1903-03-16

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) delivered a message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows :
[Stage Direction]


The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending June 30, 1904, and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House,
Ottawa, March 16, 1903.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the message of His Excellency and the estimates he referred to the Committee of Supply.
Motion agreed to.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) delivered a message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows :
[Stage Direction]
The Governor Genera] transmits to the House of Commons an approved minute of Council, appointing the Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright, G.C.M.G., Minister of Trade and Commerce ; the Hon. William Stevens Fielding, Minister of Finance ; the Hon. James Sutherland, Minister of Public Works ; and the Hon. Raymond Prefontaine, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the purposes and provisions of the 13th chapter of the Revised Statutes of Canada, intituled :
' An Act respecting the House of Commons.'
Government House,
Ottawa, March 16, 1903.

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honor to inform the House that I have received from the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada a certified copy of the judgment of the said court in the matter of the election appeal for the electoral district of St. James, by which the judgment of the trial judges in the lower court annulling the said election was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
And on the appeal from that portion of tlie judgment of the trial judges in the lower court wherein the appellant has been found guilty of corrupt practices, the judges of the Supreme Court being equally divided on the said question, the appeal stands dismissed and the judgment of the Hon. Sir Melbourne M. Tait and the Hon. L O. Lornnger, declaring that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practices was affirmed.
The trial judges 'l iving reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed in the election, I have, in conformity with sections 48, chap. 9. of the Revised Statutes of Canada, withheld the issue of my warrant for a new election, pending nnv action to be taken by the House in the matter.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: 



REPORTS PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the North-west Mounted Police for 1902.-Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Report of the Department of Railways and Canals for the year ended 30th June, 1902.-Hon. Mr. Blair.
Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the year ended 30th June, 1902.-Right Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 3) to amend the Dominion Elections Act.-Mr. Charlton.
Bill (No. 4) respecting telephone companies.-Mr. Maclean.

Mr.   J.@: CHARLTON (North Norfolk) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 2) to amend the Railway Act as concerns the granting of subsidies in aid of the construction of railways therein mentioned, 63 and 64 Vic., chap. 8.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Explain.


Mr. CHARLTON.: It refers to grants made upon progress estimates, subsidy grants. It merely asks to have the minimum sum changed from $60,000 to $30,000.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr.  W. F.@: MACLEAN (East York) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 5) to amend the Railway Act. He said : The substance of this Bill is that every railway company that gives any facilities to any telephone company shall give equal and the same facilities to any other company applying for them on exactly the same conditions. At the present moment the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and other railway companies in this country have made an agreement with the Bell Telephone Company whereby the latter has a monopoly in telephone entrance to the stations of these companies. I say that is against public policy, it is an unfair discrimination, it is against the spirit of the Railway Act which holds a railway company bound to give ail express companies equal facilities. This Bill simply provides that equal facilities shall he given to all telephone companies or persons who desire access to the railway stations of the various railway companies. I would like to know from the Minister of Bailways and Canals whether he will accept this principle, especially in view of this fact, that if the government were now to say that they would accept the

principle of this Bill a large number of private independent telephone lines would be started all over this country. It would he a great assistance to trade and to the social life of this country if these telephone systems were inaugurated.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr.  E. A.@: LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 6) to amend the Railway Act. He said : This is the same Bill that was discussed in the House last session with regard to cattle guards on highway crossings.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 7) to amend chapter 13S of the Revised Statutes with respect to retiring allowances of judges.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: What is the nature of the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The object of the bill is to provide that judges of the Superior Court who have attained a certain age, for instance, 75 years, and who have served a certain number of years on the bench are authorized to retire on full pay.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 8) to amend the Expropriation Act.
Robert Laird Borden: What is the nature of this Bill ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This Bill is a reproduction of a Bill introduced last session to enable the government to expropriate in trust a limited estate in property ; for instance, if the government wishes to expropriate a quarry only for a limited period of time it will enable the government to do so. If the government give notice of expropriation and afterwards ascertain that the property is not required for public purposes, this Bill wil enable the government to withdraw from the expropriation and abandon the property subject to the usual condition, that it will pay the damages incurred in the interval. Provision is also made to enable the government in the event of a property having been
expropriated, to remedy the damages which have been incurred through addition of other works which may be necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 9) to amend the Yukon Territory Act.
Robert Laird Borden: What is the nature of this Bill ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: An ordinance has been passed by the local authorities of the Yukon in respect to the summoning of jurors, as some doubt has been expressed about the rights of the Yukon council to pass such legislation, this Bill is introduced to give full effect to it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 10) to amend the Act relating to the custody of juvenile offenders in the province of New Brunswick.
Robert Laird Borden: I suppose this is in consequence of the recent difficulty in that province ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, as a result of the Godsoe case in New Brunswick. There is an omission, evidently, in the Criminal Code. In the Criminal Code provision is made for the removal of juvenile offenders from the penitentiary to the reformatory, but there is no provision for the converse case ; that is to say for the removal from the reformatory to the penitentiary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 11) to amend the Act respecting the publication of the Statutes.
Robert Laird Borden: What is the nature of this Bill ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is merely to make provision for the payment of certain fees to which a certain official is entitled when he is applied to for a copy of a Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Tlie MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) introduced Bill (No. 12) to amend the Criminal Code of 1892.
Robert Laird Borden: Explain please.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This Bill is directed against the immoral and indecent plays and entertainments that occasionally take place in some large cities. It is for the purpose of providing more severe punishments for those who indulge in that pastime, and it is introduced at the suggestion of the recorder of the city of Montreal, and approved by other persons in that city.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 13) to amend the Dominion Controverted Elections Act.
Robert Laird Borden: What is the nature of the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is to settle a mere matter of procedure. Under the Election Act now it is necessary that the trial should take place in the county where the election is held, and it is at times more convenient that the election trial should be held in the city adjoining the county. The Election Act makes no provision for transferring the trial from a place within the county to a place outside the county, or vice versa. Take for instance the case of the county of Quebec ; if an election takes place in the county of Quebec, which is my own county, and there is a trial, it will be necessary for the judge to sit within the county, whereas, the city of Quebec is immediately alongside of it and has all the conveniences necessary to the holding of a court, and it is to enable that to be done that this Bill is introduced.


