1918-05-16

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery for the fiscal year ended March 31,	1917.-Hon. Mr. Burrell.
Return to order of the House with reference to the Imperial Royal Flying Corps in Canada and Returh to order of the House showing the status of Canadian recruits in the Royal Flying Corps.-Hon. Mr. Burrell.


[Stage Direction]
Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved that Bill No. 97, respecting the Halifax Relief Commission, be read the first time.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Explain.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: This Bill is merely to confirm certain legislation passed at the recent session of the Legislature of Nova Scotia.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. DOHERTY moved the first reading of Bill No. 98, to amend the Canadian Patriotic Fund Act, 1914.
Hon.   A@: Explain.


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: The Bill is simply to make clear that under the provisions of the Act incorporating the Canadian Patriotic Fund, the corporation body was to be entitled to distribute the funds among the relatives resident in Canada of soldiers forming part of our own forces or the Allied forces. Under the present reading of the statute, as the section is worded, it is open to the suggestion that this money is to be distributed among the relatives of soldiers resident, or who were resident, in Canada, when they enlisted, wherever those may be, and on the other hand that the relatives in Canada of soldiers who did not reside in Canada would not be entitled to be considered. The corporation always has acted on the interpretation that all relatives resident in Canada of soldiers actually fighting, are entitled to benefit; and they desire to have it made clear that that is the correct interpretation and the Act is for that purpose.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty, Bill No. 99, to amend the Act of the present session, intituled: "An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act," was read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 100, for the relief of David M. Sloss.-Mr. Copp.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Lillie Mabel Billing.-Mr. Mowat.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston)-: Has the Prime Minister sufficiently matured his plans to let us know on what day we may renew the debate on titles?
Robert Laird Borden: No, I have not come to a decision about that.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 76, for ithe relief of William Leo Walpole.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Mary Claire Dawson Hislop.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Martin Haf-ner.-Mr. H. A. Mackie.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Ida Sophia Wardell.-Mr. W. F. Maclean.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Edward David Hill.-Mr. Richardson.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Frederick Ernest Zang.-Mr. Redmond.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Thomas Bailey Wainwright.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Francis Newman.

Mr. Lalor.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Henry Ernest Saxby.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 90, respecting The Church and Manse Board of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.-Mr. Nickle.

[Stage Direction]
In Committee on Private Bills:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):: I notice that .an unusually large number of divorce Bills are before the House this year. A few days ago a judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court of Manitoba, in which, if I mistake not, it was declared that henceforth the courts of Manitoba could grant divorces; that under the British North America Act, as amended when Manitoba came into Confederation, the English law was, in certain circumstances, to obtain in that province, and with it the application of the English law on the annulment of marriages. I believe that that pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Manitoba has mot been challenged. The same assertion was made, I believe, by the courts in one of the other western provinces.
iSir ROBERT BORDEN: I think it was decided in the same way in Saskatchewan, judging from a press report.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I should like to have an expression of opinion from my right hon. friend with regard to this very important matter, because these decisions may alter completely our divorce proceedings in this Parliament. The opinion has been expressed in the other Chamber that larger powers should be conferred on the Senate with regard to the granting of divorces.


Robert Laird Borden: I know nothing of the decisions referred to except what has appeared in the public press. The Minister of Justice will doubtless be able to give some information on the subject after he has had opportunity of examining it. In four of the provinces, I believe- the Maritime Provinces and British Columbia-jurisdiction has hitherto been exercised by the courts in respect to the granting of divorces. So far as I know, jurisdiction in these provinces has never been

questioned. Similar jurisdiction is now asserted in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan. It would be a very desirable consummation if these matters could be referred to the courts.
It is obvious to every one, who is familiar with divorce proceedings as conducted in the Senate, and in the courts, that the public interest is much better conserved by having such matters dealt with in a judicial way. In ,a divorce court it is the duty of the presiding judge, in an undefended case, to appoint a King's proctor, -who is charged with taking up the defence and of making such inquiry, by cross-examination of witnesses, and so forth, as to assure himself that there is no collusion between the parties. Whether or not any proceeding of that kind is taken before the Senate Committee, I do not know, but if so it is of recent years, because formerly no such practice prevailed. Apart from that; divorce is a proper subject for judicial inquiry if it is to be dealt with at all. I venture to express the hope that, if jurisdiction has been asserted by the courts in the three western provinces, it may transpire that their decision is well founded. It may also be proper for this House to consider whether by some means the jurisdiction could be transferred to the courts of the other provinces of Canada. At all event?, whenever the Senate is to consider a divorce Bill, the evidence upon which that Bill is founded, should be taken before a judicial tribunal and not by a committee of the Senate. Let us assume that there is some insuperable obstacle to vesting this jurisdiction in the courts of Ontario and Quebec. Would it not be better to have the inquiry conducted by a judge, the evidence heard by him, and the determination upon that evidence reported by him, leaving to the Senate the final adjudication by Act of Parliament? We can all, I think, agree that the present system is highly unsatisfactory.


