Political Democracy

POLITICAL DEMOCRACY J. S. WOODSWORTH I N recent years parliamentary institutions have been greatly, discounted. This is probably, in part, a rather vague protest against the existing state of affairs-the depression, the uncertainty of the international situation, the upsurging of new, and (to timorous souls) -menacing ideas. Political leaders who have claimed credit for prosperous times-even including bountiful harvests-need , not be surprised if during periods of drought and low prices they should receive unmerited blame. , This rather rough shaking of our faith in accepted and lauded institutions cannot, however, be ignored. Confidence is essential to the efficien t working of the social machine. In 'our school-days, while coming to recognize the historical development through which freedom has broadened down from precedent to precedent, we had, strangely enough, the rather naive idea that we had attained freedom and were already perfect. As adults many of us now resent any suggestion of change and denounce anyone who is foolhardy enough to assert that our parliamentary methods are antiquated or that the institution itself might some day be replaced by one more democratic and efficient. the critic who would lay hands on our cherished institutions must surely be some kind of heathen foreigner-if he isn't satisfied with the established order of things let him go back where he belongs! In spite of this all-too-common attitude, criticism_has persisted. Our thinkiQ-g has been stimulated-almost forced-by developments in 0 ther countries. Russia, Italy, Germany, Austria, the United States with its 296 POLITICAL DEMOCRACY New Deal-one is well-nigh bewildered by the quick-_ moving events of the past few years. Cherished traditions have gone by ' the board. Hitherto-fixed relationships have undergone kaleidoscopic changes. Ethical and political ideals have passed through a revaluation almost as great as that of our currencies. The "sterling character" of the Victorian period and the pound sterling have alike fallen from their high estate! Efficiency,rather than freedom, dictatorship rather than democracy, are the prevailing fashion. In these circumstances it is well that we should ask with special reference to our own country, why are our parliamentary institutions discounted? Is this dis'trust well founded? What is the alternative? What reforms, if any, can save that which is good in our present arrangements ? As a member of the House of Commons for some twelve years', I must confess that, increasingly, I am - almost overCOlne by the sense of the futility of parliamentary methods-indeed of parliament itself. In the midst of a prolonged depression which has ruined fens of thousands and reduced large sections of our people to hopelessness, we continue to squabble over petty details of procedure. Faced by world-problems of the greatest magnitude, that may easily plunge us into a disastrous war, we spend more time discussing the dismissal of a rural pos'tmaster or the construction of a dock than in the consideration of international affairs or fundamental econ<;nuic changes. The people-whether too absorbed in personal affairs, or too muddy of brain~ or too easily swayed by propaganda and promises, or lacking in inlagination-swing from one party to the other only to find things going from ,bad to worse. One is tempted sometimes to give up in disgust. Yet our pe9ple are, on the whole, decent intelligent folk. Surely it is cowardly 297 THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO QUARTERLY to run away and worse than cowardly to concede that intelligence and goodwill must yield to blind passion and brute force. ' Let us, then, try to learn how in practice this parliamentary machine works and what forces Inake the wheels go round. I t is through an election that most of us discharge our political responsi~ilities. vVho are the candidates and how are they selected? Among them are an extraordinarily large number of lawyers. The m~king of laws is perhaps in line with their specialized training. Then j t is certainly not detrimental to the success of a legal firm to have one of its members at Ottawa. La"wyers located in Montreal or Toronto are not seriously inconvenienced by having to spend several days a week at the capital. Further, there is always the po"ssibility that political service may lead to an appointment on the Bench or on a commISSIon. As professional advocates lawyers are considered suitable candidates. Medical men, especially the more elderly, on account of their personal popularity are reckoned probable winners in a campaign. On the other hand, business men who so largely dominate our local community life, are not readily available. A man struggling to obtain a foothold or a man in the Inidst of a successful enterprise cannot very well break away. If he did, five or six months' absence might prove disastrous . So the business man who will accept a n'ominationis usually an elderly man, more or less successful, who is almost ready to retire from active life. In rec'ent years, when backed by strong organizations, a number of farmers have been elected. Until the depression this often meant for the well-to-do farmer a considerable personal sacrifice. In any case it involved a complete readjustment of his farm and home arrangements. Also in recent years a few 298 POLITICAL DEMOCRACY working men have been "put forward" as candidates. This has meant for them loss of time, frequently loss of their employment, and, failing re-election, great difficulty in again obtaining a foothold in their occupation. Few women candidates have as yet entered the political field. I t is difficult to combine a successful public career