Mr. OASGRAIN.: There are never any election protests in the province of Quebec?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not now, but then we never can tell what may happen in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN asked (Translation.) :
Is it the intention of the government to introduce, during the present session, legislation amending the Act respecting Judges of the j Provincial Courts, with a view either to in-1
Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: crease the salaries of the judges generally, or to equalize the said salaries according to circumstances of residence, cost of living, &c., &c.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick.) (Translation.) In answer to the hon. gentleman, let me tell him that the matter is now under consideration by the government.


TICKET OF LEAVE SYSTEM.
Mr. CASGRAIN asked :: 1.	How many persons have been released from imprisonment under the Ticket of Lgave Acts, since the first of January, 1902, to the 12th of March. 1903 ?
2.	What are the names of such persons ?
3.	Of what offences had they been convicted, and at what dates were T.hey so convicted ?
4.	At what dates were they so released from imprisonment ?
5.	Have any of the licenses or tickets of leave so granted been revoked ; and if any, how many ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: The information necessary to enable me to answer the first and fifth paragraphs is not now available, but it will be here in a few minutes. As to the second, I do not think it would be in the public interest that the names of the persons should be given. In respect to paragraphs 3 and 4, I think it would perhaps be more convenient if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Casgrain) would move for a return, because we find it practically impossible to give, within the brief scope of an answer to a question, the information he asks for.


EXERCISE OF PREROGATIVE OF PARDON.
Mr. CASGRAIN asked :: 1.	In how many instances was the prerogative of pardon exercised by His Excellency the Governor General in cases of conviction for offences against Federal or Provincial Laws since the first day of January, 1902, to the 12th of March, 1903 ?
2.	What are the names of the persons in whose favour the prerogative of pardon was so exercised during the said period ?
3.	Of what offences had the said persons been convicted ?
4.	To what penalties had the said persons been condemned ?
5.	At what dates were the convictions pronounced against the said persons ?
6.	At what date was the prerogative of pardon exercised in each case ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: The answer to the preceding question will practically apply to this one. With respect to the first part of the question, I shall have the information in a few moments; with respect to the second,
I do not think it would be in the public interest that the names of the persons should be given; and, with regard to the third, fourth, fifth and sixth parts, a return will probably be the most convenient form for giving the information.


PATENT ACT AMENDMENT.
Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: In view of the judgment delivered on the 15th of December, 1902, by the Supreme Court of Canada, in a case of Michael Power, appellant, and Judson MeGrifiin, and another, respondents, is it the intention of the government to introduce, at the present session, an Act to amend subsection one of section thirty-seven of the Patent Act, as amended by section two of chapter thirteen of the statutes of 1890, and amended by section one of chapter thirty-three of the statutes of 1891, and amended by section six of the statutes of 1892, so as to provide (a.) That no patent shall be held to have been avoided by reason of the failure of the patentee or his assigns to commence and carry on the construction of the patented invention in Canada, unless such patentee and his assigns be shown to have failed to supply such patented invention on demand duly made to them '!
(b.) That more than one extension of such delay to manufacture may be granted ?
(c.) That extensions of the delays to manufacture and to import, signed by the acting deputy commissioner of patents, be declared to be valid for all purposes ?
(d.) That such intended legislation be declaratory of the law as contained in the Acts hereinbefore mentioned ?	.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: It is the intention of the government to introduce a Bill to amend the Patent Act during the present session, and to include some amendments arising out of the judgment to which my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) refers.


GRAIN IMPORTATIONS THROUGH WESTERN ONTARIO PORTS, 1902.
Mr. BENNETT asked :: What were the grain receipts of all kinds at the Ports of Midland, Depot Harbour, Col-lingwood, Owen Sound, Meaford, Goderich, Sarnia, Kingston and Prescott, during the season of navigation of 1902 ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. William Paterson).: When the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Bennett's) question was observed on the order paper, the following telegram was sent to the collectors of customs at the ports referred to :
Wire total quantity of grain of all kinds received at your port during the season of navigation, 1902.	,
To this we have the answers, as follow :
Bushels.
Midland	15,017,760
Depot Harbour	12,710,303
Collingwood	 2,447,824
Owen Sound	 1,794,381
Meaford	 2,563,311
Goderich	 2,226,660
Sarnia	
Kingston	 6,848,000
Prescott	  97,740
An answer has not yet been received from Sarnia. But I can, perhaps, hand that to the bon. gentleman when it is received.