Wilfrid Laurier: As I understand the question, it is not exactly as the Prime Minister puts it. Under the Act of Confederation, the Parliament of Canada alone has the power to legislate upon divorce. There is no doubt at all that, upon_ the broad terms of the constitution of this country, this Parliament has the right to establish a divorce court or to give jurisdiction. But this Parliament has always refrained from exercising that jurisdiction, and consequently, the' practice has grown up of parties seeking divorce, and who can not ob-
[Sif Robert Borden.]	-
tain it in their own province, coming to this Parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: Just as used to be the case in Great Britain.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly, and that will be the case here until there is a divorce court established. The other question to which my right hon. friend referred is, as I understand it, that the province of Manitoba and also the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta claim they have_the right to establish divorce courts.


Robert Laird Borden: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand the province of Manitoba claims its own courts have jurisdiction to decide divorce cases. If that is the situation, there is only one question at the present time. If any province which established its constitution at the time of Confederation has not the power to give its courts jurisdiction to grant divorces, have the new provinces now the power to give their courts jurisdiction to grant divorces? That is the question to-day, and it can, of course, be decided only by the supreme judicial authority, and the sooner there is a concrete case decided m regard to this point, the better it will be. If it be determined by the supreme judicial authority that the new provinces created since Confederation have the power to have divorces granted by their own courts, that wid simplify the question very much so far as the divorce business of this Parliament is concerned.


Robert Laird Borden: Would not my right hon. friend think it better to have those matters determined by ia judicial inquiry rather than by the Senate?


Wilfrid Laurier: Here is a
province which asserts- that it has, under the constitution, the authority to have its own courts decide these matters. If that he so, the question of the interpretation of the constitution ought to be. determined before any other proceeding is taken.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think anybody contends that the province of Manitoba can create a divorce court. I think the contention is that the divorce court is already there, and there as a consequence of what this Parliament has done, whether it so intended or not.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING:: As a layman, may I venture to give an expression- of opinion? Not only has Manitoba declared its power in the matter; it has done more,

it has exercised that power, (because it has recently 'granted a divorce, and I believe it is claimed that, under similar legislation, Saskatchewan and Alberta may do the same thing. I am one of those who have long felt it would be better if we could have one general divorce court for the' whole Dominion. I think we can all agree that the manner in which divorce cases are dealt with by this Parliament is not at all in accordance with, shall I say, moral conditions, nor in accordance with sound legislation. If we cannot have a general divorce court, might it not be a wise course for the Government to say that, wherever there is a divorce court clearly established in a province, the parties in that province shall go to that court? That would reduce the duties of this Parliament to the exercise of the functions of a divorce court only for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, until the good day shall come when even those provinces will be allowed to dispose of those matters in a better way.



REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the War Purchasing Commission, for the year ended March 31, 1918.-Sir Robert Borden.
THE YUKON ELECTION:

[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called for the consideration of the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, covering the Yukon election.
Mr. T. M. M. TWEEDTE (West Calgary):: Although I was a member of the committee which dealt with the question of the Yukon election, and although that committee by a majority of one supported the motion of the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) I cannot concur in the report which the committee has presented to the House.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the intention of the hon. member to submit a motion?


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Yes. The question which was really before the committee was in connection with the counting of the overseas vote for the Yukon constituency, in which Mr. F. T. Congdon and Dr. Alfred Thompson were the candidates. The general nomination day in the ridings throughout the Dominion of Canada in the last election was the nineteenth day of November, and polling day was on the seventeenth day of December. There was a deferred election in the Yukon, and under
the Act, December 31, 1917, was fixed as nomination day, and January 28, 1918, as polling day. After the election had been held in the Yukon, Mr. Congdon through his agents served notice of protest on the General Returning Officer at Ottawa, forbidding him to count the overseas vote, Mr. 'Congdon then having a majority of 110 on the home vote. The Returning Officer referred the matter to the Governor in Council, and an Order in Council was passed on the 26th February, and pursuant to that Order in Council, the record was submitted to the House for consideration. After the record had been submitted to the House the following motion Was passed:
That the special return of the General Returning Officer to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for Canada concerning the election of a candidate to serve in the House of Commons for the Yukon Territory, he referred to the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections with power and authority to consider the same and the several documents therein alluded and to report their conclusion and their determination thereon to this House.
That limited the reference to the committee to the record >as submitted to the House, and there was no question of going beyond the limits of that reference and considering extraneous matter. So the question really before the committee was whether or not the overseas vote, which amounted to 256 for Thompson and 28 for Congdon, should be counted, thereby determining who should be entitled to sit for the Yukon. When the matter came before the Committee on Privileges and Elections it was thought desirable by all the members that both parties should have the privilege of appearing and consequently adjournments of the committee were had from time to time to give Mr. Congdon the opportunity of appearing and presenting fully his side of the case in connection with the election. It was generally understood, I believe, when these adjournments were made from time to time, that after Mr. Congdon had presented his case to the members of the committee, that committee itself would settle the question at issue. But, instead of arriving at a conclusion, as they were instructed to do by the order of this House, by a resolution which was adopted and reported to this House, and which reads as follows:
Resolved, that a stated case be prepared and submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, or to any two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, for decision.
-the committee shifts to an outside jurisdiction the responsibility which was placed upon it by this House.

