courage to raise revenue through taxation. How can it be done otherwise? Where is the money to come from if not through appeal to the pockets of the people at large? As I have said, it is easy to borrow money, and while the loan was increasing by hundreds of millions, and while my honourable friend was thinking that things were running merrily along, I could not help thinking of the constantly increasing annual charge for interest that would fall upon the shoulders of the taxpayer. The continuation of the policy of borrowing only aggravates the situation. Why has no policy been expressed to-day which would hold out the hope that conditions are soon to change? My belief is that the Cabinet is too weak and too divided to bring down a policy which would lead us to hope that we might meet our yearly obligations. I am convinced that the present Cabinet will, before September next, announce another loan of $500,000,000.

My honourable friend spoke with glee of the last loan of $700,000,000; I think at the same time of the $38,500,000 interest upon it the country will annually be called upon to pay. As I said last session, I am convinced that the taxpayers of this country will have to be bled to the tune of $200,000,000 in additional taxation in order to meet our yearly expenditure. We have heard no announcement, either in the Speech from the Throne or in the speech of my honourable friend, which would indicate that the Government has any idea of where this supplementary $200,000,000 is to be found. Why have we had no indication of a policy which would tend to re-establish confidence in the country? Why? One of the most influential newspapers in the Conservative party has said that it was because the Cabinet was headless and brainless. Yesterday morning, coming up on the train to Ottawa, I read a curious despatch sent to the Montreal Gazette by one of its correspondents. It said:

If Hon. J. D. Reid and Hon. James A. Calder, who are in New York to confer with Sir Robert Borden, fail to secure the Prime Minister's consent to remain as nominal leader of the Government, they will ask him to name his successor. These ministers and some of their colleagues are opposed to a parliamentary choice of a leader and would in the event of Sir Robert's retirement prevent this by having Sir Robert hand his crown to his own choice. Any leader chosen will have a difficult task, but it will be doubly difficult if the parliamentary supporters are told why they must follow instead of making the selection. Sir Thomas White has definitely stated that he will not be a candidate for the leadership nor accept it if offered him. Sir Robert will be asked to

name first and second choices, and these will be Sir Thomas White and Sir Henry Drayton. Hon. James A. Calder is a favourite of the Prime Minister and would be quite willing to be a compromise selection. The Cabinet ministers, with the exception of two or three, would accept any leader except Hon. Arthur Meighen, The Commoners would accept Mr. Meighen and would be split in several factions were he ignored. It is believed, however, that the ministers in New York will prevail with Sir Robert and return with the glad tidings that the Prime Minister will retain office. This will carry the Government through the session, and with Parliament prorogued the Cabinet with eight months' recess can afford to ignore the Commons.

I have said that this influential and respectable organ of the Conservative party felt that the Government was headless; and it establishes that it is brainless by adding:

Unionist troubles are due to lack of an accepted policy to an even greater degree than from absentee leadership.

Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King was justified in his criticism of the Government on this issue. The Unionist Cabinet cannot continue to exist indefinitely on its war record, no matter how clean and effective. Its supporters in the Commons are sick at heart from the Government's indecision and procrastination in formulating a constructive policy. A war administration is of necessity autocratic and secretive.

Then, in order to show the chaotic condition of the Cabinet, the writer goes further and explains that the Government stands nowhere before the people. He says:

While it is doubtful if there will be Unionist candidates in either St. James, Montreal, or Temiskaming, there will be candidates who support the Government's fiscal policy. In Temiskaming there are two candidates in the field, Liberal and Farmer-Labour. A Conservative convention has been called, but this will probably be cancelled and a well-known business man with large interests in the constituency enter the fight as an independent protectionist. Owing to the lack of Unionist organization and even a platform, it is very difficult to secure an official candidate. There is no one authorized to call such a convention, nor would there be much to gain by being selected as the Government's official candidate, as in the past Cabinet ministers have given no support to such candidates either by endorsation or on the platforms.

This is delightful irony. The Government will have no candidate in those three constituencies, but will try to win on its fiscal policy. It will not show its face; it will rely upon the Opposition carrying its colours to victory.

