time they thought best.

Now, I would add a word by way of congratulation to the Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Meighen), whose career I foll6wed for many years before I entered the House. I have seen him rise from a humble member until he now occupies the highest position in the gift of the Canadian people, and I sincerely congratulate not only himself but his party and the country as well. We have in him a leader who is not afraid to nail his colours to the mast, and he may rest assured that he has behind him a party that is willing to fight, and fight until the last trench is won. I tender him my heartfelt congratulations, for I think it is a

source of pride to us that a young man, without any financial assistance and without influence of any kind, can in this country rise to the greatest position which the people can offer him. It must be a source of pride to the right Ron. gentleman, and no doubt it is to the people of Canada, that he has risen to that eminence. He has, in the language of Tennyson:

Lived to clutch the golden keys,

To mould a mighty state's decreess.

And shape the whispers of a throne.

Hon. HENRI SEVERIN BELAND (Beauce) :

My hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) will not, I hope, expect me to follow him closely in the remarks which I intend to address to the House at the present time. I may, however, refer at once to his closing words, in which he asks the House and the country whether anybody can claim for himself that he has never been in his life guilty of a mistake, implying thereby that the present Government and that which immediately preceded it have been in many instances guilty of serious mistakes. Let me say that whatever the past mistakes of this Government may have been, the gravest and most serious of all is that of refusing, in such a determined manner, an appeal to the people, which is claimed by the whole country.

Although the question of the League of Nations is in the present debate only of secondary importance, two of the ministers who have seen fit to address the House have confined themselves entirely to that subject. The time for discussing the League of Nations is properly during the Budget debate. But you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, just for a few moments to say, in reference to the matter, that the expectation of the House and of the country that the representatives of Canada in Geneva would furnish the people with a report or a summary of the work accomplished there, as well as of the constitution of the League and of the part played by those representatives themselves, has not been frustrated. We have heard, first, my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) who, in a pointed, clear, and concise discourse, rich in adjectival description, outlined for us the structure of this international edifice known as the League of Nations. With his unusual power of eloquence, he has unveiled to us a part of the future. He has depicted that future to us as an earthly paradise, where all men will live like brothers.

Viscount Burnham alluded to what might be the constitution of such a council given executive as well as judicial powers, but they would have to determine what was necessary and then constitute the machinery to meet the. case.

Then he goes on:

I venture to propose this because I believe that you are anxious to bring into unity the various parts of the Empire and' guard against any breakdown in the future.

Was there any breakdown in the past I wonder? Now my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce will realize that there is an important movement on foot. But that is not all. Lord Cave on the same date expressed himself in the city of Ottawa, on the occasion of a lunch given by the Bar Association, in the following terms:

For a generation some of the ablest statesmen, of the time-Rosebery, Chamberlain, Grey, and others whose names will occur to you,

were considering how best a further link could be forged between the central and Dominion governments which should be neither so stiff as to gall, nor so weak as to break under a strain. It may be that the problem has been solved quietly, and almost unconsciously, (as our habit is) by the establishment of the Imperial War Cabinet as an effective council of the Empire. That Assembly of the leading statesmen of the self-governing parts of the Empire, first called together in 1917 for the purpose of discussing the conduct of the war and some of the higher issues of Imperial policy, proved to be of so much service, both to its members and to the countries concerned that it was unanimously determined at the instance of the British Prime Minister to keep it in being. And so other meetings took place at a later crisis of the war, and again when the terms of peace were under consideration. '

Now comes the crucial phrase :

The experiment,-for at first it was nothing more,-proved an unqualified success.

I believe that. It was a war measure, but, as my right hon. friend said the other day, "war is the negation of order."

And to many of us-* continues Lord Cave:

-it seems possible that the Imperial War Cabinet may, (if the Imperial Conference should so determine) drop its middle name, and while remaining wholly voluntary and consultative may become in world affairs the nerve centre of the autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth. *

If you drop the middle name "war," you get the title "Imperial Cabinet."

Those who believe in a greater expansion and a greater development of Canadian autonomy will read with some dismay what is being said by those important British statesmen and public men. The question

fMr. Bdland.l

is not: Shall the British dissolve, or shall

the British Empire endure? There is in this country as, I think, there is in every domininon of the British Empire, only one opinion: that the British Empire should

last, should endure, should persist, should continue, for the good of the world; because the British Empire can and does play an important part in the world's affairs. We on this side hold to-day the view that was held by the Liberal party at all times-the view of Alexander Mackenzie, of Sir Oliver Mowat, of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, of Mr. Blake-that the British Empire will endure only through the exercise of the largest possible measure of local autonomy. Let us rebuff all attempts, patent or veiled, to sink Canada's individuality, Canda's selfconsciousness, Canada's self-reliance-in a word, Canada's national pride and autonomy, in the vortex of Imperial Federation.

There are two reasons, equally important, why we should resist any such attempts. One is with regard to the League of Nations. The concentration of the political powers of the British Empire would evoke suspicion in the minds of other nations; would provoke a spirit of rivalry, and, perhaps cause another race for supremacy in armaments. Furthermore, let us oppose the scheme, from whatever source it comes, on the ground that any such attempt to centralize political power in the metropolis of the British Empire would tend to the disintegration of that Empire.