MANUFACTURE OF WOOD ALCOHOL.
Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	At what places, if any, in Canada is wood alcohol manufactured ?
2.	What is the output of said article, if any, at Longford, Ontario ?
3.	Is the output of said article purchased exclusively by the Department of Inland Revenue?
4.	Is any person or persons free to embark in such business in Canada ; and if so, subject to what regulations, if any, or restrictions, if any ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: In the absence of the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Bernier),
I beg to answer the hon. gentleman's questions as follows :
1.	So far as the department is aware, wood alcohol is manufactured at Deseronto, Fenelon Falls, and Longford, in the province of Ontario, and at Cookshire, in the province of Quebec.
2.	The department has no data as to the output at Longford.
3.	No.
4.	The production of wood ' alcohol or wood naphtha is not subject to excise, and any person may embark in its manufacture in Canada.


VALLEYFIELD POST OFFICE.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Has the government finally decided to build a post office at Valleyfield, in the county of Beauharnois ?
2.	If not, when was that decision arrived at ?
3.	Has the government purchased a piece of land for that purpose ?
4.	From whom did the government buy that land, and for what amount ?
5.	How long has the person who sold that land to the government had possession of it, and from whom was it obtained by him ?
6.	Was the land so purchased by the government the property of Mr. George M. Loy, M.P. ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	R. W. Johnston, $10,000.
5 and 6. From the 14th July, 1902; from the then owner, Mr. Loy.


ESTABLISHMENT OF A LAW LIBRARY IN LONDON, ENGLAND.
Mr.  T. C.@: CASGRAIN moves for (Translation.) :
Copies of all documents, letters, correspondence and papers in connection with the establishment in London of a law library for the use of counsel retained in cases before the judicial committee of the Privy Council.
The motion which I am now making aims at having certain papers laid on the table which concern the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General, lawyers and their clients, that is to say, those who are amenable to



tribunals and the general public in Canada. As is well known by members of the bar engaged in cases before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of England, it is extremely difficult for them to have access to the London law libraries, where they could find proper authorities to bring in support of their cases, to their own satisfaction and that of their clients. With the hon. minister's leave (Mr. Fitzpatrick), I would tell the House I had several interviews with the hon. gentleman on the matter, and there is, I think, in his department, a correspondence bearing on the same. As I said, it is no easy task for members of the Bar visiting London in connection with the proceedings of the Privy Council-and here I refer not only to the lawyers from the province of Quebec, but also to those from the other provinces-to have access to the required law books and judicial reports. True, there are to be found large law libraries at Lincoln's Inn and Temple Bar ; but the trouble is that, for one to have access to such libraries it is necessary to be introduced by a London lawyer or barrister, who is a member of that corporation, without mentioning the loss of time involved In going so far from the place where the Privy Council sittings are held. Now, as to the members of the Quebec Bar, I may say that they experience a still greater inconvenience, and as a matter of fact, it is almost impossible for them, as my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is well aware, to have access to the desired law books. That some of those law books are toi be found in the large	libraries	just	referred	to is quitetrue;	but the	few	works one may findthere,	are only	such	works as	may satisfythe curiosity of a chance reader, or be serviceable to	such	students	as wish to
pursue their studies in comparative legislation. So, for instance, I may say that the last time I visited London I noticed that in the catalogue of Lincoln's Inn there were no such works as Dalloz's repertoire, Laurent, Beaudry-Lacantantinerie, and the French Pandects and Sirey. Those works which are of great value, and I may say indispensable to those who have cases to argue before the Privy Council, are not to be found in those libraries. Under those circumstances, it often happens that lawyers are under the necessity of bringing across with them a pretty large library, or else to have the required extracts copied out of those works. In the former cases, it is easy to realize the inconvenience experienced by counsel who are engaged in cases before the Privy Council. Then as to having such extracts as are required for the pleadings copied out of the law books, there is this draw-back that, when they appear before the Judiciary Committee, they experience some trouble in having those extracts accepted by the tribunal ; so that high as may be their standing at the Bar, they are nevertheless open to suspicion. So, I think, under Mr. CASGRAIN.
such circumstances, it is highly desirable that a law library should be established by the government in the High Commissioner's office in London ; not a very large library, but one at least in which the best French and English law books would be at the disposal of members of the Bar. Should one find there a collection of the standard works and reports of French courts, it would undoubtedly be quite sufficient. It would also be exceedingly convenient for us to have access to the standard English law books and to the statutes and reports of all our provincial courts ns well. I think this would give the members of the Bar engaged in cases before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ample satisfaction. I do not think the establishment of such a library would involve considerable expenditure, as I have reason to believe, from an estimate which I have been able to control, that $5,000 would cover the whole outlay. Hesirable as the establishment of such a library may be from the standpoint of lawyers retained in cases before the Privy Council, I say that to their clients it is a matter of considerable interest, the more so that upon the pleadings of counsel before the tribunals, the issue of the cases argued depends to a very large extent.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I quite appreciate what my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) has said with respect to the inconveniences which members of the bar who visit London in connection with the proceedings before the Judicial Committee are under, because of the lack of material with respect to our judicial reports. So far as the Dominion government are concerned, we have sent over each year a copy of our Supreme Court reports and Exchequer Court reports to the High Commissioner's office, and we also provide the High Commissioner's office with our statutes. It seems to me that some of the inconveniences referred to could be more properly met by action of the provincial authorities. They are very largely interested in these appeals, and it is, to a large extent, the legislation passed by the provincial legislatures that is subject to appeal to the Judicial Committee. If my hon. friend would take the suggestion I would be very glad indeed, if the local legislatures were moved in the matter, to confer with the attorneys general in the provinces and have an understanding with them for the purpose of remedying the undoubted inconvenience to which my hon. friend has referred.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be very desirable that the local legislatures should send over sets of their statutes, as far as possible. Also any statutes of Canada that are not there already should be sent over. It does seem strange, considering that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has jurisdiction over about