Once having assumed the obligation of disposing of the Yukon case, it is my opinion that it should be disposed of by that committee, and that the matter should not be kept dragging along from time to time. If it is to be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, or to two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, it simply means that the parties have to appear before some tribunal and state their case. They asked for an opportunity of stating their case before the Committee on Privileges and Elections and by frequent adjournments they were enabled to do that. After they have done that, it is my opinion that the committee should dispose of the matter one way or the other and report their findings on the question of fact to this House so that it may be finally disposed of.,
But, assuming, for the purposes of argument, that there may be ground upon which the contention of the mover of the resolution in the committee may be based, I submit that the resolution as it has been submitted to this House is impracticable 'because, if you will notice carefully the wording of the resolution, it says:
That a stated case be prepared and submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, or to any two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, for decision.
We will take the first words of the mover of that resolution, " a stated case." He is a good lawyer; he has had experience upon the bench of Nova Scotia, and he knows, as well as I know, what is meant by a stated case. It is the submission of a set of facts, or a set of questions, which must be agreed to by the parties themselves who are interested in these facts, for decision by a tribunal in the province in which the case *arises. When the hon. gentleman says "a stated case" he makes no suggestion as to who shall prepare such case and he makes no suggestion as to who shall be allowed to become parties to it. He takes out of their hands the rights to which they are entitled as a matter of ordinary statute law in any province of the Dominion. Does he suggest that the committee should state that case? Does he suggest that the members of the House of Commons should state that case? Does he suggest that the Governor in Council should state that case He makes absolutely no suggestion whatever in regard to the preparation of the stated case, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is beyond the power of this House to prepare any stated case for any court or for any judges in the Dominion.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I did suggest-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think it is necessary to tell' me to sit down. I wish to remind my hon. friend (Mr. Tweedie) that I suggested in the committee that a subcommittee of the committee should prepare a stated case. Perhaps it escaped the ear of my hon. friend, but that is what I suggested.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: There was a resolution directing that the evidence be printed and submitted to this House, and I submit that we are bound by the record as it appears here and by the resolution as it appears in the Votes and Proceedings. Then, we come to the second question. He says that a "stated case shall be prepared and submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, or to any two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, for decision." My language on that point, if I cared to make it so, might perhaps be stronger than the occasion warrants. But think of a member of the House of Commons, in his place, moving that this question shall be submitted first to the Supreme Court of the Dominion of Canada, a body in which we are supposed to have the most eminent jurists in this country, or, in the alternative, to two judges of the province of Ontario. He practically says: "I would just as soon have the judgment of two judges of the province Of Ontario on this question as the judgment of the whole Supreme Court of Canada." We must feel that this is more or less of an insult to the Supreme Court of this country to put it in contrast with two judges of the province of Ontario. Passing from the judges of the Supreme Court and the two judges of the province of Ontario, what justification is there for presenting to this House any resolution which would remove the consideration of this important question from the jurisdiction in which the question arises, namely, the jurisdiction of the Yukon Territory? Are these men to be brought from the Yukon Territory down to Ottawa, or Toronto, when it is purely a Yukon matter, and when, under the 'Controverted Elections Act, the 'Supreme Court of the Yukon Territory has jurisdiction? If the hon. gentleman wishes to be absolutely fair, and to be bound by the principles of law in regard to 'this question, I submit to the members of this House that there is absolutely no justification [DOT] whatever for removing either one of the parties from the