with the responsibilities of home-life. The irregularity of the life of a member of parliament, the many calls upon him, the publicity and -the ordeal of an election campaign, the insecurity of his position-all these may well deter others than the well-to-do from becoming candidates. Having accepted a nomination, the candidate is expected to fall in with the customary methods. There may be ferven t appeals to Liberal or Conservative tradi-' tions, but the practical politicians recognize that the mpre effective appeals are either to prejudices or the desire of gain-sometimes personal gain. A political campaign is a fearsome ordeal. "Barnstorming," whatever that means, is still the order of the day. I t is still considered that all is fair in love and war-and politics. Mis- , representation of your opponent's position, and at least indirect bribery-these are condoned if not expected. Formal congratulations on election night to your successful opponent are frequently all that suggests good sportsmanship ! If you call a fo~l you are considered either a Puritan or a bad losera A "successful" issue is supposeg. to justify all irregularities. Our system of elections is far from scientific. Government may be carried on by a party that has obtained only a minority of the votes cast. The provinci~l elections in British Columbia and Saskatchewan are still fr'esh in our minds. Conservative representation in ~ese provinces was almost entirely wiped out though there was a 'considerable Conservative vote cast. In British Columbia 299 THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO QUARTERLY the C.C.F. polled thirty-three per cent. of the vote, yet elected only seven members. If democracy, even of the old-fashioned sort, is to persist, surely some system of proportional representation is essential. How ·far that is practicable in vast areas with a widely-scattered population , is a question. Further, one must ask, too, whether the system that divides people into geographical areas is as satisfactory as one that groups them by vocation. In Alberta the coal-miners are scattered through six federal constituencies , in each of which they are swamped by the farmers' vote. It is very improbable that, under ·the present arrangements, the miners' problems in Alberta will be presented at Ottawa by a miner. Of course we are told that as consumers we all have much in common. That may be. But each group of producers has also .distinctive problems. The manufacturers 9f Toronto would feel much aggrieved if they were represented solely by farmers! There are still members of parliament who blandly assert that they represent all classes in their riding. Lawyers are fairly acrobatic, but even lawyers find it difficult to represent, at one and the same time, steel operators and their employees, or bankers and their hard-pressed debtors. The man who represents everybody is generally found in a pinch to represent himself alone. In a city constituency there are no natural groupings . Districts may be predominantly working-class or . high-class residential. To prevent the results of even this rough grouping, parts of the two are thrown into one constituency or an urban area is included in a rural riding. The development of a community of interest is frustrated at every turn. The growing co-operation between the Dominion and the provinces suggests the advisability of indirect 300 POLITICAL DEMOCRACY election. In Canada the electorate is practically the same for provincial and Dominion elections. I t is' becoming the practice for the ' Dominion government to call the provincial authorities into consultation. Unemploym~nt was' one of the issues at the last federal election. Why_ should a provincial premier and his colleagues be called into consultation over the heads of the elected federal . representatives? Or perhaps rather, why should there be fe,deral representatives who have no close working knowledge of the administration of relief within their province? If the Dominion is to be a loose federation, why should not parliament, or one branch of parliament, consist of representatives from the various provincial assemblies? A Senate so constituted might serve a useful function. The interest of the ordin'ary citizen in political affairs is' intermittent, flaring up at election times or during some crisis and as quickly subsiding. The party machines, however, must be maintained and kept more or less in repair, so that they can be put into commission when the need arises. Political groups) to be effective,. must have some organization. But the party machine is more than an organization of those with a common policy. So long as jobs and contracts are in the gift of the party in power, there is bound to be a horde of camp-followers. In Canada to no small extent it has become the case of the "InsD and the "Outs;" the "Ins" not only determining policies but enjoying and dispensing "the sweets and emoluments of office." Party organization so maintained must be' financed. Elections are becoming costly affairs. Senator McRae, formerly Conservative organizer, said in the Senate a year ago that it cost each party at least a million dollars to finance a general electiort-a moderate estimate. The' 301 THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO QUARTERLY Honourable C. H. Cahan stated in the House his belief that an election could not be won in any seat in Montreal with less than $40,000 for legitimate expenditure; sometimes it has run to over $'100,000. From what source does this money come? Admittedly largely from wealthy individuals and corporations. Ac-, cording to the press reports Mr. Turnbull, in a speech in Regina, boasted that Mr. Bennett had spent a quarter