Mr. SPEAKER:

Of course, the hon. gentleman who has the floor can always allow a colleague in the House to interrupt and ask a question, but for the decorum of the debate there should not be a volley of interruptions, because the value of the argument suffers thereby when it is in print. A speaker should be allowed, as far as possible, to present his case to the House without interruption. I do not say a question is not allowed. It is generally allowed, but that this debate may be intelligible, I think it is better that every member should be allowed to present his own statement in as connected a way as possible.

{Mr. McMurray.]

Mr. McMURRAY:

I have no objection to answering the question if I can. That strikes me as the main objection to proportional representation, as it worked out in the city of Winnipeg, and as I saw' it personally. Furthermore, it is absolutely opposed to the party system. There is no control

over the candidates. My hon. friends of

the Progressive party may say it is a good thing, but under the party form of government it would not be workable. We would have ambitious men who have not the sanction of the party crowding themselves into the position of candidates. For these reasons, I am opposed to the resolution.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):

We have had a debate

lasting almost an entire afternoon on a question that affects the whole Dominion, that affects vitally the principle of representation in this federal parliament, a question that has been the subject of discussion within and without parliament for years. The decision of the House on this resolution constitutes thereon the mandate of the House of Commons of this country. We have had various speeches in support of it from the party in parliament which openly and frankly favours the principle of proportional representation. We have had four or five speakers against it from the Liberal-Conservative party, and we have no expression of opinion from the government as to whether they favour or whether they oppose it, as to whether they have in mind an amendment; not one of them has told us what their policy is, or whether they have a policy at all. I venture to say that never before in the history of our parliament-at least never before this government came into office,-has a parallel to such a thing been found. The government is silent, impotent, bloodless, without information, without judgment on the question. It is apparently allowing the matter to run at large, not only giving no heed to it in parliament, but giving no intimation as to where it stands.

I am prepared to admit that there may be questions propounded by a private member in respect of which it is not the duty of government to lead parliament, not the duty of government first to state its position. Government in respect of all questions has ample opportunity in advance to review these questions and to prepare to assume the function that belongs to an administration. There may be some questions in respect to which it does not need to take any special view, a question for example that is local in its application, a question that does not go to the

Proportional Representation

root of any dominion method of electing parliament, a question that is not Dominionwide. In respect to such a matter as that it may be quite competent for the administration-and I suggest that the fewer of those the government admits the better-to leave as one at large, and to say, as the hon. leader of the House to-day said in respect to the last resolution: "Some members of the government may vote one way and some another, and some supporters of the government may vote one way and some another." But I do think that when a subject of the magnitude of proportional representation comes up, going to the very root of the whole electoral system of this country, it is the duty of the government to take a stand and say what attitude it takes with regard to a resolution which decides that question. If this were merely a resolution to appoint a committee to review the subject, that would be entirely different. Then the time for the government to take its stand would be when the issue may come before parliament after the report of that committee. But when this resolution is decided, there is the mandate of this parliament; there is decision, the stand this parliament takes, and we are asked now to go to a vote upon this question without any word from the government at all. Such a course does not indicate very much strength or self-reliance on the part of the administration.

It is true that in the Liberal platform which was passed in August, 1919, a platform they do not like to be reminded of any oftener than cannot be avoided, the Liberal party committed itself to the principle of proportional representation. If we are to assume that such action constitutes the government's position, please let us be told so, and then the government can thereafter take refuge in silence. But because a pledge on this subject appears in the record of that convention, I always take such fact as a presumption that now the government is on the other side. The presumption is that way. Of course such presumption is capable of rebuttal; the government has it within its power to say: "On this, for an exception, we are in the position we were in at the 1919 convention." But until it does that, the presumption is that the government is to-day precisely the other way. At all events, the resolution passed in 1919 said only that the Liberal party favoured the "principle" of proportional representation. Another presumption therefore which we would be quite justified in drawing from the experience of the last two years would be that while they, the government, favoured the principle, it was utterly opposed to the practice. That is precisely where they stand on the question of free trade. They favour the principle of it; they love it as an ideal; but as a matter of practice they are in direct antagonism to it. Consequently, there is no reason for drawing a conclusion that because there is a statement of principle here, the government either favours that principle to-day, or if it favours it, favours its being put into actual effect.

On motions of this kind, motions of a nation-wide character and effect such as this, it is the duty of the government to state its position, and really it is not incumbent upon the opposition in parliament to take a stand as an opposition until the government has first taken its stand as a government. Such has invariably been the attitude-nor did I ever criticise it-of hon. gentlemen opposite when they sat in the opposition in this House, and as a member and as a leader of a government, I took no exception at any time to that attitude. Nor did we ever shrink from stating our position when the time came, when there was before parliament something, the decision on which was to constitute the mandate of this House. Such a course, however, is in keeping with the quality of spirit and courage shown by the administration since it came into power.

But without waiting for the government's view, I do not refuse to state my own. I am opposed to the resolution. I find myself in substantial accord with the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray). Whether he takes this as a compliment or not, I find myself pretty much in accord with the arguments he advances in defence of his position.

Hon. gentlemen to my left seem to feel that it is a matter of revelry, if anything in the way way of a contention is advanced against proportional representation. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) stood in his majesty in this House and declared that he always knew the pathway of progress as soon as he knew which way the opposition in this House was tending; he knew that the opposite would be the road of progress, and I am sorry to have to say, because I do not think this was worthy of hon. gentlemen to my left, they received that absurd statement with considerable applause. Let me trace back for a few years the legislative record of this parliament, and I venture to think that hon. gentlemen who applauded the statement of the member for Brome will attribute their momentary applause to the influence of hereditary Liberal associations rather than to the sway of reason. What have been the main questions before

Proportional Representation

this parliament in recent yearn? What have been the big new problems with which this parliament has been confronted? What have been the attitudes, the positions of the parties in relation thereto? One of the big problems was the question of the nationalization of our railways. That was forced upon this House by anterior policies that, I venture to suggest, even the hon. member for Brome will not stand and say were distinguished by sane much less by progressive attributes.