jurisdiction of the court in which the question (before the House arises.
I think that this is a matter which should be disposed of by a committee of this House. I further think that if it is not so disposed of there is no authority whereby the members of this House can submit this case to the Supreme Court of Canada, or to any two judges in Ontario. If they do, it spems to me that they must stretch the Supreme Court Act to an extent which was never contemplated by the framers of that Act. If they could possibly get it in under section 60 it would have to come in under subsection (b) of the Supreme Court Act, which reads i
Important questions of law or fact touching:-[DOT]
(b)	the constitutionality or interpretation of any Dominion or provincial legislation
It seems to me that we are not concerned in this case with any important question of law or fact touching the constitutionality or interpretation of the statutes under which elections are held. I submit that under the Act the principle upon which soldiers shall cast their vote is clearly laid down. I .submit that the time in which that vote must be cast is clearly stated in the Military Voters' Act and that there is no 'question of constitutionality and no question of interpretation. We must take that Act and read it as we find it and if we do not, then we must (be men enough to say whether or not the votes of these men overseas are going to he counted either for Dr. Thompson or foT Mr. F. T. Congdon.
For these Teasons I am going to ask this House to refer' the matter back to the committee, and I ask that in accordance with the principle which is laid down in the 3rd edition of Bourinot's Parliamentary Practice, at page 556, and which reads:
A report may be referred back to a committee for further consideration, or with instructions giving them power to amend the same in any respect. In this way a committee may regularly reconsider and even reverse a decision it has previously arrived at.
If my hon. friends have concluded that they have arrived-at a decision, which |Oon-clusion I do not concur in, the matter still should be referred back to' the committee, who have absolute power to deal with it in any manner they see fit. Therefore, for the purpose of bringing this matter to an issue I would move:
That the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be not concurred in, hut that it be referred back to the said Committee for further consideration and to report thereon.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: I want
to present the case to the House, not in
any legal way at all, but simply for the purpose of appealing to the sense of justice of hon. members, and also to their sense of fairness. Let me begin by stating that if there was delay in the consideration of this case by the Committee on Privileges and Elections, it was not due to any fault on the part of either of the parties concerned, nor was it due to any fault on the part of the members of the committee. My hon. friend (Mr. Tweedie), should not complain of this, because at the meeting of the committee which took place on Tuesday, April 21, according to the printed report of the proceedings of the committee, he first of all moved a motion and then withdrew it. Here is what the hon. gentleman said:
I will withdraw the motion I made and substitute the following:
That this Committee adjourn until eleven o'clock, on Thursday, May 2nd, and if at that time Mr. Congdon has not left the city of Vancouver for Ottawa, then this Committee should proceed to dispose of the case in his absence.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In his absence?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Yes.
If he has left then we will have a reasonable adjournment to allow him to get to the city of Ottawa.
That motion was carried.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I would like to make an explanation. I made no complaint whatever. I think the committee only acted fairly in adjourning from time to time to allow the interested parties to appear before them.	'


Rodolphe Lemieux: Against the wishes of the hon. gentleman?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I moved the resolution.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I am saying this in fairness to the hon. member. I am not complaining, of his attitude at all, I simply want to show that the committee used all diligence in proceeding. Again on May 2, Mr. Tweedie moved:
That the Committee adjourn until Tu'esday morning next at ten-thirty o'clock, and then proceed to the consideration of the matter referred to.
That motion also was carried. That brought us up to the meeting of Tuesday, May 7, when Mr. Congdon was present, and the case was proceeded with. I mention this en passant, Mr. Speaker, in order to show that there was no fault to be found on account of the delays occasioned in the

consideration of this case. The proceedings went on equitably and with all due haste. The consideration of the Yukon election was taken in different phases, and I am not going to review those phases. I merely want to point out that both candidates seemed to agree upon one thing: That the nomination papers were not to be held for any further consideration by the committee, but that they were to be accepted, the whole case then being reduced to a point of law as to whether the votes cast by the soldiers overseas should be considered in the election or not. Those members of the committee who are now present will, I think, bear me out in that statement. Nominations for the Yukon took place on December 31, 1917, and the polling day was fixed for January 28, 1918. It was contended by Mr. Congdon that any votes that were given before the day of nomination should not be counted in the election, and he supported his contention by citing different sections of the Elections Act, and notably of the Military Voters' Election Act, laying stress particularly upon section 6, and subsection 1 of section 8, the section reading:
That at the expiration of the time'for nominating the candidatesthat is to say at the expiration of the 31st of December. 1917. And then section 8:
Polls shall he held in such camps or other places in Canada or elsewhere, as shall be assigned to the charge of presiding officers for the purposes of this part. Those held without Canada shall be maintained open during such sufficient number of days and during such hours as military exigencies will permit, but so that no polling shall commence before the day following that of the nomination of candidates, nor continue after eight o'clock of the evening of the day for holding the poll within Canada.
Let me again read the last words of the section just quoted:
but so that no polling shall commence before the day following that of the nomination of candidates?
The nomination of candidates, I repeat, was on December 31st, 1917, and according to the Military Voters' Act, no polling of the soldiers could take place before the day following that of the nomination of candidates. There are certain exceptions to this, and notably in the case of emergencies. Subsection 5 of the said clause 8 reads:
In any ease where, for any reason, unless the vote of a military elector is immediately taken it is likely that he may not subsequently be able to vote, the Deputy Presiding Officer may take such vote otherwise than at a formally held poll, but such vote shall be so taken