of a million out of his own pocket on the last election. The evidence· given before a parliamentary committee showed that the' Beauharnois Corporatiqn had contributed $720,000, chiefly to the treasuries of the Liberal party in Ontario and Quebec. Some years ago the brewers testified before a royal commission that they had contributed largely to both parties. Undoubtedly 'he who pays the piper calls the tune. The statute-book of Canada bears eloq~ent testimony·to the truth of the old proverb. An irate industrialist put the situation very succinctly, if ungralnmatically, when over the telephone he lectured a member of parliament for not voting the "right" way: "What do you think I gave $50;,000 for your election if you won't do what I tell you?" I t is not often so crudely put as that. There is -to-day little direct bribery; but, as a finance minister once admitted to me when the affairs of a certain corporation were under dis~ussion, "-The Government cannot very well afford to antagonize such a powerful group." The new member may think himself quite free. In time he may learn what Rabindranath Tagore meant when he said that chains are none the less real because they are invisible or golden. The more' independent members, like young colts, have to be broken in. Those ambitious for cabinet' position tell thenlselves what great things they will do when once :they have become estab302 POLITICAL DEMOCRACY lished, but they soon learn to put party' loyalty first. Others have not the moral courage to make the break or they feel themselves i~ honour bound to obey the chief. As one younger member in bittern'ess of soul put it to me, "I took, their nomination and their money and now I suppose I'll have to go through with it, but you won't catch me in this j am again!" His honour rooted in dishonour stood, And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true. Probably the feeling of the newly-elected member is not so much that of restraint as of bewilderment. A country:"town practice, even though extensive and successful , has not brought the ordinary lawyer much knowledge, say, of foreign affairs or social legislation. There are possibly not more than twenty men in the I-louse who could be induced to take part in a debate on our external - relationships. Yet our position in the Empire plunged us into a European war-and may plunge us into another. Skill in bringing babies into the world has given the elderly doctor no special knowledge of the freight-rate structure or the foreign exchanges.' What knowledge has even the successful b'!1siness man of the gold standard or ' of constitutional problems? What can the farmer know of the details of the shipping or copyright acts ? Yet these and a score more intricate and far-reaching questions come in one form or another before the House in quick succession. The departmental officials draft the bills, ~hich are modified and approved by the minister or cabinet. When the measure is under discussion" the member with an inquiring mind, or one who takes his work seriously, may read any special memoranda or petitions that are sent to him. He may even ask a few questions on some point that he may have heard dis303 THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO QUARTERLY cussed. Many members, however, in the case of a rollcall vote, stroll in from ~he lobbies asking only, "Which way are we voting?" The fact is that few men are equipped with the specialized knowledge necessary. to deal with the many and varied and complex 'problems that come before the House in even a single session. Further, the partybrganization and the procedure do not encourage serious study of, and ,active participation in, much of the business of the House. A great deal depends, of course, on an effic~en t civil service. Our standards are confessedly not as high as those in-Great Britain, especially in Inany of the higher positions where,political considerations have priority over specialized training and experience. Of the deputy ministers in Ottawa probably not more than half-a-dozen are men of outstanding ability-or at least meri whose outstanding ability has impressed itself upon members of the Hou.se. Theoretically, the government is responsibIe to the House, but in reality what is the situation? Through the ' efforts of the party organization, financed by interestc;d groups, a party finds itself the largest group in the House. The leader of the party ordinarily becomes prime minister. Automatically he assumes very iarge powers. He selects his cabinet-subject, of course, to certain unwritten laws~ Each province must be represented; the French race and the Irish Catholics must be represented; and so on. Through his ministers the prime minister controls all departments. He is responsible for the appointment of judges and commissioners and lieutenant-governors, and for filling vacancies in the Senate. He appoints representatives to the Imperial Conference and the League of Nations) thus controlling our external policies. Many positions and expenditures still come under the patronage 304 POLITICAL DEMOCRACY system. The government only, of course, can introduce money bills and largely assumes responsibility f~r legislation . It is rarely that 'a private member introduces a public bill. I~deed, two· years ago the prime minister's shouted "No!" prevented even the introduction of an amendment to the Criminal Code. Orders-in-council, so-called administrative legislation, and emergency powers leave the prime minister pretty much monarch of all he surveys. The party caucus may put on the brakes, but, at least in recent years, it is very infrequently that a member opposes his party. The party system, as we know it in Canada, tends