Now, what is the fiscal policy that is spoken of? Is it the high tariff of the Cockshutt wing of the Conservative party, the low tariff of the Calder group, or the moderate tariff of the Meighen-Winnipeg brand? We do not know. It appears that the Government will have no candidates

in those three constituencies; yet, their policy will be there. It is important that the people should be told what the policy is, as there may be so many candidates that the people will be at a loss to know what candidate they should vote against. I may inform my honourable friends on the other side that Quebec is not just now much concerned with the policy of the present Government; it has decided to vote against this sham Union Government. The ToryUnion Government must atone for its sins. The Tory party in 1911, by denying them reciprocity, brought the western farmers into the political field. The Tory party bedevilled the province of Quebec in 1911 by subsidizing the Nationalists and by constantly traducing it thereafter. The Tory

Union Government aroused the farmers of Ontario by violating their pledge not to conscript their sons. Here is a statement by Sir John Willison, a pillar of the Unionist temple, on the situation in Ontario, contained an editorial in the Montreal Star of October 28. After explaining that prohibition had much to do with the defeat of the Hearst Government in the cities and towns, he goes on to say:

In the country many farmers were sullen over conscription, not because of the fact of conscription but because they had been urged to increase production and assured in the last federal election that their sons would not be taken and the supply of farm labour further depleted. But they held that definite pledges were set lightly aside and they took the first opportunity to punish a government which, although it was not responsible for federal pledges or their fulfillment, was in general sympathy with the Unionists at Ottawa.

To dispel any illusions on the part of honourable gentlemen, I must repeat that those farmers who were sullen because of their sons being conscripted were not from the province of Quebec; the article refers to the Ontario farmers. And kindly note the difference in the treatment bestowed upon the two communities. While Quebec was being abused and vilified by the socalled Unionist party, by the Conservative party from Ontario, that same party and organization were promising immunity to the sons of the Ontario farmers. If you observe the difference in treatment you will understand why there is no French Canadian representative in the Cabinet and why Ontario dominates the Government. Is it any surprise that the Government has no friends? It looks in vain towards the West, the Centre and the East. It is half crumbling. It is time indeed that this rump Government, born in iniquity and maintained by duplicity, should end like

a horrible nightmare. It tampered with the franchise to steal power. It may be tempted to repeat the performance. But I dare it to do its worst. It is irremediably doomed.

The honourable gentleman who moved the Address (Hon. Mr. Proudfoot) spoke of the new national status of Canada-of our increased autonomy resulting from our becoming a member of the League of Nations. Last year the Government boasted that by Order in Council they appointed their own representatives to the Peace Conference. They claimed that we had thus made a step forward in the development of our national status. I stated that if the present Government had passed an Order in Council naming representatives to the Peace Con

ference and had sent that Order in Council direct to the King to be approved by him, and if those representatives had been appointed by him without consulting his Imperial Cabinet, I would recognize in that fact a considerable advance in our national status, but I feared that the Canadian Cabinet had been obliged to act through the British Cabinet, the immediate advisers of the King. When the correspondence was brought down. I found that as a matter of fact the Order in Council had been sent to the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, and he had been pleased to submit it to His Majesty the King for his signature. To my mind this does not prove that our autonomy has been enlarged. We remain as we were. The British constitution is an unwritten one; ours is a written one and we must act within the four corners of it.

I read last year a statement which had been made in 1908 by the then Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, at an important function held in the city of Quebec, which the then Prince of Wales, now His Majesty King George, attended with the Governor General of Canada, Lord Grey. While Sir Wilfrid Laurier was speaking the words which I shall read, I was very much interested at the impressions that were displayed by one of the testamentary executors of Cecil Rhodes, the late Earl Grey, who felt impelled by his convictions, his enthusiasm and idealism to bring Great Britain and the Dominions closer together, by the creation of an Imperial Parliament. He was dismayed to hear these words, which to his great surprise were applauded by the heir to the throne, the present King George. Here are Sir Wilfrid's words:

As I advance in years I appreciate more the wisdom of that British constitution under which

I was born and brought up, and under which I have grown old, which has given to the various portions of the Empire their separate free governments. It is our proud boast that Canada is the freest country in the world. It is our boast that in this country liberty of all kinds, civil and religious liberty, flourish to the highest degree. To those who look only on the surface of things, this may not be apparent. The fact that we are a colony does not alter the truth of his statement. The inferiority which may be implied in the word "colony" no longer exists. We acknowledge the authority of the British Crown, but no other authority. We are reaching the day when our Canadian Parliament will claim coequal rights with the British Parliament, and when the only ties binding us together will be a same flag and a same Crown.

To hear my honourable friends from the other side, and their leaders, it would seem that we had reached the stage at which we could claim that we were no longer a dependency, but a sister nation and that we exercised co-equal rights with the Imperial Parliament. I still believe that we are in the same condition as we were in 1867, for I find in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons two resolutions moved by the Minister of Justice, addressed "To the King's Most Excellent Majesty" and asking him to consent

To submit a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, to amend the British North America Act, 1867, in the manner following, or to the following effect:

An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867.

Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows.

Then comes the amendment_itself, which bears on the right of making inquiry as to the age or infirmity of judges sitting in the Superior Court.

The other measure has for its object a declaration that "any enactment of the Parliament of Canada otherwise within the legislative authority of the Parliament shall operate and be deemed to have operated extra-territorially according to its intention in the like manner and to the same effect as if enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom."