There exists in Canada at the present time a good deal of unrest and dissatisfaction. That has been confessed by the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government. What, Mr. Speaker, in your opinion, is the cause of this dissatisfaction? Is it the direct and immediate result of that most terrific conflict which was inflicted upon humanity? Partly, yes. The fact that fifty thousand Canadians laid down their lives in the Great War; that at least fifty thousand homes mourn the loss of dear ones; that one hundred thousand Canadians have been maimed, incapacitated, disabled, partially or totally-certainly these circumstances are sufficient to create a certain amount of restlessness. But the main and the fundamental cause of the unrest and dissatisfaction in Canada to-day is to be found in the utter disregard of public opinion on the part of the present Government. Not only is public opinion disregarded, but our parliamentary institutions have been treated cavalierly and in a highhanded manner. It was my privilege to visit all the provinces but two during the

recess, and I found, from the Atlantic to the Rockies, a general opinion prevailing among the people to the effect that this Government has outlived its mandate, and concurrent with this opinion is the universal desire for an appeal to the people. It would be over-stating the case to contend that there are not a few friends who desire to see the Administration remain in office- a few personal friends, a few courtiers, a few sycophants, a few interested persons; but these exceptions only go to prove the rule.

Listening the other day to the right hon. gentleman's able address, I failed to detect any good ground upon which he could base his refusal to consult the Canadian people. The only ground upon which he could pretend to base that refusal was that the Canadian West was entitled to a larger representation in Parliament; that that larger representation could he obtained only through a redistribution of seats; that a redistribution of seats could be effected only after a census had been taken; therefore it was his duty, he thought, to postpone the general election till that redistribution had taken place. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is only a simulacrum of reason, it is a mere pretext. I am an admirer of the West; one cannot he indifferent to those immense plains which conceal in their bosom the food of nations. The immense coal deposits of Alberta, which could supply the motive power of numberless industries, cannot but appeal to the imagination. I repeat that I admire the West, and I would he very glad indeed to see their representation in Parliament increased. But what are the conditions? Since 1913 immigration in Canada has almost been at a standstill, though the pivotal province of Canada, Quebec, has very largely increased its population. It is no secret that no seats can be gained outside the province of Quebec unless there has been an increase in the population proportionate to the increase in the province of Quebec. However desirous one may be to see the West gain more representation in this House; the contention, I feel, that the West will gain substantially after the next redistribution cannot be entertained. I readily understood the right hon. gentleman when he pointed his artillery towards my friends sitting to my left. "Will you not have ten more seats?" he said. "Will you not have fifteen more seats, perhaps twenty-five, for all we know?" But I think the range was too long and that his projectile must have passed over the heads of my good friends the Agrarians.

My right hon. friend claims that the West may have twenty-five new seats. Well, I will set my prophecy against his: that after the next census the increased representation to the western provinces will be nearer one than ten, and between the two. But, for the sake of argument, let us say that it will be ten, fifteen, twenty, or even twenty-five. Does anyone amongst my friends the Agrarians, who know the adroitness of the Prime Minister, for one moment think that they will get one of those seats? Everybody knows how skilful a drafter of a measure is the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government and with what immense success he was able in the past to send home those men who did not wish to share his political views. No, my friends the Agrarians will find out after the next census that if the West is entitled to five seats more, ten seats more, fifteen seats more, they will be taken away from the rural constituencies and given to the urban centres. The odds are entirely against the Agrarians in this regard. In a moment of apparent tender compassion the right hon. gentleman turned to the group which, as he says, is angularly situated, and he said: "See what confronts you. If you

have dissolution now, you loose fifteen, twenty seats.; whilst if you will vote against the amendment of the leader of the Opposition, you will not have the elections now and then you will have fifteen more seats and your group will be so much increased." I do not know my good friend the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) very well if I cannot imagine coming from the remote bottom of his heart the groaning remark "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes-I fear the Greeks even when they bear presents." There was no other reason he could invoke, on the contrary he has found very much comfort in the result of the Peterborough election. He says that the Peterborough election is a vindication of his fiscal policy. If it is possible for my right hon. friend to confine the discussion in a general election to the tariff issue, if it is possible for him to ignore or make the people of Canada ignore all the mistakes and blunders of his administration; if he thinks that all his sins and those of his predecessor are already forgotten or at least forgiven; if in a word his appreciation of the Peterborough verdict is just and correct, why not appeal to the people and he shall be supported by the country at large? He will not do that; he will cling desperately to the rudder in a frantic effort-

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

To save the country.

Mr. BELAND:

No, but to avoid the rock which awaits him, the rock of popular disfavour and indignation; he may not however do that indefinitely; he may postpone the evil day a week, a month, a year

Oh no, never.

Mr. BELAND:

-but the time will come -when Its Majesty, the Canadian Constitution, will send him before his natural judge, the Canadian people.