Mr. McMASTER:

Is the right hon. gentleman making a virtue out of necessity?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

The necessity was there and we made out of it a virtue. I am afraid if hon. gentlemen opposite meant what they said and had been in power, they would have made out of it a disaster. The nationalization of our railways was a policy which we initiated prior to 1917, that we carried to advanced stages after 1917, with the co-operation of the group to my left, with the cooperation of their late leader, not only with his co-operation, but with his enthusiastic support. That support he consistently continued on every platform in this Dominion. I want to know where were hon. gentlemen opposite on that question. They were fighting us day and night in parliament,' standing and blocking the road, and they stood and blocked the road in every constituency in this country where they thought the road was blockable in the1 contest from which we emerged a year ago. Keep in mind the subject of our railway policy, the biggest one we have really decided in the last ten years, and I want to know the opinion of hon. members to my left as to which party was1 on the side of the progress there. I listen for their verdict. At all events, the laughter has subsided. *

Another matter that constituted a considerable change, many thought a radical change, was made in recent years. The franchise of this country was expanded 100 per cent by the admission of women. That was done by what is known as Union government, supported by a parliament elected to support Union government. That course was not opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite as a party. But in this parliament all the opposition it encountered was from the Liberal party. And that opposition was not inconsiderable; it was vigorous; what there was, was able; it was an opposition in which the eloquence of the present Speaker of this House was heard to perhaps as great advantage as ever in our history. It came, all of it, from the Liberal party. No opposition whatever came from the party that is now held up by

the hon. member for Brome as thwarting the march of progress.

Nor are those the only illustrations. What about the re-establishment policy effected after the war? What about the settlement policy that leads the way in land settlement for every country' in the world. There stands to-day something to which other countries are looking in admiration and which, I venture to suggest, hon. gentlemen of all three sections of this House, are now disposed to applaud rather than to deride. I do not sav that our land settlement policy met with opposition on the part of the Liberal party. It did not. I do not say that it met with opposition on the part of the Progressive party. It certainly did. not. It met with consistent and fair support; but nevertheless the soldier land settlement policy was put into practice by the party which the hon. member for Brome holds up as the veiy acme of reaction and retrogression.

Yes, let hon. members of this House opposite me in particular,-but in this instance I join, with them, those to my left-look back over the history of confederation at the great milestones of policy, that to-day are embedded in the statute books, policies initiated at confederation, policies initiated in the seventies after confederation, policies initiated in the last ten years, and then ask me whether that policy was fathered by this party or by that to which the hon. gentleman belongs. I do not say that all that is of value was originated by this party; but the big steps were due to its resource and courage. I know there is something to the credit of the Liberal party. I know they initiated and put into effect the policy of submitting our railway difficulties, railway rates and all matters that arise in controversy in connection with the roads, to a commission, a judicial body- there was a policy for which the Laurier government deserves every' credit. I am willing to accord it the credit due in that regard, nor have I ever denied it. But I hope I shall be forgiven for reminding hon. gentlemen opposite that after they took that step, the very body which they erected and put in a place where it could not defend itself, they were the first, for political purposes, for party election purposes, to deride and to defame in the public eye of this country. And they were the first as well, after a vote bargaining adventure, to circumscribe the ambit of authority of that body and thereby create anomalies in this country from which we shall be struggling to escape for years to come. I do not know that I could name anything else to their credit of much consequence. I will not harrow the memories of hon. gentle-

Proportional Representation

men opposite by referring to those tragic bills to construct the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific. These were the main achievements of their administration. And if there are any hon. gentlemen that feel like calling those ill-fated measures milestones of progress it is a shame, really, not to leave them in the enjoyment of their delusion.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Mr. Speaker, when six o'clock arrived I was in the middle of a review of some of the policies of this country that have so stood the test of time, indeed, that have so enamoured their original enemies as to be finally accepted by them. Even then I had not mentioned some of the most outstanding. There are hon. members of this House of all parties who can remember the historic struggle over the building of the Canadian Pacific railway-a policy that put the life blood of trade into confederation and made a political union an organic union; a policy that had to be pressed against the bitterest opposition, certainly the ablest opposition that this or any parliament in Canada has ever known. But it exemplified surely progressive government. There was an instance of courage and of aggressiveness and it does not stand to the credit of the Liberal party. The hon. member for Brome would not likely give the respective attitudes of the two parties on that subject as an illustration of his theory that the Conservative party of Canada has been reactionary and his own progressive. There is nothing so delusive 13 names; nomenclature deceives unguarded minds, and I put the hon. member for Brome on warning in that regard.

But we do not need to stop there. The very shortest memory carries to the controversy over civil service reform in this country. I know that a measure of reform was achieved under the Laurier government, but I know that in its working out it proved a most contracted and ineffective piece of legislation. To suggest that it abolished patronage or removed it from the control of political parties is merely to suggest something that sounds monstrous to memory and reason. The big step, the abolition of patronage, was taken in opposition to hon. gentlemen opposite-at least, when they were in opposition; for to be absolutely fair it could not be said that they resisted it as a party in opposition. They were most critical. But it is easy to be

brave in that regard in opposition. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been quite ready to agree that, subject to their terms, political patronage shall be removed from the other political party when in power but they have shown distinct evidence of late that they are not at all prepared to have it removed from themselves.