half the world one might say ; that counsel coming from Australia, from Canada and from India, should not have some library there at their disposal. I would like to know whether the Minister of Justice has ever taken up the matter with the imperial authorities. I myself have experienced the same inconvenience to which my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) has referred. For the most part you can get access to these libraries through the courtesy of the English counsel engaged in the case, but even that is inconvenient because it is almost impossible to carry books forward and backward from one place to another which are quite a distance apart. I might remark also that it would seem to us that a body so important as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be a little better housed for the purpose of hearing appeals. That strikes all colonial lawyers on the first occasion on which they are engaged before that body. I understand that there is some talk in England at the present time of having that remedied. At all events it is certainly very desirable, that whether by the imperial government or whether by joint action between the imperial government and the colonial governments, there should be a library placed at the disposal of the colonial counsel who are engaged in causes before the Judicial Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.   T.@: CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency) moved for :
Copies of all petitions, Orders In Council, correspondence, documents and papers in connection with the conviction and imprisonment of one Arthur Brunet, of the city of Montreal, convicted of offences against the Dominion Elections Act, 1900 ; and the pardon, reprieve, or release of the said Arthur Brunet from jail.
He said :	A simple reading of this
motion will show that it is of vast importance to this House and to the country at large. Hon. gentlemen will remember what took place when Mr. Brunet was elected a member to this House from the St. James Division of Montreal. It will be remembered that a preliminary investigation was held into certain acts of corruption committed at that election and during the course of that investigation it was found that two important witnesses who were to give evidence with regard to the corruption that took place had absconded from the country and had been sent over to the United States. The preliminary investiga-gation, nevertheless, went on, and Arthur Brunet, who had been charged with gross acts of corruption in that election was returned for trial to the Court of King's Bench. It was proved that personators had 4i
been hired; that they had been given tickets by the central committee of Mr. Brunet, the late member, to vote at certain polls in the division, and that they successfully accomplished gross election frauds to a very considerable extent. It was also proved that in one poll the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk had been hired and paid money to switch ballots. The consequence of this was that one of the polls, when the ballot box was open, it was found that Mr. Bergeron, the candidate opposed to Mr. Brunet, had only four votes cast for him, that Mr. Brunet had an overwhelming majority, and all this despite the fact that a number of reputable citizens deposed that they had voted for Mr. Bergeron at that poll. In order to better carry out this corrupt scheme it was found advisable to bring whisky into the poll, so that the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk were so intoxicated that they hardly knew what was going on; at all events they did not realize the seriousness of the crime which they were committing. I may state also that an effort had been made by those interested in Mr. Brunet's election to hire young students to do this dirty work, but I am happy to say that although the students were offered considerable sums of money to switch ballots or to personate electors, they had the manhood and the honesty to refuse to be connected with such an outrage.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It was highly creditable to these students that they did so refuse, and I am glad to be able to mention this fact on the floor of this parliament. At the close of the poll one of the leaders of the gang who invented this nefarious system of switching ballots and personating electors, declared openly and publicly that Mr. Brunet's election was sure because the system which had been adopted in this particular poll had been carried out in eighteen other polls, and therefore the Liberal candidate was sure of his election. This showed that it was not an isolated system of corruption at one poll, but that it was part of a general and organized system carried out at that election. Here we had in this election, personation of voters, subornation of perjury, corruption of public officers, and other heinous crimes against the rights of the people. I must say that the press of all political shades of opinion denounced these crimes. Now, Sir, some of the offences which had been committed at this election were punishable, under the Dominion Elections Act, by a maximum fine of $200 and by from six months to two months' imprisonment, and for other offences there is a maximum penalty of three years in prison, a minimum of six months and a fine of $300.
Now, Sir, who was the instigator of all these crimes ? Who was the arch-con-