in the presence of the Deputy Scrutineers, or failing either or both, of a military elector, or .two military electors, who shall, together with the Deputy Presiding Officer, sign upon the envelope in which the ballot is inserted a certificate that the vote was taken under this subsection, and the reasons which made it necessary.
In the opinion of the majority of the members of the Committee, the whole question then resolved itself into this simple legal question: Are the votes cast prior to nomination day for the Yukon, to be considered as votes cast in that election? In order to do justice to born candidates, the majority of the committee decided that, as it was purely a legal question, the matter should be referred in a stated case to the Supreme Court oif Canada for decision, My hon. friend from North Cape Breton {Mr. McKenzie) moved that a subcommittee should draft the stated case to be presented to the Supreme Court. I do not wish to enter more fully into this question; I simply desire to. submit the matter to the House in fairness and justice to the people of Canada who are concerned in the election of a candidate to represent one of the constituencies of this Dominion, and in justice also to the two candidates themselves. Neither the one nor the other has any advantage to gain by referring the matter to the Supreme Court; neither the one nor the other is under any disadvantage through the fact that the Supreme Court, being a judicial body, accustomed to decide questions of law, will decide the one question that was up before the committee as to whether the votes cast before nomination day in the Yukon Territory should be considered or not. And for that purpose, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move in amendment to the motion of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie), seconded by the hon. member for North Cape Breton:
That all the words after "that" be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:
That this House concurs in the said resolution of the Committee on Privileges and Elections presented to the House on the 13th day of May, concerning the election of a candidate to serve in the House of Commons for the Yukon Territory; that a stated case be prepared and submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, or to any two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, for decision.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not had opportunity to consider whether the amendment is of the nature of a negative motion. I reserve the right to determine subsequently whether it is in order or not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I shall be very brief in second-

ing the amendment of the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin). Perhaps I might, in the first instance, answer briefly the mover of the motion (Mr. Tweedie). He suggested that I had no business to -move that this pure question of law should be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, and particularly that I had no right to say that, it dt did not go to the Supreme Court of Canada it should go to two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario. I do not know what the hon. member means by saying that I was trying to draw an insulting comparison between the Supreme Court of Canada and two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario. Nothing could be further from my mind than to suggest such thing. The Supreme Court of Canada is par excellence the court to which any question of law which this Parliament wants decided should go. There is no question about that. I am asked why I suggested two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario. The reason is that ordinarily any person who complains about an election has a right to petition, and by this petition he gets the benefit of the decision of two judges of the Supreme Court of a province. If he belongs to Ontario, or if the case is to be tried in the province of Ontario, he gets the benefit of the judicial knowledge of two judges of the Supreme Court of that province. That is why it seemed to me that if it was thought best to proceed along the line of a petition, it should go to the Supreme Court of the nearest and most convenient province. I did say in Committee that I was perfectly satisfied that it should go to the Yukon if they had judges there competent to deal with it, but that I thought it would be more convenient to submit the facts and argue the case before judges in Ottawa or Toronto, or some place close at hand, than to send men out to the Yukon to argue the case. That is the reason I suggested that the case should go forward to such a court as would be capable of dealing with it if it were proceeded with as a petition.
The submission by Parliament of questions of law to judges is not a new practice. It is an old practice in England, where the House of Commons and the House of Lords for many years have been in the habit of drafting questions of law difficult for them to decide and sending them down to judges of High Courts in England. The same practice is in vogue here. And where there is a question that is purely one of law, I submit to every sensible man in this House that the place to decide that question of law is a court properly constituted for that purpose. I have every respect, Sir, for the judgment and decision and conscientious beliefs and scruples of every man in this House. But we are in a House divided into two camps politically; we are a partisan body; we cannot escape from it. There may be a few here who are not partisans, but taking the House as a whole, it is a partisan body, and I am sure, Sir, that you and any reasonable man in this House will agree that a partisan body is not the proper court or -institution to which to submit the deciding of a cold-blooded proposition of what the law is upon any given point. I felt that the same ideas and the same condition of things existed in the committee to which this matter was submitted, and I moved, therefore, on that occasion that it be taken out of the realm of party politics and sent where there would be no politics, and where the question of law would be dealt with purely and simply as the highest court in the land can deal with it.
The hon. member for Calgary seemed to express a doubt as to whether-we have jurisdiction to send this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. Of course, the House, as such, may not do so, although I think it is easily within the inference. But Section 60 of the Supreme Court Act, Chapter 139 of the Revised Statutes of Canada deals with questions of this kind. There are several things that we can submit to the Supreme Court of Canada. One is:
The interpretation of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1886.
Another is:
The constitutionality or interpretation of any Dominion or provincial legislation.
Even if the section went no further than this, we could very well send this matter to the Supreme Court for decision. But it proceeds:
(c)	the appellate jurisdiction as to educational matters, hy The British North America Act, 1S67, or by any other Act or law vested in the Governor in Council; or,
(d)	the powers of the Parliament of Canada, or of the legislatures of the provinces, or of the respective Governments thereof, whether or not the particular power in question has been or is proposed to be executed.
If under these provisions of the law any doubt exists as to our power to refer this matter to the Supreme Court, surely the following subsection is sufficiently sweeping:
(e)	any other matter, whether or not in the opinion of the court ejusdem generis with the foregoing enumerations, with -reference to which the Governor in Council sees fit to submit any such question.