And indeed, one does not need to stop there. The exigencies of the last ten years demanded more in the way of progressive policies than did all the previous history of confederation. There came an exigency in the marketing conditions of the world that demanded action in 1919. The government of the day took action. The government of the day took its life in its hands so far as western Canada was concerned and established a wheat board-a wheat board that operated, a wheat board that in the course of its existence, by its mere success, converted or destroyed its enemies. And who were its enemies? Its enemies were all in the party that sits opposite now. Oh, I well remember-and this will be illuminating, I know it will be interesting, to some hon. gentlemen of this House-I well remember how, when that course was taken, hon. gentlemen opposite, some of them not in the House today,-translated to the Senate-stood on this side and denounced us as having established that board to help our rich friends the millers. I was portrayed, because of the wheat board legislation, as an ally of the big interests; and the eloquence of the former member for Kent will ring through this hall for many a day in which he depicted me as the tool and minion of the rich, establishing a wheat board to crush the farmer in order to benefit the milling interests. Such was the character of. opposition we met with to progressive legislation, and the same opposition continued throughout the life of the wheat board. It ceased only when the wheat board ceased. And we had the progressive style of hon. gentlemen opposite well illustrated in the wheat board legislation of last session, wheat board legislation that has stood a dead letter ever since, that never " progressed " so far as to get into operation. The progressiveness of the respective wheat board bills well illustrates the progressiveness of the two sides of this House.

So much for that; it is a digression forced upon me by the hon. member for Brome, but I apprehend I have given him illustrations enough-and I witness now at last the smile of approval on his face.

Coming to this resolution, I stated that my opposition was founded in part on reasons expressed by the hon. member for North

Proportional Representation

Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray). I cannot say that I have given the closest attention to the discussions in other countries as well as in our own on this principle, but I have given them some attention and I have given pretty close attention to the working out of the principle of proportional representation in Canada, in our municipal and provincial fields.

One of the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg, and strongly urged on this side of the House before he spoke, strongly urged in a very logical address from the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), was this: that proportional representation is a method of election that tends to the fostering, at all events to the continuance and multiplication of groups in parliament. These hon. gentlemen argued that such consequence is not consonant and does not harmonize with the British system of party government. I know there is such a thing as parliamentary government without party government, but I for one-and if it is reactionary, all right, call it reactionary-I for one believe you get the best results of parliamentary government when you have party government. I believe that you get better results than you do when you have group government.

The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), in his very moderate speech, has said that we will have groups whether we have proportional representation or not. Certainly I admit there have been groups in other countries, and groups that arose without any proportional representation as a cause. That is quite true, it has been inevitable. Not only is it inevitable, but within the limits fixed by a system of direct majority vote I am not sure that it does not work for good. But the multiplication of groups in my judgment is not consonant with the British parliamentary system and does not conduce to the good of the country. It tends to interruption of continuity of policj'; it tends to uncertainty throughout the country as to what policy is going to be; and stronger still, it tends to rob the electorate of power of real and final decision in matters of policy, and to transfer that power in more uncontrollable form to their representatives in parliament. The elector is not in a position to decide policy as fully as he is in a position to do under the present system of election. He is in a position to decide on his preference for men perhaps better, but as betwen the merits of a policy which a government has followed, the naked question of the merits of that policy, he has not so effective a decision in his hands under proportional representation as he has

under the present practice. There is more likelihood, more necessity indeed, of personality being the dominating influence in the election. The elector is bound to give thought to that after his first vote anyway for he is bound to be voting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and consequently the force of his electoral action does not go as effectively to a definite "yea" or "nay" on big fundamental questions of policy. It is dissipated over other considerations and does not have its full and final effect on policy. It is anti-democratic in that regard rather than democratic.

Now it seems to me the British system of government has stood the test of many centuries. That does not say it is perfect and cannot be improved; but I do not think you improve it when you establish a method of election that tends undoubtedly to the multiplication of groups, and consequently tends to a carnival of favour-bargaining in parliament which destroys responsibility, which destroys continuity of policy, which destroys strength and efficiency of administration.

I may be answered that even under the alternative vote system,-and I admit that that system is open to some of the objections I have advanced,-there is easily a possibility of log-rolling, too; but there it would be beween the electors. The electors might easily engage in a log-rolling practice. The followers of one party or candidate might come to a bargain with the followers of another that each would be the second choice of the other in the contest; and such a practice is not good. It would not tend to the purest form of election. But far better have logrolling there than have it in parliament. The worst thing that can happen parliament is to have it so constituted that policy is determined by a system of exchange of favours, of sectional favours, of favours of any other kind-policy determined thereby rather than determined initially by government on its responsibility to parliament and ultimately to the electors. For that reason I do not think proportional representation is consonant with the British form of government. Let me put it this way also before I leave this phase of the subject. The elector may vote for 1, 2, 3,

4 and 5. He may conceivably decide on a choice of six different lines of policy as he votes, and the representatives of six different policies may therefore be elected but when the elected comes to parliament he has only two ways of voting on any subject; he may vote yea or he may vote nay, and you have either to abandon your system of responsible government or you are going to put some of those elected men in a position where they are

Proportional Representation

voting against their principles time and time again. That is bound to result under proportional representation. The fact that there are only two ways of voting in parliament, following the fact that there are six or seven different things to vote for in the election, results in anomalies and departure from principle in parliament, and is out of harmony with the British system of parliamentary government.

Now I come to a reason that weighs with me heavier than the one I have expounded. The first reason has been faithfully advanced by hon. members who have spoken. The second has been referred to as well, but I regard this reason as a dominating one. I regard it as imperative to my mind. Proportional representation may be right or may be wrong. I cannot deny for a minute that there is much to be said in its favour, and I do not believe I could say that it does not tend, that it would not likely tend, at least, to a more accurate reflection of all the phases of public opinion in the country in this mirror of parliament. If that itself is a distinct, final advantage, I do not think it can be at least conclusively disputed. What I argue is that though you may get some good result, you get it at a price that is too great for all the advantage received.