to reduce the government supporters to silence and the 'opposition members to impotence. Study the proceedings of the House. The "Ins," headed by the prime minister, hold the vast powers enumerated, for five years or so long as they can command the confidence of the House. Especially when the government has a narrow majority it is manifest that rigid discipline must be main~ tained or all is lost. A private member on the government side may not be in favour of a particular measure, but he fears that if-he oppose it he may defeat the government; in any case he would weaken the party's prestige. In voting against his personal judgment, he is not a hypocriteo In general he has confidence in his leader and will not imperil his party for the sake of one issue. The "Outs," on the other hand, that is the opposition, are desirous above all else to obtain power. The only way they can do so is by discounting the actions of the government . With this end in view they cannot very well support any government measure, however good in itself. Thus the party game is played. It must be evident that under such a system measures cannot be discussed or 305 THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO QUARTERLY voted on solely on their merits, but always with an eye to party advantage. Even the simple reform that an adverse vote should not necessarily be taken as a vote of lack of confidence would go far towards freeing the private members and gIving reality to the debates and the votes. As "a matter of fact a free vote is rather rare. Last year as a division on the Sweepstakes Bill might have proved embarrassing to the government, the prilne minister declared that the ' whips were off. The sponsor of the bill in introducing it, expressed his gratitude to the prime minister for so generously allowing "the members to vote according to their best judgment! , Authorities on the British constitution point out that public opinion exercises a powerful and almost automatic influence on parliament. That may be true in Englan"d. I t is less so in Canada, where the population is scattered, divided into provinces, and has many diverse interests. In this country public opinion is less fully organizedshall I say less intelligent?-and certainly less likely to be effective. Special interests, on the other hand, are alert, highly organized) and well financed. Small wonder that a member is more influenced by a skilfully-planned lobby at Ottawa than by the scarcely-audible protests of constituents, resident perhaps two thousand miles away, whose opinion he may not need to reckon with until the next election. Much of our parliamentary procedure is antiquated and cumbersome. It may have been designed to secure full discussion and to prevent hasty legislation. In effect it lends itself to party warfare rather than to effective action. Often it is perfunctory and time-wasting. Each bill must pass through its three readings and committee stage. Very often details are discussed in committee 306 POLITICAL DEMOCRACY of the whole. This frequently leads to interminable "debates"-at least ,so dignified-three times repeated. Witness the long-drawn-out discussion on the Marketing Act. ' One hesitates to suggest curtailment of discussion, but in the circumstances one might welcome some form of closure. The elaborate procedure is not in reality a safeguard. Take divorce bills: after they have come over from the Senate, they pass regularly through all the stages; but for years it was the practice to pass them en bloc-"EiIls I-50 passed," declared the speaker. They had not been discussed at any stage. The evidence 'probably had not been read by a single member of the House. Yet the mace was regularly placed on the table and removed by the sergeant-at-arms. I t was an orderly and tiresome farce! The consideration of the estin1ates is carried on in committee of the whole with every idle word seriously recorded in Hansard. Only a few members are interested in any given department. The minister himself cannot know all the details; so the deputy minister or some other official is smuggled into the chamber to whisper to him the answer he is to make. What waste of time and what inefficiency !Why not discuss these estimates in appropriate cOlnmittees, where officials with special knowledge could be present, where, if necessary, witnesses could be called, and where, ifdesirable, the press Inight be excluded. This last suggestion Inay seem drastic to those who have rejoiced at the gradual development of a free press, but surely ((freedom" should mean some responsibility. Why should the press be permitted to take statements out of their context, to distort them, and broadcast the n1isrepresentation ' for partisan purposes? Some years ago, just after a budget speech a member of the press gallery, representing a large city daily, came into my office. 