spirator ? Who was the man who hired these unfortunate returning officers and poll clerks to violate the oath they had taken to honestly discharge the duties of their office S Who had hired these men to telegraph votes; who had induced these men to personate other electors, and who had gone to the students to tempt these young men to commit high crimes against public morality ? It was Mr. Arthur Brunet. To the credit of the province of Quebec be it said that Arthur Brunet was brought to trial, and notwithstanding that some witnesses had absconded, his trial took place, and upon his own confession he was found guilty of three distinct offences under the Dominion Elections Act, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment on each indictment. I am not here to judge whe-: tker the punishment meted out to him was sufficiently severe, but I have no doubt that the chief justice who conducted the trial took into consideration all the extenuating circumstances which were laid before him, and so he condemned Arthur Brunet to almost the minimum punishment which the law provides. Be that as it may; here was a man convicted of the most serious crimes; here was a man sentenced to jail for six months for crimes which upon his own confessed he committed. The people of Canada believed at the time that Arthur Brunet had been rightly and properly punished. It was notorious that this ballot switching and personating of voters was prevalent not only in the province of Quebec but in other provinces as well. Not so many years before this House was seized with the question as to whether or not an inquiry should be held into certain election frauds which had been committed in the province of Ontario, and the offences were considered so grave that this House instituted an inquiry with a view of discovering the guilty parties and the extent to which this particular crime prevailed. Therefore, when Arthur Brunet was sent to jail, all good citizens rejoiced that at last it had been found possible to convict a man who was guilty of such crimes against the franchise of the people of this country as he had confessed to. I bear no malice whatever towards Brunet; I do not even know him. But his offence was serious ; he was caught red-handed ; he was one of that gang of men who are going around, through the length and breadth of this Dominion, stealing the votes of honest men, and preventing the free expression of public opinion upon the administration of affairs in this country. No doubt, as I said before, due weight had been given by the chief justice to all extenuating circumstances when he condemned this man to six months only in jail. Notwithstanding all this, upon petitions which were sent to the government-and this is the reason why I am making this motion-the government thought fit, after this man had been in Mr. CASGRAIN.
jail four months,' if my information is correct, to pardon him and set him at liberty. Now, Sir, it is important that the House be put in possession of these petitions. The government may seek to shield themselves from responsibility behind the men who signed these petitions ; but those who are entrusted with these matters are given a sacred trust, and they alone have the responsibility of showing this country that a man convicted of such offences as those I have described, must suffer the full penalty of the law, or at least the full penalty inflicted upon him by the courts before which he has been tried. I say the government cannot shield themselves behind the petitions which have been presented to the proper authorities, because any one who has had any experience of such petitions knows very well how they are gotten up and signed. An intimate friend, a relative, perhaps a brother of the accused man, goes about with a petition and asks people to sign it. He uses all kinds of influences and persuasions, and it is very difficult ayd requires a great deal of moral courage in many instances to refuse to sign the petition. In other instances, a man may be very busy when asked to sign the petition, and instead of entering into a long argument on the gravity of the offence which has been committed, he signs the petition in order to get rid of the man who has approached him. All these facts should be taken into consideration by the authorities to whom the petitions are presented and due weight should be given to the circumstances undei which they are signed. But this fact, I say again, cannot relieve the proper authorities from the responsibility resting upon them of maintaining the dignity of the law, and the due severity of the punishment which should be meted out to all who have committed such offences as those for which Brunet was convicted. It was a relief to the common morality and to the conscience of the country when Brunet was caught, tried and sentenced to jail for those offences ; but the community was scandalized when, after having been in jail for four months, he was liberated by the government.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: That is better than they do in Ontario, where they do not imprison them.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: As I said before, a great deal of credit is due to the province of Quebec for having caught this man and convicted him. Another object which I have in moving for the papers in this case is this. It must be made known that those who sign petitions of this kind undertake a grave responsibility, and in this instance I think their names should be placed before the House, so that in future, when people are asked to sign such petitions, they may realize that their names will probably be placed before parliament, and they shall

have to take their share of responsibility for the result of their actions.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Mr. Speaker, the practice established in England in respect to cases of this sort is not to produce the documents upon which the prerogative of mercy is exercised, and that practice has been also fairly well established in Canada. It was established by Sir John Thompson in a case to which I shall have occasion to refer when the documents are brought down. I think, however, I ought to be under great obligations to my hon. friend for having asked that an exception be made in this case. I agree that this is an exceptional case, and one that ought to be dealt with in exactly the same way as the case of McGreevy and Connolly was dealt with by this House. I think I agree also with what my hon. friend has said as to the propriety of producing the petitions presented to the government. I may say that I did not myself sign this recommendation, though I assume all responsibility for what was done.. I think it is advisable that we should have the petitions, because then my hon. friend will have an opportunity of seeing that they were not signed exclusively by persons who support the government, but were signed by persons high in the counsels of the Conservative party, and occupying high positions in this House. I agree with all my hon. friend has said about the propriety of punishing criminals who have been proven guilty of offences such as those which this gentleman was convicted of. But these offences are not new. I myself had occasion in the province of Quebec-and the law reports will bear me out- to prosecute gentlemen who were guilty of even worse offences, in 1880 and 1881 ; but they escaped at that time. Of course, the Liberal party was not in power in the province then.