But whether proportional representation is right or wrong, the isolated application of proportional representation is wrong, and wrong in my mind without any room for debate at all. I am against the isolated application of the principle, and would be against it even though the principle itself appealed to me as sound. Now why do I say that? You cannot have the isolated local application of proportional representation while all the rest of the country is under the old system, and either do justice as between party and party or do justice to the constituency to which proportional representation is applied. It is unfair as between party and party, and it is unfair as respects the constituency itself. Now as between party and party you may apply proportional representation to constituencies, or to classes of constituencies, where one party is the stronger, and thereby deplete its strength in those constituencies but leave unmolested whole areas of the country where another party is the stronger, and thereby give it the whole advantage of its majority over that area. That such a result would be grossly unfair-indeed, that it would be an outrage on the public of this country, there can be no dispute at all, and I do not believe you can choose any area and say that you have chosen this fairly as between the parties represented in parliament. For example, if cities of this country are taken, so far as the last election reflected-I do say it would be the same again; it might be quite different; it should not have been the case at the last election; it would not have been the case but that large sections of this country were led astray-if cities of this country were selected, particularly certain cities, and they made to illustrate the system of proportional representation, that would merely be a matter of having the minority in those cities represented. Consequently the party that is strongest in those cities would be bereft of much of its electoral result, while the party that was strongest in the rest of the country is left in the full enjoyment of all the advantages of that strength.

Not only is this true, but it is grossly unjust to the constituency itself. I could not illustrate this better than to take the working out of this system in the province of Manitoba as we have witnessed it up to date.

Now I want here to interpolate this. The basic objection to proportional representation is that it does not fit in harmoniously with the British system of parliamentary government, does not make for continuity of policy and for strength, and consequently for efficiency of administration. That does not apply with equal force to municipal government, for definiteness and continuity of policy are by no means so important there as even in a provincial arena, and by no means so important as they are in the federal arena. The objections that apply, apply with greater and greater force as the arena to which the application comes is extended in its horizon and elevated in degree.

We have had it illustrated in provincial legislatures. The province of Manitoba is about half urban and half rural. Almost half of the population of the province of Manitoba reside in the city of Winnipeg. That city has a representation, I think, of ten. The balance of the province has much more than that, because they have followed, rightly or wrongly, the principle of giving to rural parts a larger proportion of representation than to the city of Winnipeg. The province has been under the regular system of distribution; Winnipeg has been under proportional representation. Winnipeg as a consequence, as one would naturally expect, has elected three or four different groups. It has elected Conservatives, it has elected Liberals, it has elected Labour representatives; and I think it has elected some who call themselves independent even of labour, and of liberalism, and

Proportional Representation

of conservatism. It has elected a Progressive, It has elected three or four different groups. None has any marked advantage over the other. The Conservatives have no advantage, I think, over the Liberal nor the Liberals over the Conservative; and it would be difficult to conceive, in the years to come, any election in the city of Winnipeg, in which under the new system, any party will have very much advantage over the other. It might have an advantage of one member, it might have an advantage possibly of two or three, but the latter would be -rather difficult to conceive. What, on the contrary, is the condition through the country? There they have, say, forty seats. The party whose policy plays to that vote wins not an advantage of one seat or two seats but an advantage say of forty seats. In a word, the party that directs its policy to winning that vote plays for a stake of forty seats; the party that directs its policy to winning the city vote plays for a stake of one vote or two. As a consequence there is every motive, there is every political motive-and let us not be so hypocritical as to deny that political motives exercise an influence in parliament-there is every political motive to neglect the constituencies to which proportional representation is applied in the public policy of the country, and to place the whole trend of that public policy in favour of those constituencies to which that system is not applied at all. There would be very little to be gained by any government in office in Manitoba to-day in so turning public policy as to be even fair to the city of Winnipeg. And as I make these remarks I do not want to be understood as saying that there has been unfairness to the city; that has nothing to do with the question at all. The question is, what are the forces at work? what will be the tendency? Under the existing system there is very little reward fof any party, in following a course fair to the city of Winnipeg. The best that could be expected there would be an advantage of one seat or two. But the party that ignores the city of Winnipeg to the advantage of the rest of the province-that party has much to gain and its appeal is liable to be much more effective, than the appeal of the party that pursued a policy equally fair to both. This reasoning will apply in the federal arena where, necessarily, there are antagonisms of local interests far greater than there could be in a compact province like Manitoba. Sectional interests here unquestionably have great influence. There is more diversity of sectional interest, and consequently more diver-(Mr. Meighen.]

sity of sectional activity; this is inevitable and we are never going to get away from it. For that reason the party in this parliament that applies proportional representationto certain sections of the country and does not apply it to others, that

party puts those sections under a distinct disadvantage in reference to its influence in the parliament of Canada. Therefore I am opposed to the sectional, the isolated, the local adoption of proportional representation. I am not prepared to support it applied to certain selected places when I know those places will be chosen by a government which has a majority in parliament, or by a committee on which, necessarily, that government will have a majority over all other parties combined. For this reason, which to my mind is final I will not support the resolution that is now before the House.