307 3 THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONT9 QUARTERLY "Rotten speech," he exclaimed, "absolutely misrepresen ts the financial situation; but you know our paper supports the government, so I've had to play it up-crowded galleries-minister in good form-finances in excellent condition-all that sort of tripe. Of course to-morrow the financial critic of the opposition will tear it all to pieces,-but we won't print what he says. We are a hunch of intellectual' prostitutes, .but what can I do? .. I am a news-writer-can't do anything else. Then there's my wife and the kiddie. Just the same I hate, to have the minister get away with such a speech 1" The leisurely methods of parliament may have been all very well when parliament was required to decide on only one or two issues. To-day we have a -score of important issues, and these do not always run parallel. A free vote or a vote on details in committee cuts right across party lines. Yet the formal vote in the House, especially if it is a close vote, follows party lines. In the e~rlier day a member with general ,all-round knowledge and a few fixed pl"inciples might be able to cast an intel1igent vote.' To-day, specialized knowledge is needed. This situation has led to the appointment of royal commissions to study and report on special problems (e.g., the Radio and Banking Commissions) ' and permanent commissions or boards with large powers and free from day-to-day political interference (e.g., boards administering the Canadian National Railway, the RaGio, and the Bank of Canada). This is undoubtedly one of the most fruitful fields for experiment. The administration by independen t boards, or indeed departments, of much recent legislation, involves the development of what has been called administrative law. The statutes lay down certain principles, grant certain powers. That is all. The details are left to be worked out and wide powers are 308 POLITICAL DEMOCRACY exercised by the board or department. The exact relationship which should exist between parliament and such semi-independent boards is by no means clear. Parliament should remain sovereign: yet the boards should be free. So far we hav:e been dealing only with the House of Commons. We have another house-the Sena'te-an 'appointed body with equal powers. What considerations determine the appointment of senators? A senatorship is usually regarded as a reward far outstanding party service-often of a pecuniary character. In practice the Senate consists largely of elderly men, some of them directors in financial corporations. The Senate may thro~ out} as frequently as it pleases, any l1)easure passed . by the elected chamber, and there is no recognized constitutianal method of overcoming its opposition. Of course public opinion has an influence even on the Senate. When the Old Age Pensions Bill had been rejected by the Senate and re-introduced by a newly.:. elected government, it was amusing to witness the celerity with which, not altogether gracefully, the impregnable Senate backed away from its carefully-considered position of the year before. In constitutional , reforms why should we always follow precedents? Surely a precedent .simply m, eans that at some earlier stage someone was bold enough to strike out along original lines. The Senate-at least as at present constitutedsimply must go! Until I entered parliament I was hardly aware of the existence of the British North America Act. Now it seems to me a blank wall against which I run every day. Patriotism may be, as Dr. Johnson said} "the last refuge of a scoundrel:" the B.N.A. Act is the first refuge of any prime minister who does not wish. to act. He would be 309 THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO QUARTERLY absolutely at a loss without it. Its division ofjurisdiction as between the Dominion and the provinces may have been all very well two generations ago. In the complicated and more highly specialized in~dustrial, commercial , and _ financial life of to-day, it is hopelessly out of date. I t is a bonal1:za for highly-paid constitutional lawyers, but for the ordinary legislator anxious to get on with his job it is a doculnent that sorely needs revising. Take the field of social legislation. As a Dominion we may sign ,a treaty and give our adherence to certain labour conventions, but we also assert that we have not the power to implement them and avoid all responsibility for carrying out our obligations by simply passing on the .conventions to the competent authorities, the various provinces. A committee of the House of Commons after two years' study declared that (a) the principle of unemployment insurance was sound; (b) to be effective an unemployment insurance scheme must be' Dominionwide ; (c) under the present interpretation of the B.N.A. Act such matters are wholly within provincial jurisdiction ! Of course, when they desire to do so, the authorities can "get around" the B.N.A. Act by enabling legislation, concurrent legislation, and similar devices. But when nine provinces have to be dealt with, the obstacles are almost insuperable. A strong lobby in anyone province, a campaign in which an appeal is made to racial, religious, or local fears and -prejudices, may prevent the passing of even urgently-needed measures.Finally , outside and above, and, in my judgment, controlling parliatnent, is our financial oligarchy. II!JaPCl :n the military have never fully been brought under the control of parliament; in Canada even the Central Bank legislation has not successfully, challenged the sovereignty of finance. As Mr. Grattan O'Leary pointed 310 POLITICAL DEMOCRACY out some years ago, it is behind gree~ baize doors in the counting-houses in Montreal and Toronto that.