Under this provision the Governor in Council has wide power to submit to the Supreme court any question which should properly be decided by that body. I think that I have made it clear, therefore, that the Governor in Council has power and authority to submit this particular question to the Supreme Court. In any case, it should be submitted to some court satisfactory to the House and to the Governor in Council. I simply want to have a judi

cial finding upon a matter which is purely a question of law. The Prime Minister said this morning that in divorce cases it was unsatisfactory that questions of fact should be determined by the Senate or by any political body. If it is undesirable to try questions of fact or of law before a political body such as the Senate or this House,	it	is equally	undesirableto try	a	question of	this- kind.
While we have no power to send divorce cases to the Supreme Court of Canada, we we have power to refer to them a political question of this kind. When we did have jurisdiction to deal with thesei political questions-perhaps we have it yet-that jurisdiction was not vested in such a committee as we had the other day. As early as 1873 the then great leader of the Conservative party, Sir John A. Macdonald, as may be seen by reference to Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, introduced an Act into the House taking the jurisdiction in this matter entirely out of the realm of polities and placing it in the hands of the judges. Since I became a member of this House I have heard no hint of any such thing as an election trial before this House. If any such trials -have taken place since 1873, I am not familiar with them. The feeling has been that the House should not try questions of law such as arise in election cases, but refer them to a competent court for decision.
Some hon. gentlemen may say that the case is plain; why should it not be decided on the spot? My answer is this: if this *were a simple proposition, the Governor in Council, a body composed of very excellent lawyers, would at once direct the general returning officer to decide the case without delay. But they deemed the question of sufficient importance to cause them to issue an injunction to the general returning officer, instructing him not to decide the question. Mr. O'Connor, the general returning officer, is a good lawyer who has had a good deal of experience at the bar of Nova Scotia and has dealt with many fMr. McKenzie.]
intricate cases. He is well known to some of the members of Council, particularly to the Prime Minister. But it was deemed advisable to estop that gentleman from deciding this point, and to send it here to be dealt with. It is a pity that at the very outset this case was not sent to the court instead of this House. But if an error was made in sending it here, we have not yet gone too far; we should take the earliest opportunity of sending it to a proper court for decision. The member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) made a remark the other night-page 1815 of Hansard-which emphasizes what I mean when I say that this is not a proper court to try such cases. He said:
I would form my opinion to some extent on the past history of the applioant, his or lier experience, and the work that he or she had done, and the efficiency displayed in the particular branch in which the party had been engaged. If I were to undertake to give an opinion on a lawsuit, for instance, as to the grounds for submitting a case to the Court of Appeal, I would probably make a fool of myself.	.
That is what one of the brightest men in this House said about departing from his own sphere and passing judgment on something which his experience and training did not qualify him to decide. We should all be pleased that there is a court to which we can with confidence appeal concerning this point of law. Both sides will have full opportunity of arguing the matter. If the Supreme Court of Canada or two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario decide that although one or other of these gentlemen was not nominated when the votes were cast, nevertheless the ballots should be counted one way or the other, then the person in whose favour that decision is given may be declared elected by the returning officer, and that will be an end to the whole business. No matter how we decide the point in this House, the decision will be looked upon with ridicule as a partisan one. The proper, the logical, the fair thing for this House to do is to refer to the Supreme Court the record, without change, as it has been handed down by the general returning officer, Mr. O'Connor. Then the decision will be regarded by all as satisfactory ; the procedure will be fair and constitutional, and a precedent will be established which may safely be followed in future. I have much pleasure in seconding the amendment.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, the subject be-

fore the House is one with which I have some familiarity by reason of my attending on the Privileges and Elections Committee which has had the matter under review, but which has not finally dealt with it. My opinion is that the motion of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) should carry, and indeed, if this House is to dispose, of the subject at all, his motion must carry. It is agreed by hon. gentlemen opposite who support the amendment that there was submitted to the Privileges aqd Elections Committee-to use the adjective of the preceding speaker (Mr. McKenzie)
*-a pure, cold-blooded question of law for decision, and that the committee declined to accept the task and recommended that it be committed elsewhere. I do not so regard the situation. There came before the Governor in Council a special report from the general returning officer, referring certain matters connected with the discharge of his duty in relation to the Yukon election to the consideration of Council, and referring Council to certain representations that had been made by Mr. Congdon, one of the candidates in the Yukon, to the effect that certain of the votes that had been cast in that election should not be counted in determining the results. The general returning officer's report was, on motion of the Prime Minister, submitted to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration and determination, and for a report thereon to Parliament. I draw the attention of the House specially to the submission to the committee as passed by this House:
Ordered, That the Special Return of the General Returning Officer to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for Canada concerning the election of a candidate to serve in the House of Commons for the Yukon Territory he referred to the Select -Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections with power and authority to consider the same and the several documents therein alluded to and to report their conclusion and determination thereon to this House.
That was the duty of the Privileges and Elections Committee.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: If the minister was referring to me a moment ago, in saying that I made a statement that the only question which was submitted to the committee was a cold-blooded question of law, I think he misunderstood me. What I said was that the consideration of the whole question resolved itself into this-whether the soldiers' votes overseas should be counted or not.


Arthur Meighen: I did not refer to the hon. member. I gave the distinction of the
use of that adjective to the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie).


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: He is able to take care of himself.	.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps I did not express myself clearly, but what I meant to say was that that was what the question resolved itself into; that was the result of it; that the question to be decided by the Committee was a question of law.