I think also, if we reflect on the experiences of those parts of our country which, in other fields of politics, have adopted this system I do not think we will gain anything in the way of accession of argument to the affirmative of this resolution. The Liberal-Conservative party has taken very aggressive steps in this country. It claims, and on the record, I think, I can establish its claim, to be the party of progress in this country, but in all the steps of progress it has taken the Conservative party has known every time where it was going; it did not adopt everything just because it was new, and lightly call such action by the name of progress. The best criterion by which to judge whether a policy proves progressive or not is to watch and see what becomes of it when the other side gets into power. If the other side, in defiance of all its proclamations, in defiance of all its sworn principles, facing the responsibility of governing and facing the consequences of a change, comes to the decision to support the policy of its opponents, then we have just about as final a test as can be thought of as to the essential soundness and progressiveness of that policy. And a party which in respect of one thing or the other, facing all along the stoutest resistance finds its policies the law of Canada today, that party is not boasting when it says that those policies have been really progressive for they have stood the sternest test of time.

But there are certain things the Conservative party has opposed; some of them it has opposed unsuccessfully. In the provincial arena it opposed the introduction of the once famous initiative referendum and recall. But the initiative referendum and recall which, when it was under discussion one would really have thought from the enthusiasm the very

Proportional Representation

honest enthusiasm of its supporters was going to regenerate this stricken world, was going to correct all the evils of political life-that initiative referendum and recall hon. gentlemen must admit has simply stood as a dead letter on the statute books of our provinces. Nor do I think that proportional representation where it has had its chance has contributed to the betterment of our legislatures.

I do not think for example members of the Liberal party in Manitoba, and particularly members of the late provincial government, would say that proportional representation tended to give legislative virility to the liberal party of that province and I do not think their hearts would be behind that principle to-day.

I know they would not be enthusiastic for that once so much heralded reform, the initiative, referendum and recall. Adhering, though, to the subject of proportional representation, I do not think it has contributed to the strength, the efficiency and usefulness of either the Liberal or the Conservative party provincially, and J[ do not think it will contribute to the value as a party in office of the Progressive group that now enjoys power in that province. I believe the time will come when they will see that they would do more efficient and effective work for the whole province under the old British system of election. Looking to the Pacific coast, my reading of the results there is wholly adverse to the success of the principle. I understand that in its actual working out there were so many errors and so much misunderstanding, the numbers of those who found it impossible to master the intricacies of the vote were such that when the result was known there was not only a large volume of dissatisfaction, but very general and grave doubts as to whether the result really reflected public opinion. For those reasons and in the light of these experiences I oppose the resolution now before the House.

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :

The greatest part of the speech of

my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) has dealt with matters outside the resolution before the House, and into that part of his address I do not wish to enter. I would like to, however, make'a few remarks coming more directly to the resolution itself. We are of course profoundly moved-moved to profound sorrow-by the declaration which my right hon. friend made with* so much emphasis that his conception of the functions of government differs from our own. We must comfort ourselves with the thought that when our conception of government and his conception of

government are submitted to the highest authority in this democratic country, his conception of government is not found to be acceptable. My right hon. friend has a very queer notion of that conception of government when he says that it is the duty of government to take a stand on every question that comes before the House.

If my hon. friend had strange notions as to the functions of government, I must confess he also gave us some strange notions as to the functions of opposition, because he made the statement that according to his conception, and according to that of the hon. gentlemen who had worked with him, they are not called upon to make up their minds on any question until they first learn where the government stand in the matter. That is a new notion and I must admit that he does as well in defining the principles of the opposition as he does in defining the principles of the government. The government are bound to be united on any measure which they bring before the House. I say they are not bound to be united on a measure brought before the House by a private member.

If any private member feels that he wishes to bring any motion before the House and to invite a free discussion of it, that is his privilege, and we all commend him for exercising that right. But to say that when a private member exercises that right instantly the government have to take a position on the matter and declare they are for or against it, I think is a strange notion indeed. At all events it is a notion which we are not prepared to endorse here. For myself-and I am speaking for myself alone-I would have preferred if my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good) had rested, as he might well have done, on the passage of his first resolution, in which the sense of the House was taken, on the question of the alternative vote. It having received the unanimous consent of the House -at all events there was no objection-I think my hon. friend might have said that that was progress enough for one day, and perhaps for one session, and might well have waited until we had a trial of it before trying it on a larger scale. .

As now proposed, however, if the matter has to be voted on, I shall vote for the hon. gentleman's motion-though I shall do so with some little hesitation and not without some doubt-for two reasons: first, the idea of proportional representation in a general way has long commended itself to my fancy. I have not studied it as closely as some hon. gentlemen who have spoken, but in a general way

Proportional Representation

the idea has found favour in my mind. But there is another and more specific reason. I do not need to go outside the situation in my own province to-day to see there is something wrong in the present system. We are keen politicians down in Nova Scotia. Sometimes you would think we are all one-sided. But that is hardly correct. I have not made a careful analysis of the figures, but I am not far wrong when I make a rough guess that about 40 or 45 per cent of the electors of Nova Scotia will call themselves Conservative, and about 55 or possibly 60 per cent-I am making a broad statement and not a close analysis-will call themselves Liberals. But the majority, not more than 10 or 15 per cent more than the others absolutely control the situation, and a large number, not far from half the people of the province, are utterly without representation in this House. It is very pleasant to me as a good Grit to find that is the case. When the polls were closed and we found the whole province to our credit we were all very proud, but in calm moments of reflection I can see there is much injustice in that, and inasmuch as the hon. member for Brant is aiming to remedy that injustice, I am inclined to favour his motion, at all events to the extent of giving the scheme a trial.

I do not forget that there are difficulties in the way. I am inclined to think, whether the government or the committee undertake to work out a bill to carry out the resolution, they will probably find it very difficult indeed.

I suspect that if the matter goes before the committee on the readjustment of the representation, they will not find the quietest time of their lives. There is a curious thing about this, when we talk of the principles of Liberalism or Conservatism in relation to this measure. Only two or three years ago the question excited the British parliament. The curious thing was that the Tory House of Lords voted for proportional representation, and the democratic House of Commons refused to do it. The House of Lords took the broad, general sentiment, but when it came down to brass tacks, as the saying goes, to deal with the matter, the democratic House of Commons said they would not have anything to do with it. That suggests that there are difficulties in the way.