Samuel Hughes: Would that have made any difference ?
The MINISTER OF1 JUSTICE. No, but my hon. friend called attention to the fact that when the Liberals were in power, Brunet was punished. I think the proper time to discuss this question will be when all the documents are before the House. It is possible that in this case the government assumed some responsibility, for which they must of course account to the House ; but I think it would be easy to show that the responsibility does not rest exclusively on the heads of the gentlemen connected with the government. I think it will be shown also that there have been other cases equally serious in which clemency was exercised under circumstances less defensible than in the present instance. I ought to say here that Brunet was represented at the time by medical certificates to be in a very precarious condition of health. Men are not sent to jail for the
purpose of dying there ; they are not sent
to jail to be executed ; they are sent there to be punished, and if a man is sent to jail for six months and medical men testify that his life is imperilled in consequence, it behooves the executive to take that fact into consideration. I ought to say also that in the Court of King's Bench of Quebec at the same time, a man who had been tried for a similar offence connected with a municipal election was sent to jail for two years. 1 have not the name, but I will get the name. He was sent to jail for two years, and Mr. Brunet, who was tried after him, was sent to jail for six months. Another man connected with the same offence, was tried in the term following, and went to jail for twelve months. All these things will be discussed at the proper time, and we will find out how these inequalities of sentences came to prevail and see whether or not, in view of these inequalities, it was necessary for the executive to occasionally interfere.


Robert Laird Borden: Inasmuch, Mr. Speaker, as the Brunet sentence was very much shorter than the sentences in the other cases, it seems to me it was hardly necessary to interfere in this case, whatever might be said of the others. If what my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Cas-grain) has said as to the gravity of Brunet's offence be correct, the sentence of six months was very short. And considering what was said in this House some two or three years ago, by my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister, with regard to the gravity of offences of this kind, it is somewhat astonishing that, after a six months' sentence had been imposed on this man-a very short sentence-the government should have seemed fit to have shortened that sentence by a period of two months.
I agree with my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice, that this case might perhaps be better discussed when the papers come down, but the hon. gentleman has undertaken to discuss it to some extent himself and he must pardon us if we say a few words about it now. The hon. Minister of Justice seems to take a somewhat peculiar view of the responsibility of the government and of himself in this matter. Does he consider that if every Conservative in the city of Montreal signed a petition for this man's release, that would lessen his responsibility one whit 1 If he does, he takes a view of the duties of his position absolutely different from that which I entertain. Here is a man convicted of a very serious crime- crime of a character which unfortunately has prevailed very largely throughout this country during the past five or six years, and in reference to which the Prime Minister said in this House a few years ago, that no matter could better engage the attention of our judges than an investigation into charges of that kind, because no

fountain could be pure which was tainted at its source.
Well, we have had a criminal convicted at last. Those in Ontario have for the most part, gone scott free. Every criminal involved in the case which I brought to the attention of the House at that time, has gone scott free. The investigation was burked in the committee at that session, and the hon. gentlemen opposite, by their votes prevented its being proceeded with during the following session. My right hon. friend and his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, both arose and said when I first brought up the matter, that no matter could better engage the attention of the House. But they sat dumb the next session when I asked to have the matter proceeded with, and they voted that no investigation should be had. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has never explained his position from that day to this. His leader did get up, at the conclusion of the debate and attempt to explain why he then voted down a motion for an investigation which a year before he had been so willing to grant. We all know the reasons. We ail know that the investigation into the West Huron election before the Committee on Privileges and Elections did not have the result the hon. gentlemen opposite expected. We know how they prevented my witnesses being called until their own were summoned, in order that the criminals might be heard first, yet we had proof from the inspection of the ballots and out of the mouths of their own deputy returning officers that' frauds had been committed. Certain revelations were made, more particularly with regard to the Brockville election, which made it very undesirable to the hon. gentlemen opposite, that the investigation should proceed further. None of the men implicated have been prosecuted since. There is a Liberal government opposite and one in power in Ontario, and the curtain has to some extent been lifted during the past few days, with regard to certain matters going on in that province. I do not take the view of the Minister of Justice, that he can relieve himself from responsibility by saying he has petitions from any number of Conservatives. The responsibility is not on these gentlemen but on the government. My hon. friend says that he did not sign this recommendation. Are we to infer that he did not concur in it ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not at all. I take full responsibility for it.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend must take full responsibility, so long as he remains a member of the government, but it may nevertheless be the case that he did not concur, so far as his personal opinion is concerned, in the recommendation that this man should be released. I do not know that what took place in 1880 has much to Mr. ijUKDnjN (Halifax).
do with the position of affairs in 1903. The question is whether Brunet was properly released from custody. We can judge of that when the papers come down. There was something said about his health. Hon. gentlemen opposite will remember how they sneered when the question of health was raised in the McGreevy case. They charged collusion, they said that certificates were procured simply for the * purpose of releasing this man. I have not read the certificates in the Brunet case, and I do not know whether they afford any justification on the ground of health, but I venture to think that unless there is some very strong justification from the condition of this man's health, no greater outrage was ever perpetrated than to release him from prison before the expiry of his very short term. When the papers come down, it will behoove the Minister of Justice to deal with this matter more fully, because it is one which calls for our most serious attention.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. Minister of Justice has told us that he did not personally sign the report, but that afterwards he concurred in it. This will throw a flood of light into the Department of Justice and enable us to form some idea of how certain judicial appointments came to be made. There was a time when the Judiciary of Ontario was looked upon with a great deal more respect than it is to-day. But, hon. gentlemen opposite have seen fit to make appointments which have aroused the adverse criticism of not only the party press, even the independent and law journals. Let me quote from the ' Canada Law Times ' with reference to one appointment recently made in Ontario. I know not whether the hon. Minister of Justice has concurred in all the demands that have been made from time to time. But let me call attention to what is said by the ' Canada Law Times,' which is certainly not a political journal, with reference to the nonpromotion of Mr. Justice Osier :-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am afraid that the discussion upon which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) has entered is not quite in order. The question now before the House is the conviction of Mr. Brunet and his pardon. 1 would call the hon. gentleman's attention to that and would remind him that he is not allowed to discuss any other question on the present motion. It is not the Department of Justice we are discussing, but the pardon of this man.