Arthur Meighen: Those are precisely the words I attributed to the hon. member, and that is precisely why I take exception.


Mr. MURPHY:: At what page is to be found the order which the minister has just read?


Arthur Meighen: At page 1 of the Proceedings of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. In pursuance of that committment of a clear and specific duty, there was carried in the Privileges and Elections Committee and reported to this House, a resolution recommending that the duty imposed upon them by this Parliament should be shifted from their shoulders to the Supreme Court of Canada, or to two judges of a court of Ontario, for determination upon a stated case. On the ground taken by the hon. member for West Calgary that the Teport of the committee is in no sense a discharge of the duty imposed upon it by this House, the only course left open to this House is to refer the matter back to. that committee that it may discharge the duty imposed upon it by this House. Any other course is to depart from the stand taken by this House when that motion was passed. Either the House made a mistake when it took that stand and must now retract its position, modify its position, acknowledge its error, and settle the matter over again, or it must recommit to the Privileges and Elections Committee the duty which this House committed to it.
Was it right that Parliament should commit the adjudication of this matter to the committee? I think it was right, for the reason that the task of the committee is not by any means 6olely the determination of a question of law. The task of the committee is much larger than that. If it were solely a question of law, even then committees of this House have time and again (questions of law and also questions of fact to determine. Questions involving both law and fact are time and again before committees of this House for determination and they are determined as beet the committees can. But this is a threadbare, cold-



iblooded question of law and nothing else. There is a question of law involved, it is true; part of the question is a question of law. I shall see if I can define to the iHouse this fine, hair-splitting question of law.
Mr. M e-CEE A: The minister is well qualified to do .so.


Arthur Meighen: The question is as to whether or not the term "nomination" day in the Military Voters' Act means the nomination day in each of the several constituencies, or means the general nomination day of Canada; whether or not the intention of Parliament was that the voters overseas should toe all voted together in their respective constituencies- at the same time over the same month, or whether they should (be parted into camps and: some voted in one period in one election and some in another, depending altogether when the vote should take place in the constituency in which they exercise their franchise. I was present when the Military Voters' Act was before this House; many other hon. members also- were here, and I would like hon. gentlemen to search the records of Hansard and ascertain wherever -a dioutot arose in the fertile brains of any member of this House as to whether or not the vote o-f the soldiers overseas was all to be taken, at the same time. Nobody ever questioned the thing; but it is contended- I shall not say rightly or wrqngly, although I have an opinion-that according to the strict interpretation of the rules of law, *the law is, that unless the overseas votes -of a special constituency, namely the Yukon constituency, were taken after the day of nomination in that constituency, which day was the 29th of- December, long after the whole general votes were taken overseas, then tho-se votes could not be counted at all. It is argued, in support of that, that, inasmuch as they were taken previously, commencing on the day of the general nomination, the 19th of November, those overseas voters had voted without a full knowledge, -a-t all events without official knowledge, of the candidates for whom they were voting. When I say that, I think I have said, in favour of the merits of contention, everything which has a right to consideration. That is a question of law; that may be called a cold-blooded question of law, and if there ever was something cold-blooded, in the nature of the legal interpretation, I think it is that.
But there i-s more than -that involved; there is involved the question of right and

justice; there is the question of the intent of Parliament, whatever be the specific interpretation of ,the law. There is the question of what, if that is the law, it is the duty of this Parliament to do in relation to the votes so cast. Was that duty not committed -to the committee? If it should be found, On a cold-blooded question of law, that the correct interpretation w-as that these votes must be all disregarded, was it not the duty of the committee to determine whether or not Parliament should allow that evidence to go forward and deny the franchise to one-fifth of the electorate of that constituency, o-r whether it was the duty of this House -to give to these men the franchise that it was within their power to exercise?
It has been argued on the part of some, as I stated before, that these men did not know officially who the candidates were, and that may be -quite correct. It is argued cu the part of others that these men knew vho the Government was, and who the Opposition was, and knew what the issue cf the election was, and to the utmost of the power reposed in them, under the law of Canada, exercised the franchise which was given to them; and if it should be found, in the determination of the law alone, that because they voted before the twenty-ninth day of December their votes should1 not be counted, then we would have to decide whether that was sufficient reason for the Parliament of Canada to say to them: "Because you voted without knowing who the candidates were we will legalize the franchise you exercised1 so far as it was in your power to exercise it." They voted for the Government or for the Opposition; they voted for or against the issue of conscription; they exercised the franchise to the full extent it was in their power to exercise it when they cast their ballot, and if we decide that having done so there is a legal objection to counting the votes, then what is the duty of Parliament in the premises? Is it the duty of Parliament to legalize those votes, or shall we say that on account of the fault of Parliament these men shall remain disfranchised throughout the life of this Parliament? That was the question submitted for determination to the Privileges and Election Committee by a resolution of this House. The Privileges and Elections Committee have made no report on that question at all, but on the motion of an hon. member of -the committee it was decided without discussion, and I blame no one for that, simply to refer the coldblooded question of law to the Supreme