Again I want to say I have some doubt and hesitation in the matter. I am speaking for myself, but because I like the principle of it, and because I see an illustration of the injustice in the case of my own province, I am going to support the motion of my hon. friend from Brant.

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Calgary):

Perhaps one reason why the Tory House of Lords found it necessary to vote for proportional representation was that they were beginning to see that very soon if they did not get their proportion they would not have any representation at all, and I have nodoubt the time will come when the Conservatives of this House will take the same attitude. Proportional representation is becoming popular in the public mind as a corrective to the present system of voting. I shall mention very briefly two points where the present method of voting is very unfair and undemocratic. In the first place, a minority candidate in any constituency may be elected. Let us take an example. Suppose we have a constituency with a hundred votes. Suppose there is a Liberal, a Conservative and a Labour candidate in the field. We will give the Liberal 30 votes, the Conservative 30 votes and the Labour candidate 40 votes. The Labour candidate will be elected with 40 votes. There will be 60 votes against him, therefore the majority of the votes of that constituency have no representation at all, whereas the minority have the representation. That is one fault of the present system of voting. -Extend that over the whole country and you frequently have a party in power which has not the support of the majority of the voters.

The next point is that a very large minority may have no representation at all. That has just been very ably pointed out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Take the illustration again of a constituency with a hundred votes with two candidates running, one Tory and one Grit. We give the Grit 51 votes and the Tory gets 49, very nearly half. The Tory has no representation; the Liberal has it all. Spread that over all the nation, and you may possibly have almost one-half of the voting population of Canada without any representation whatever. That is possible under the present system, and I believe the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), cited a number of instances in Canadian politics where a similar situation to what I have described arose..

This resolution, as again was pointed out by the Minister of Finance, does not mean to isolate the practice to one or two constituencies as the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), who built up a very elaborate argument on that assumption, seemed to conclude. This resolution asks simply that proportional representation be experimented with in one or more multi-member constituencies created for the purpose at the present redis-

Proportional Representation

tribution. Therefore, the whole argument of the leader of the Opposition falls to the ground, as it presupposes a condition that is foreign to the intention of the resolution.

Proportional representation will ensure that a minority will never rule. It also will ensure that no considerable minority will ever be excluded from having a voice. Is that not democracy? What have the self-appointed protagonists of democracy and majority rule in this House to say about that? Are they opposed to a minority having a voice? Are they opposed to majority rule? If so, they may vote against proportional representation; otherwise, they are voting against the very things which they pretend to be willing to see established. Some of them have advanced the argument that this will encourage groups. The leader of the Opposition very properly admits that this will not and cannot create groups. The best that it could possibly do would be to give the groups already in existence an opportunity of expressing themselves. Is that not British? Personally, I have opposed the idea of direct action. Direct action has been advocated in certain sections of Canada and also in Great Britain. There is no better incentive that I know of to direct action on the part of a section of the people than an electoral system which prevents them from giving expression to their opinions. That is the system which we have in vogue at the present time, and I believe that if the various groups now existing had an opportunity of expressing their opinions and desires, there would be no danger of the development of an unconstitutional method of taking action.

I want briefly to follow two or three of the hon. members who have attempted to criticize this resolution. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) seems to get a little mixed between the federal government and the British system. He distinguishes between the British system as applied in municipal government and the British system as applied in the federal government. I do not know why he makes that distinction; but may I ask-since when has a mere method of marking a ballot determined the system of government in any country? Will the mere system of marking a ballot alter the form of government in this or in any other country? That is a question which I would leave to the hon. member for Vancouver South. His next point was that this would dissipate cabinet unity. He says that the keystone of the present system of government is the Cabinet. We say that the keystone of the present system of government

is democracy, the people, and so, if that is true, then I fail to understand his claim that he stands for democracy.

Another hon. member advanced the argument that proportional representation would prohibit canvassing; that it would be almost impossible for him, indeed, it would take him years to canvass his constituency, providing it is a group constituency as is called for by proportional representation. It might be a very excellent thing if members were prohibited from canvassing, if this method of voting were adopted. If it threw upon the people themselves the responsibility for political organization, if it gave to them instead' of to politicians, the responsibility of running elections, that would be a very decided advance. In view of this, I do not consider the canvassing objection as constituting an argument against proportional representation. The hon. gentleman's second point was that this might interfere with members of parliament carrying on theii* correspondence during the year. That again, I submit, is rather a lame argument to advance against a principle so needed to correct the weaknesses of the present system of voting.

Another hon. gentleman opposed proportional representation because it was not pro-, portional. If that is really his argument, I wish, as a student of proportional representation, to assure him that we will make it proportional. He need not fear for that at all. Indeed, when we are dealing with proportional representation, we are dealing with mathematics, and there is no doubt about getting the proportion. I am of the opinion the hon. gentleman must have made some grave mistake in his figures to arrive at such a conclusion.

A number of hon. members opposing this have said, calmly and seemingly in their right minds, that we have group government in Ontario, and that the adoption of proportional representation would give us group government in Canada. Let me point out to those hon. gentlemen that we have not group government in Ontario. There is not group government in any province in the Dominion of Canada; there is not group government here; there is not group government anywhere that I know of in the English speaking world, There is, in Ontario not group government, but a coalition system of government, which might indeed be said to be the most pernicious form of the present party system of government which we have. I do not say that the Ontario government is a pernicious government, by any means; I hasten to say, on the contrary, that it has been a very excellent

Proportional Representation

government. But the coalition makeshift of government has grown out of the British .system under certain conditions, and we had it in full force in the government which preceded the present government. If that is group government, then the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) introduced it into this House. That is not group government as I understand it; that is coalition government.