Honourable gentlemen, I see nothing altered in our status. We are still dependent upon the Imperial Parliament for the exercise of any power which we do not find in the British North America Act. It seems to me that the Cabinet, flushed with pride at Canada having attained national status by being represented in the League of Nations, might well have passed an Act declaring that the Parliament of Canada, hav

ing co-equal rights with the British Parlia ment, "enacts as follows" and might have sent the Bill for approval to the other side, thus creating a precedent. Now is the time, if ever, for this Canadian Parliament and the Dominions at large to claim co-equal rights with the British Parliament, recognizing a common king, but no subservient or dependent situation. This has not been done, and I regret it, because it seems to me, with the feeling now prevalent in Great Britain that the Dominions must no longer occupy the position of mere colonies, but should be sister nations, we ought to have been able to obtain recognition of our equality and of our full nationhood.

Hon. RUFUS H. POPE: Honourable gentlemen of the Senate, I have listened attentively to the honourable gentleman who has just taken his seat. I think it unfortunate, as I have previously stated, that members of this honourable body do not refrain from participating in party caucuses. I observe that the Liberal party held a caucus the other day. Even if I had not read of that political caucus I should have learned of it by listening to the speeches of the Hon. Mackenzie King and others, the day before yesterday, and by listening to the speeches of the Liberal Senators in this House. The speeches were all of the same type. I say it would be much better for this House to stand absolutely, or to a great degree, independent of those party affiliations, especially if, as the honourable member for Delorimier (Hon. Mr. Dandurand) states, the parties in the other House do not represent anything. In that case we do not want to be associated with them. In view of the dignity and independent position of the Senate of Canada, its members should not engage in political or party strife.

The honourable gentleman' started off with the complaint that the French Canadians of the province from which we both come have not the representation they ought to have in the Cabinet. Then he read in French a very long statement, which my imperfect education, I am sorry to say, prevented me from closely following. A few moments later he informed us that the present Cabinet and the Union Government, or the so-called Unionist party, were not sufficiently attractive for the province of Quebec to think of associating with them. If the honourable gentleman truly represents his province, as he claims, and if such is still the sentiment of Quebec, I should like to know what practical scheme the honourable gentleman proposes in order that the French Canadians of Quebec

may find representation in a Cabinet which he says is not attractive and is unworthy of that great branch of the Canadian family. If I did not misunderstand the honourable gentleman, he stated that in 1917 the French Canadians were not represented in the Cabinet, but he is aware that we went to the people with two French Canadian members of the Cabinet, Hon. Mr. Sevigny and Hon. Mr. Blondin. Their fate was the fate of political parties in time of great strife or stress. Well do I remember the National party under Mr. Mercier, of whom the honourable gentleman was a follower. He was the father of the National party in the province of Quebec long before R. L. Borden was thought of in the public life of Canada. Well do I remember the keenness of that struggle which resulted in that honourable gentleman having not a single English-speaking representative in the local House at Quebec. The honourable member for DeLorimier (Hon. Mr. Dandurand) wil agree that such a situation was not due to ill-will or a desire to deprive any one of his constitutional rights and privileges, but was simply the result of an election. And what happened? A way was made for Col. Rhodes in Megantic county, because we desired to have a representative in the provincial cabinet; not because we believed in that cabinet, not that we were in agreement with Mercier and his National sentiment, but because we thought the English-speaking people of the province of Quebec should have at least one representative in the Government. And Col. Rhodes remained in the Government until defeat.

It was unfortunate that when the Union Government was being formed, the offer of a fifty-fifty arrangement was refused by the late lamented Sir. Wilfrid Laurier and those associated with him. It was unfortunate for the province of Quebec, and I shall ever feel that that right honourable gentleman missed a great opportunity to unite the people of Canada when he declined to make whatever personal sacrifice was called for and to enter the Cabinet which was at that time being formed for the prosecution of the war. The attitude which he then took created a certain sentiment in our province, and naturally his advice was followed.

Honourable gentlemen, permit me to say that in this House, as well as outside, I am known as a Liberal Conservative, and the ideals and traditions of the Liberal Conservative party are as sacred to me as the ideals and traditions of any other persons are to them, no matter what language they speak, and while I deemed it my duty to

give to the Union party when it was formed, and to this Union Government, in the interest of unity and the prosecution of the war, all the support and influence I possessed, yet I do not feel that I have forsaken a single one of my principles or ideals. And, honourable gentlemen, I will go further and say that if Union Govern. ment can make good, if they can do as great things and can go forward as fearlessly, regardless of popularity and party politics, in peace time as they did during the war, they will still have my support, although I am a Liberal Conservative. As president of the Eastern Townships Liberal Conservative Association, which has its ramifications in nine or ten counties, I am calling the members of that association together at a very early date. We did not meet during the war period, because the Prime Minister of Canada said that political matters and political organization should not be taken up during the war. In 1917, when the writs were issued, we met and decided to take no part in the elections. The members of the organization were to have a free hand. I went my way as I saw fit, and others, of a different nationality, went their way as they saw fit, and now that that strife is over, now that that difficulty is passed, I see no reason why we should not bury any hard feelings that may have been engendered.