William Humphrey Bennett: With all due deference, I would submit for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, one point which, I hope, may alter your view. The hon. Minister of Justice has made the statement-and it is a very striking statement-that he had not seen or approved the report in quest'01. 1 do not give his exact words, but-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. Minister of Justice took the responsibility of the action of the government, and I do not think that any necessity arises for discussing on this motion the affairs of the Department of Justice itself. That may come up on some other motion, but not on the one now before the Chair.


William Humphrey Bennett: As I understand the statement made by the Minister of Justice, he said that, while, in the first instance, he did not concur in the report of Council, he is now willing to shoulder all the responsibility in connection-


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: Perhaps I may be allowed to repeat the statement I made. I may explain, as, perhaps, the hou. member (Mr. Bennett) isi not familiar with the procedure, that the exercise of clemency by the Governor General is on the report of the Minister of Justice-it never1 goes to Council, but goes from the Minister of Justice to the Governor General. In this instance, the recommendation was made! in my absence by another minister-I simply made that statement before the House to explain the facts, but I said that I accepted full responsibility.


Robert Laird Borden: The report was made by another minister acting as Minister of Justice ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, and for that report I am responsible.


William Humphrey Bennett: Of course, Mr. Speaker, if you rule that lam out of order I shall be obliged to reserve what I have to say for another occasion.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It may come up upon some other question.
Motion (Mr. Casgrain) agreed to.


EXTRADITION OF GAYNOR AND GREENE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN moved for :
Copies of all papers, documents, letters, correspondence, &e., in relation to the proceedings for the extradition of one John Francis Gaynor, and one Benjamin D. Greene.	,
He said : Mr. Speaker, I shall reserve any remarks I have to make on this subject until the papers are produced.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Copies of all contracts, agreements, deeds, correspondence, documents and papers In connection with the establishment in the city of Quebec of a factory for the manufacture of rifles, by Sir Charles Ross, or by Sir Charles Ross and others.-Mr. Casgrain.
Copies of all correspondence relating to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.- Mr. Bourassa, by Mr. Monet.
Copies of all correspondence exchanged since last session between the Canadian government and the British authorities on the subject of the embargo on Canadian cattle.-Mr. Bourassa by Mr. Monet.
Copies of all correspondence exchanged between the Canadian government and the British government on the subject of the organization of a naval school, of training-vessels, and of a naval reserve in Canada.

Mr. Bourassa by Mr. Monet.
Copy of the full and each partial report of half-breed commissions for each of their sittings since the first of January, 1900.
Also, a list of all applications made for scrip, names and residence of applicants whose applications have been received ; and class of scrip issued in each case.
Also, a list of all applications made for scrip, names and residence of applicants whose applications were not accepted ; and the reason or reasons for refusing the same.

Mr. LaRividre.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I beg to move that the House do nowi adjourn. It was stated the other day on my behalf by my hon friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) that it was the intention of the government to give the explanations with regard to recent changes of the cabinet to-morrow. But I understand that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) will be absent to-morrow. If convenient to him, and also to my hon. friend the member for St. Mary's Division, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte), I shall give the explanation on Wednesday.


Robert Laird Borden: That will be quite convenient, so far as I am concerned.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: And also so far as I am concerned.


LIEUTENANT GOVERNORSHIP OF ONTARIO.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: Before the motion to adjourn is adopted, I would call the attention of the right hon. the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to the present condition with regard to the Lieutenant Governorship of my own province, Ontario. To-day, a great political crisis exists there, and his Honour the Lieutenant Governor is ill and unable to discharge the functions of his office. It is essential that we should have a Lieutenant Governor in the full vigour of his powers at this moment. The discussion as it comes up before the House there-
'Mr. SPEAKER. I call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that on the motion to adjourn which has now been made by the Prime Minister, discussion can only take place on the question whether we should now adjourn or not. The question which; the hon. gentleman wants to discuss



now, I think is not in order. Such a question could be brought up by special motion for an adjournment, made for that special purpose, but it cannot be brought up on the present motion to adjourn.