Another hon. gentleman seemed to think that proportional representation had something to do with horse-racing, and that if he had a lame horse in a race, by proportional representation he might get it in first. That is how I understood his argument. But he seems to me to want to deny the right of considerable numbers of people in a consti-* tuency to run after a fad if they want to. He prefers that they should run after his fad; that he should be allowed to state to the electorate what the real issue is, and when he has done that, to get them all to follow him. That is perfectly democratic; that is perfectly in line, as he sees it, with the British system of constitutional government! But to allow Dick, Tom and Harry to say what they think the issue is, that would never do at all, because if you did that, you might not elect the Tories! That is very clear reasoning, and I am in sympathy .with the hon. gentleman's position, but not with his point of view.

That is a summing up of the opposition to this motion. I conclude by reiterating that this is merely a change in the form of marking a ballot and a corresponding rearranging of constituencies to make that possible. Its aim is to give expression to every considerable group in a nation and it prevents minorities from having power as they sometimes have to-day. It would ensure the continuance of majority rule, and, therefore, those who claim to be such ardent supporters of democracy and majority rule should find themselves bound to vote in favour of this resolution.

Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):

I had not purposed taking part in this debate this evening, but the seriousness of this proposal and the meagreness of the actual information that has been placed before the House regarding the practical working out of the new system impel me to invite the House to give some further consideration to the matter.

I confess very frankly that I am not in a position to-night to enter into a technical discussion of the system. So far as I have been able to gather from the speeches that have been delivered, there has not been a single member promoting this measure who has given a clear, technical exposition of it.

I have studied the system for a great many

years and at first I was attracted by such arguments as we have just heard from the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Irvine) concerning the rectifying of certain apparent inequities in our present methods.

Now, so that there need be no misunderstanding as to the way in which I approach this question, I am going to admit candidly and at once that there are inequities and that frequently a constituency will be represented in this House by a member whose number of votes does not represent a majority of the votes cast. That is quite true. But I would invite the House to consider, in connection with our historic system, this fact, that in the majority of instances, whether on the part of hon. gentlemen belonging to the Liberal party or of those belonging to the somewhat newer party, the Progressives, or on the part of members of the Conservative party, any man Who extern this House does so with a genuine desire to represent the people of his riding as a whole.

If the rules of parliament would permit, and if the members of this House would extend me the courtesy, I could put the question individually to member after member sitting here, " Are you endeavouring to represent all shades of religious, social and economic opinion in your riding?"-and I think the answer would be invariably in the affirmative. I also know that we are all human and are apt to err, and it may be that some will be a little more prejudiced than others, less balanced in their conception of their duties; so that occasionally, perhaps, you may find a glaring wrong. But in the majority of cases, not only in the present House but in previous parliaments of which it has been my privilege to be a member, the members have all endeavoured to discharge their entire duty by their constituencies.

That, I think, should be borne in mind. To quote the figures of the illustration given by the hon. member who has taken his seat (Mr. Irvine), because a man was elected by forty per cent, while the candidates of two other groups received thirty per cent each, he does not come into the House with the object of disregarding the interests of those two groups. He comes to represent the whole constituency. Under our great parliamentary system, the product of the experience of ages, the member is asked, first, to take a stand upon the great general policies of the party to which he belongs. It might be an economic policy of free trade versus protection, or a policy as between nationally owned railways or privately owned railways; it might be some great policy of that character. He is asked

Proportional Representation

to be true to that general policy, and in all other matters, whether in regard to estimates or private bills, or in regard to the routine of government, he is at liberty to express himself in a manner which he thinks is in the interests of the country at large; while in all local matters he is supposed to represent Iris riding. This is a pretty satisfactory situation; it is about as good as one can get. So far as the proposed system is concerned, I think it ought to be shown to the House that it has such distinct advantages as far outweigh all the advantages of the older system.

There is another point I wish to make. It strikes me that by the introduction of proportional representation you would reduce this parliament to the status of a county council or a municipal body, the members of which are elected annually or biennially. A group of citizens offer themselves for office as aldermen or councillors and meet to transact the business of the city or municipality. There are no great policies, or at least there seldom are. Once in a while in a large city some great problem will come up, such as the question of hydro-electric power, or something of that character. But in ninety per cent of the municipalities it is simply a process of carrying on the ordinary business, and there is no distinct cleavage on questions of policy. Further, parliament cannot go to the country annually; it must sit for a reasonable period of time, or you would have absolute chaos.

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), advanced, as an argument for the position he was taking in support of the resolution, the situation in Nova Scotia. If I understood him rightly he said that practically fifty-five per cent of the people of Nova Scotia were Liberal while forty-five were Conservative, and that this ten per cent in the difference controlled the representation of that province, of sixteen members. First, I 9 p.m. would remind my hon. friend that he wholly ignored the stalwarts representing the Progressive party and of the supposedly large number of citizens in that province who are in favour of the policy of the Progressives. However, that is a quarrel he must settle with them; I will not interject any opinion here on that point. But let us look at the situation. We are not complaining. We acknowledge that the people of Nova Scotia declared that they wanted a Liberal government in Ottawa. Now, unless we grouped all the constituencies of Nova Scotia into one or two groups and applied this fantastic scheme here proposed, it would

be impossible to do otherwise than follow the existing practice, namely, of majority rule. We do not object to the situation in Nova Scotia at all. *

What we say is that in the working out of our parliamentary system we have the opportunity of saying to the people that their choice was not a wise one, or of showing them that the members they elected have been derelict in their duties. It is our privilege -indeed, our duty,-to do so; then we have an opportunity of winning their support. In other words, if these sixteen members come to Ottawa and discharge their duties in a manner satisfactory to the majority of the people of Nova Scotia they will be reelected and reaffirmed in their position; and we could have no complaint. But on the other hand, if after a period of service they again appeal to the electorate-a period which

varies, under our system, but approximates four years-and are then rejected, that is a test of public opinion and, we believe, a sufficiently frequent and a sufficiently honest test.