· the destinies of Canada are determined. I am reminded of a little incident of my early childhood. While out one day with my father I begged to be allowed to drive. .He placed me on his knee and gave me the lines. .For a few minutes I experienced unalloyed joy. Then when I began experimen ting I found the lines did not yield to my pull. I looked around and to my great disappointment found that my father was holding them behind me. Long study, at close range; of the operations of parliament has convinced me that the financiers pull the strings. A pri~e minister may protest that he is free, but then a man is not likely to become prime minister unless he is willing to travel more or less in the "right" direction. The demand for a new form of government comes from two directions. Business men urge a business administration with its supposed economy and efficiency. Undoubtedly , parliament has piled up an unbearable load of public debt and it is not equal to its present-day tasks. But who.has been running parliament? Surely the selfsame business men who are now most vociferous in their criticism and are putting themselves forward as reformers. It is business men who have obtained control of our natural resources, who have secured railway franchises, incorporations of all kinds, bank charters, tariff privileges, grants, bonuses, subsidies, specialized departments of. government, and protection for trade routes. I t is the representatives of business men who sit in parlialnent and it is business men who stream through the lobbies of the Chateau Laurier. Now;, when the results of their policies begin to bear heavily even upon themselves, what do they urge? More business in government and less government in business! I t would not require many . 311 THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO QUAR~ERLY steps to establish ° a business dictatorship in Canada. The ancient rights and privileges of parliament are disappearing before our very eyes. More serious from our point of view, new rights have not yet been recognized. The appalling revelations of the Stevens' Commission are surely sufficient to convince people of the need of a: new Bill of Rights. Yet no action has been taken. The tobacco-growers have voluntarily granted a higher price to the growers. One departmental store graciously raised wagesowhile the commission was sitting and later lowered them again. The investigation goes on. In time the commission will report. Then probably the B.N.A. Act will be regretfully produced. Are our people no longer ° capable of moral indignation? A business dictatorship would o doubtless rid us of inconvenient pariiamentary inquiries, but would a business dictatorship relieve us of our debts? Are not business men themselves the bondholders? Would a business dictatorship be able to take up the slack of unemployment , to raise agricultural prices, and increase the purchasing-power of the masses? How can this be done and at the same time costs of production be kept down and dividends paid? A business dictatorship in control of the law-making machinery, the courts, the police, and the military, might reduce our farming population to peasantry and maintain the proletariat at a subsistence level. Not an achievement to be contemplated with equanimity! From the dispossessed there also comes a demand for a new form of government. What has parliament to offer the tens of thousands of families now for years on relief? Second-hand clothes, crowded oinsanitary rooms, inadequate medical attention, education curtailed, little beal:lty in life-is this all? What has parliament to offer 312 POLITICAL DEMOCRACY ,the farmers who have seen their reserves steadily depleted, their' equipment depreciating, their fal"ms hopelessly mortgaged-the farmers who in the dried-out areas in the ,West face a new start under conditions which inevitably mean failure? Is it any wonder that in desperation men's thoughts turn to direct action? Russia overthrew' the czar; why cannot we, by si'milar means, overthrow our exploiters? Continued low wages may produce serious .and widespread strikes. The dissatisfied unemployed may riot and riots may get out of hand. But the more intimately I learn to know the psychology of our people and the situation across Canada, the more I am convinced that a .planned resort to violence is nothing less than madness. I twill get us nowhere. It will lead only to repressive measures and strengthen the forces of reaction. Parliamentary action may sometimes seem almost hopeless: it 'is not so hopeless as the attempt at an armed uprising. So in spite of difficulties we look to political democracy as a means not only of securing reforms but of furthering I the establishmen t of a new social' order. I have dwelt on the obstacles to progress presented by our parliamentary system. They are not insuperable. I must not fail to point out that the system has also its advantages. Parliament is a high-powered broadcasting station. I know of no more -effective agency for propaganda. Discussions in the House, reported by I-Iansard and by the press, have untold educational value. An unfriendly newspaper complained that one of my motions had given me a million dollars' worth of free advertising. Even a slnall minority group can force discussion. Through their speeches and votes members of the old parties Inust declare th~mselves. Backed by favourable sentiment _outside, the minority can force the pace of the majority. 313 THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO QUARrERLY On occasion even the party-system may be turned to advantage. In 1925 when the two" parties were almost evenly balanced, the Independents were able to secure considerable advanced legislation. Had it not been for th~ presence of the two Labour men in the House it is doubtful whether the Old Age Pensions Act, inadequate as it is, would yet be on the statute-book. A government pledged to socialism mlght not have plain sailing, but with an intelligent and determined electorate would surely win through. When we refer to political democracy we think perhaps too much in terms of elections and parliamentary proceedings. We should think rather in terms of a socially conscious and politically trained body of citizens. A heavy task lies ahead but not an impossible one. The driving-force and intelligence which in a few brief years built up on this continent a remarkable systelTI of production, if it were really applied to our economic and social problems, would in an even shorter period transform society. 314 ...