William Findlay Maclean: I think I will be within the courtesy of the House when I point out that there was no order on the Orders of the Day which would enable me to bring up this question. It is a matter of emergency, the Lieutenant Governor is unable to discharge the functions of his office, and the discussion now on in the Ontario Legislature turns on an issue that he may have to decide. I think in view of the fact that his term of office has expired, and that he is unable to discharge the duties of his office, the government should appoint another gentleman to fill the position.


The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: In answer to my hon. friend I have only to say that I do not think he has warrant for stating that the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario is unable to discharge his duties. It is a purely gratuitous insinuation, to say the least of it. The Lieutenant Governor of Ontnario is not physically strong enough to go out of his house, but apart from his physical infirmity, his mind is clear, and his judgment is just as good as ever, and his faculties are entirely unimpaired. I would say moreover that in view of the distinguished career of Sir Oliver Mowat and the high functions he has discharged, it would perhaps be more becoming on the part of any hon. gentleman in this House to speak of 'him only in a respectful manner.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order.


William Findlay Maclean: I think the House will allow me to answer the insinuation made by the right hon. gentleman. I have not spoken disrespectfully of the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. I have as much respect for him as has the right hon. gentleman.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order. The hon. gentleman has only a right to make a personal explanation.


William Findlay Maclean: I wish to make such explanation now. The leader of this House has questioned my conduct in bringing this matter before the House, and has said that I reflected on the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. I have not. I am dealing with the office of the Lieutenant Governor, and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario to-day is not accessible to the people of Ontario.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order, order.


William Findlay Maclean: He is not able to discharge his duties-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order, order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: 


William Findlay Maclean: And it is in the public interest that this question should be brought before the House.


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).: I desire to call the attention of the right hon. premier to the fact, in view of what has been stated by him in answer to the hon member for East York (Mr. Maclean), that the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario was not able to open the legislature the other day, and his duties had to be performed by a substitute in the person of the Chief Justice of the province of Ontario. Under these circumstances I think it was quite proper that the premier's attention should be called to the fact that another Lieutenant Governor should be appointed.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand that the hon. member for East York cast the slightest reflection in the world on the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, and I think it was gratuitous on the part of the right hon. gentleman to suggest that he did so. What language of the hon. member for East York conveyed any such insinuation-was it the mere statement of the physical condition of Sir Oliver Mowat ? As you are aware, his condition has been announced by members of the family of the Lieutenant Governor, announced only a few days ago-


The PRIME MINISTER.: Nothing of the kind.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, I am speaking of a matter which I know. I am not making this statement without the book. I think I know about as much of what I am speaking as did the right hon. gentleman a moment ago when he spoke of the condition of the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. Every one respects that hon. gentleman, he has had a great career in public life in Canada, but surely it is no insult to him to say that his physical condition is not at the present time such as would enable him to discharge the very trying duties that possibly he may be called upon to discharge in the near future. No one supposes a statement of that kind involves any discredit to Sir Oliver Mowat.
I think the remarks of my right hon. friend were not in very good taste when he undertook to lecture the hon. member for East York as he did. Now, unless matters have changed a good deal within the last few days, it is certain that the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario iS) in a very week physical condition, there is no doubt about that. We are al sorry for it, we regret that it should be so, but our regret does not alter the fact. Under these circumstances, I consider the observations of my hon. friend from East York were pertinent and in perfect good taste, and I trust the government will take them into consideration.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I would ask the hon. leader of the opposition to remember that it is a reflection upon Sir Oliver Mowat to say that he would continue to occupy his position if he were unable to perform the duties of his office. My hon. friend says that a gentleman occupying the high position of Sir Oliver Mowat should not continue to occupy that position if he is unable to perform his duties. That seems to be a distinct reflection upon him. Either he is competent to discharge his duties and should continue in the office, or he is holding on to an office that he ought not to retain.


Robert Laird Borden: He might be physically so weak that he could not take the matter into consideration at all.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). It is another reflection on the Lieutenant Governor, I submit, to say that he is holding on to the office under these circumstances.


Mr. LEIGHTON MCCARTHY (North Sim-coe).: The leader of the opposition said he was speaking by the book when he said that Sir Oliver Mowat was in such a physical condition that in all probability he would not be able to perform the functions of his office.


Robert Laird Borden: I said I knew that he was physically very weak, and that it had been so announced in Toronto by members of his family.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: He is either in one condition or the other, either in a condition to discharge his duties, or in such a condition that he is not fit to discharge them. If he is in a condition which enables him to discharge his duties, there is no need of calling the attention of the House to the matter ; if he is in the other condition, then he is not fit to fulfil his public duties. I desire to say, speaking by the book, that I have been told by relative^ of the Lieutenant Governor that he is much better, that within the last three days his condition has improved, and that he has been writing letters, personal and otherwise, with his own hand. His condition is much improved from that which prevented him from opening the House last week.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 4.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 17, 1903.