I know that the members from Alberta will support this proposal, because practically all of them are avowedly in favour of what is known as group government. Now, I appeal to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. I read only a few days ago a rather able speech made by him in which he referred to the danger of replacing the present system of government with what is known as the group system of government, and as I recall his words they pointed out very clearly' that under group government we were endangering the stability of parliamentary institutions in this Dominion. Let us follow this group government idea, because you cannot have proportional representation without having group government. My right hon. friend wishes to interject something?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My hon. friend appeals to me in reference to this point. I may say that I do not agree that proportional representation will necessarily lead to group government; I am inclined to think as matters stand it would strengthen the traditional parties. Everyone elected under the system of proportional representation has to get a majority of the votes cast for the candidates entitled to election. I think the effect in our country would be quite the opposite of what my hon. friend expects.

Mr. STEVENS:

I have great respect for my right hon. friend's opinion, but I call to my support several of the speakers of this afternoon who distinctly urged as an argument in

Proportional Representation

favour of this proposal that certain classes of people did not at present have the opportunity of becoming represented in this parliament. Well now, take the case' of Winnipeg, advanced by an hon. member from one of the Manitoba constituencies as a distinct argument in favour of this scheme. And what is there in Winnipeg? Representation by groups, purely and simply-no one will deny it.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

How is Winnipeg represented in this House? By groups.

Winnipeg is represented in this House by members supporting my right hon. friend.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

By some two or three groups.

Mr. STEVENS:

Well, that may be so. It is quite true in one respect, but separate ridings are involved. For instance, the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth), who sits on this side of the House, runs in one riding, and that riding is composed very largely of individuals who think, perhaps, as he does, or as he persuaded them to think they thought-I doubt if they do, to tell you the truth. Then, my hon. friends from North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray), and South Winnipeg (Mr. Hudson) represent, again, distinct and separate ridings in which the individuals who voted for them consider them to be fair representatives of their views. But under the provincial system the whole of the city was grouped under one riding. Now, then, let me turn to another point.

Mr. HOEY:

Would my hon. friend permit a question? I do not think it is fair to use the Manitoba legislature as an illustration, because the same things prevail in Ontario where proportional representation has not been attempted at all. Proportional representation, therefore does not necessarily lead to group government, which is here already.

My hon. friend is in

error there. We do not deny that you can have groups under the present system, but what we do assert is that proportional representation not only tends to it but almost makes it compulsory; it multiplies groups. I do not think there is any denial of that; I do not think it is disputed even by those who support the principle. In fact they advance that as a reason in favour of the adoption of proportional representation.

My hon. friend a moment ago said that this system was, to use his own words, mathematically perfect. I would like to have some one demonstrate its mathematical accur-

acy. I am not in a position to-night to go into any detail in regard to that; I shall simply give one or two illustrations. Take _ a group or multiple riding where, we will say, five members are to be elected-a city like Toronto or Montreal, or any other large urban centre. The experience is-and I am talking now of experience-that you will have perhaps twenty or thirty candidates-at least twenty or thirty where there are five to be elected. I have seen cases in Vancouver where there were thirty nominations and only five or six were to be elected, the ballot being of tremendous length, a very complex document, Now, they take the number of individuals to be elected and divide that into the total number of votes to be polled. We will assume that there are a thousand votes to be polled; they divide that by five, the number to be elected, and add one, making 201 necessary for election. When the ballots are counted, one man who is very popular receives on the first count, 300 number one votes, and they credit him with 201. Then they arbitrarily take 99 votes and divide that into the number of seconds that are then available for distribution, and they allocate the result to each individual on this long list. My point is this: what is the mathematical reasoning of so applying these 99 votes, simply because this man happened by chance to have a larger number of first choices than the others'.

Now, the next step is this: the man at the bottom of the list, number thirty-one or whatever he may be, drops out, and his seconds are taken in a somewhat similar manner. But why should his seconds be taken any more than the seconds of number fifteen, number sixteen or number eighteen? Where does the fairness come in? I do not say it is unfair, but there cannot be any claim for accuracy or fairness in the thing; it is simply an arbitrary action. And here is the way it frequently works out; I have seen cases of this kind. Two individuals had been running along together and after fifteen or sixteen allocations of this arbitrary character it became necessary to allocate the votes of one of these individuals, each of whom represented a very small but particularly virile group in the community. It happened that they both ran first and second right through the whole count, and because it chanced to come to the turn to take one of these, the one of the two who was first was immediately placed two or three ahead of others who had held a lead over them up to that point. My point is that there is just as much of an element of chance in the allocation of these -votes as there is under the present system.

Proportional Representation

Mr. HUGHES:

Suppose that under this system A got the largest number of votes, B the next largest, C the next, and so on? Is there any possibility in the counting that A in a single-member constituency would not be the representative, or in a double-member constituency that A and. B would not be the representatives, and in a triple-member constituency that A, B and C would not be the representatives, and so on?

Mr. STEVENS:

Unquestionably. That is what I am trying to point out. I admit frankly I am not prepared to-night to enter into such a closely analytical discussion of this as will make it perhaps clear, and if I fail to make it clear, it is because of my own inability to do so. But there is just that point my hon. friend raises. The element of chance enters into this system just as much as into any other.

Mr. HUGHES:

After the votes are cast?