But my honourable friend (Hon. Mr. Dandurand)) says we are not fighting the byelections, but are putting up independent candidates to fight them on principles and ideals, and he does not understand that. I am not surprised that dyed-in-the-wool Liberals like my honourable friend cannot understand. It is because they never had any principles or ideals, never fought for any, and do not know anything about them. Any set of ideals and principles that they ever published at any of their conferences were violated and thrown into the scrap basket when the opportunity arose to put them into force. My honourable friend is astonished and surprised, and I sympathize with him in his miserable condition. But, gentlemen, I am not the keeper of the Government. Whether or not they shall go forth to fight these by-elections, it is not for me to say; but if they do go forth, armed with principles and ideals, I venture to say that they will come back having won some victories.

The honourable gentleman spent some time in dealing with the question of finance. I am not a financier, thank goodness. I am thankful too that I do not possess any

thing that can be taxed. On questions of finance I am the happiest mortal imaginable.

66

The honourable gentleman has spoken about the unpopularity of this administration, and, to some extent, I am inclined to agree with him. In Canadian politics, in days gone by, we referred to candidates, parties, and policies as "popular.” We spoke of a popular candidate," a popular party," a popular policy "-about the only thing that seemed to be considered was the securing of something "popular." The honourable gentleman knows how many nights and days he spent striving to conceive something “popular” to give to the unfortunate party to which he belongs. He worked diligently, honestly, and well. Having got one of the most charming men in the world, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a man of universal popularity, to lead them, the party started down the track under a full head of steam, and away they went until 1911, when the whole load of popularity was dumped. They should have built upon ideals and principles rather than upon the popularity of any individual. If this Government has lost the confidence of the people of Canada, it is wonderful to think that they can borrow $2,000,000,000 from a free people who have no confidence in them. That in itself seems contradictory.

In the Government to-day we have from the province of Quebec the Honourable Mr. Blondin, who is a member. of the Senate. He comes in for much criticism in another place, and I presume there is a certain amount of it here. We have the Honourable Mr. Ballantyne, of the city of Montreal, and the Honourable Mr. Doherty, also of the city of Montreal. The only other Government supporter elected in the province of Quebec was Mr. Ames, and he was sent as the benevolent representative of this Government to Geneva or some other pleasant place, in order that we might be able to say to the province from which he came that we furnished places for all the men they sent us. I say to my honourable friend, although I cannot speak for the Government except as I know it, that if three more bully good fellows are sent here we will find three portfolios for them. There is no animosity on this side of the House. If any province wants representation it must elect some one to support the Government. It would be impossible for the Government to go across the floor of the House and select the gentleman who has just taken his seat. With all the animosity

that he seems to harbour and encourage it would be imposible for him to join the administration of Sir Robert Borden, or to accept the broad invitation extended by him, which would include even the honourable gentleman, regardless of the views that he entertains. If our French Canadian friends from the province of Quebec desire representation in this Government, there is no reason why they should not do exactly what was done in the local Government of that province. If they do not desire representation, and some of them say they do not-and an honourable gentleman on the other side of the House shook his head just now when I mentioned it-then, for God's sake, why take up the time of this House talking about it? Do not try to stir up ill feeling between the different elements in Canada; do not try to prejudice the people of Canada against Quebec. It is unfair to Canada, it is unfair to Quebec, it is unfair to the Englishspeaking people, it is unfair to the French Canadian people.

Hon. WILLIAM ROCHE: Honourable gentlemen, we have had a Speech from the Throne from His Excellency the Duke of Devonshire, representing His Majesty the King, and we have had a response moved by two talented gentlemen thanking His Excellency for the gracious Speech which he has delivered. I join with the gentlemen who have preceded me in expressing my satisfaction and pleasure that gentle

men of such talent should be added to this Chamber. My only regret is that the Government when it has chosen so many able and talented gentlemen as are in this House has not recommended them for and put them into the other House, where they might be able to reinforce and consolidate the Government, which at the present moment. exhibits such marked indications of decrepitude and disintegration.

He

May I add a few imperfect remarks along the line of those that have been made by the mover and the seconder of the Address. The mover of the Address, almost at the outset, expressed great satisfaction at Canada's advanced status. intimated that the country was now in a different position to that which it previously occupied, and that a great and advantageous change had taken place in our relation to the Mother Country, so called; and he almost intimated that we were a separate and distinct nation. I do not think that situation exists. I think it is a mirage which honourable gentlemen have entered into, in which they have assumed