Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1926. THE CANADIAN CRISIS.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LII, Issue 17080, 8 July 1926, Page 6

Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1926. THE CANADIAN CRISIS.

The present difficulty, which lias assumed an acute phase, in Canada lias arisen from the fact that no 'party in the House of Commons has a sutlieient majority to enable any Government to express the real voice of that great Dominion, either in Canada itself or at an Imperial Conference at London. Since the defeat of the two principal parties, in turn, there have been indications cabled of a view that the Imperial Conference which was to have been held in October may have to bo delayed. The defeated Crime Minister of ihe Liberals claims, that, upon his resignation, lie should have been allowed a dissolution. A GovernorGeneral is not bound to ask or accept the advice of a defeated Prime -Minister, though that course is usual. The constitutional rule is that when a Government is defeated, in a House elected under its auspices, unless die circumstances are exceptional, a dissolution will not be immediately favored; i lie. presumption is, ml her. that the resources of the elected body to find advisers for the Crown, who can carry on, have not been exhausted. The Canadian House of Commons consists of 2 Id members. II is elected for live years. The present House was elected in October of last year. Mr. Mackenzie King was Prime Minister; he had held office since lie defeated the Conservatives led by Mr. Meighen in ]()gI. Having held office for nearly four years, at the expiration of the then Parliament, he met .with a severe rebuff from the country. The Prime Minister was reject ml by his own electorate and eight out of sixteen of his Ministers also lost their seats. The only gain was the rout of the middle party, styled Progressives; but apart

from that gain, the Liberals in power lost twenty seats, while the Conservative* mure than doubled their strength, it is «liflic-tilt to see under such civcuuistnneos how .Mr. Mackenzie King, when defeated in I he new House, con id possibly claim, as of right as he has done, that' he should have been allowed io appeal to the country, which had .already spoken so decisively against, his party. Such a claim must rest upon the idea that an excess of liberty must be preserved to the ins at the expense of the outs, in that the Governor must always take the advice of defeated Ministers, regardless of how often they may desire to put the country to the expense of an election, on the oil 1 chance of, at some time, catching a favoring gale of public opinion. The function ol the Governor General, acting as the appointee and representative of the Crown, is to preserve the rights of the people against any possible prolonged usurpation of power bv a minority party. The. system, on the whole, lias been found to work well. This is at least to be said for it, that no alternative system, so far tried out, has proved to be more satisfactory. The only apparent alternative seems to be in leave to the Parliament the right .to decree its own dissolution. Jn principle there is no reason why this should not.be the rule; in convenience there appear to be insuperable objections. Charles the Second protracted his second Parliament for seventeen years, it. probably was a docile tool for His Majesty’s right royal exuberances. The necessity of preventing a recurrence of such an abuse disturbed Parliament in the reign of William the Third. In IGS9 the Lords introduced a Bill limiting the duration of the House of Commons to three years. This Bill was intercepted by the prorogation. It passed both Houses in 161)3, but the King then withheld his assent. A .simitar Bill was again introduced and became law in ItiOf. This was not final. The triennial system lasted in Kngland for twenty years. It was admittedly an experiment. The Ministry in 1717 were unwilling to face the electors, but the arguments adduced for an extension of years were based upon constitutional expediency. Every one was secretly afraid that an extension to seven years which was agreed to might result ia again Parliament setting out upon prolonged life, at the will of the Crown, in fact this did not prove to be so. In New Zealand triennial Parliaments have been the rule for nearly lifty years. Except during the war period, and the rule ol‘ a Coalition Government, no one has seriously advocated a return to the old system of a quinquennial Parliament. No doubt if it saw lit to do so Parliament could provide for annual Parliaments. Tho power is there; the reform would be ridiculous. In practice Parliamentary decision alone fails. A defeated Minister could not pass a Bill decreeing a dissolution: his opponents would not let him. So, beyond the power, while upheld by a majority, to shorten the date- of the life of a current Parliament, power of dissolution, through Parliament itself, would appear to be impracticable. No law could be passed to give, a defeated Minister any tixed right of appeal to the country which, a hostile majority could not subsequently alter. .Such a law if desirable would have, in some way, to be welded into the Constitution itself. This could only be done by some over-riding power claiming a right which no Dominion would now recognise. It docs scorn to follow that that there can bo nothing better than the plan which now obtains, that the King, or his representative in tho case of the Dominions, should hold the scale between hostile political parties and jealously protect the rights of the people. In the passing of any law in a Dominion Parliament tho assent of the Governor-General has to be given. This becomes automatic when the Government lias a majority in the elective chamber. It would certainly be inconvenient if Mr. Coates, with a very strong following, took it into his head to introduce a Bill indefinitely extending the life of the Parliament of If dissolutions depended altogether upon the will of Parliament the temptation not to commit, hari kari would be almost irresistible. In principle Parliaments could lix the time of dissolution: the popular freedom, however, would be endangered. It is ditlicult to see in what way the present system is unfair or unfavorable to any political party. No defeated party, believing its platform to be popular, is quite satisfied when on being defeated in tho House it is refused a dissolution. And vet, if the third party, the country. is to be considered, it (loos seem right that if the chances of getting a working Cabinet together arc not exhausted the country should be spared tho turmoil and expense of a general election. At times there are question? of material alteration in the law involving the personal rights of the people, such as a substantial alteration and enlargement of the franchise. Or there may be an entire redistribution of seats. In IS7o the Constitution of New Zealand was wholly altered and the Provincial Governments and Legislatures were swept away. Tn nil these cases it is right that an election should follow, and that the Legislature should itself initiate the step to that end by legislation. The position now in Canada is that the Conservatives under Mr. Meighen have secured the right to a dissolution aiul are getting a Cabinet formed. Ho soon as this is done there will be an election which may bo got through by September. This gives no time for the new Parliament to assemble, test the strength of the Ministry. and instruct it as to its desires ia regard to the Dominions' relations to Empire and foreign politics which its Parliament by resolution has reserved to itself before October. It seems inevitable that the Imperial Conference will be, postponed, as to hold it without representation from Canada would be to deprive, its results of all finality.