207i5
Court of Canada or to two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario.
Now in the first place the only way to submit a stated case, as was very clearly explained by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Tweedde), is for all the parties interested in that case to agree upon a wording, and then lay the case before the tribunal for determination. Who are all the parties interested in this case? Are they only the late hon. member for the Yukon, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Congdon, the Opposition candidate. Is nobody else interested? Are the people of the territory itself not interested, irrespective entirely of the personal rights of these m.en? Are the voters overseas, some 325 men, not interested, entirely irrespective of the rights of Mr. Congdon and Mr. Thompson? Are they not to be represented in making a stated case to the Supreme Court or to two judges Of the Supreme Court of Ontario? And if they are to be represented, how are they to be represented, and who is to decide that matter? None of these questions are dealt with in this Teport. Furthermore, I contend that even if this House had adopted the report and went further, and did what the committee refused to do laid out the machinery by which this stated case would be prepared, and had the matter submitted to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would be compelled to decide they had no jurisdiction to try the case at all. From no other source can the Supreme Court have jurisdiction except from the common law of Canada and the statute law, and I argue that neither common law nor statute law gives the Supreme Court any jurisdiction to hear and determine a report from a committee of Parliament.
I do not think any elaboration of my own opinion would be very convincing to the House on a matter of this nature, but I take the liberty of quoting the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice on this point, which is to the effect that neither the Supreme Court of Canada nor any two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario would have power to hear and determine such a matter, merely upon its submission by this House, as the report of the Privileges and Elections Committee. The opinion is contained in a memorandum to the Prime Minister dated May 15 and is as follows:
The Select Standing Committee of the Houses of Commons on Privileges and Elections, upon reference of the special return of the General Returning Officer to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery concerning the Yukon election, recom-
131i	I !*;	'
mends that a stated case be prepared and submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, or to any two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, for decision.
Obviously such a reference may be made only if it be within the jurisdiction of the court or the judges, either inherently or by statute, to determine upon such a reference the question submitted by the stated case. Now there can be no doubt til'it it is not at common law a part of the duty of the courts, or the judges, to determine questions referred by a committee of the House of Commons.
It is provided by the Supreme Court Act, section 61 that the court, or any two judges thereof shall examine and report upon any private Bill or petition for a private Bill presented to the Senate or House of Commons, and referred to the court under any rules or orders made by the Senate or House of Commons.
This section describes a jurisdiction somewhat analogous to that which the House of Lords exercises to put questions of law to the judges, the answer to which may be necessary to the House in its legislative capacity. The House of Lords also in its judicial capacity may consult the judges, but that power is exercised only for the purpose of obtaining advice with respect to the disposition of pending cases, and as to this the jurisdiction is different from any which is possessed by either House of Parliament in Canada. With respect to advice upon legislative questions the judges in England, as the cases show, have been very careful to confine their answers to the strict legal construction of existing statutes, and they have asked to be excused from answering questions which go beyond this. It will be perceived, however, that section 61 of the Supreme Court Act falls far short of enabling a committee of the House of Commons to submit a stated case with regard to an election return, and, except for section 61, there is no legislation authorizing the court or the judges to advise the House, or any committee. The business of the court is to determine questions raised between parties impleaded in judicial proceedings, and moreover no doubt to execute any judicial duty which may he imposed by statute but as the proceeding recommended by the committee is entirely novel and not within any jurisdiction which the court possesses, it is out of question that the court would decline to adjudicate upon any case submitted by the committee, or by the House upon the recommendation of the committee, and I apprehend that the only way m wnirh the committee's recommendation could he made effective would he by statute imnosing a new duty upon the court.
Words could not be clearer as to the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear such a commitment did this Parliament adopt the report. So upon the score of that the court suggested would have no jurisdiction whatever to determine the issue if it were committed to it, on the score, secondly, that there is no method of putting the case to the court if they had jurisdiction, and on the score, thirdly, and most strongly of all, that it is the duty of a committee of this House to discharge an obligation imposed upon them by this

House and not to seek to evade that charge, and because this House is bound in justice to itself not to evade its duty until it has exhausted all its powers under a committee, I think we ought to adopt the motion of the hon. member for Calgary and refer the matter back.


Mr. J. A. CAMPBELL:: I am somewhat removed from the Yukon, and have to rely mainly on newspaper reports, but I understand from those reports that there was no real issue in the election in that constituency, as both candidates stood on practically the same platform as supporters of conscription and Union Government. Perhaps the minister will say whether I am misinformed.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the matter raised by the hon. member should affect the case now before Parliament, but on that matter there are very conflicting opinions
Hon. W. iS. FIELDING: Mr. Speaker, if we were dealing with the merits of this question we might bring it home to ourselves, in one of our nearby constituencies, without going to the far-away Yukon. Suppose that on the 19th November in any constituency in Canada the nominations were being made and somebody should come up and say: " Look here, Mr. Returning Officer, we thought this election was going on some time ago; we held a meeting in our district, we have been doing some voting and we propose that you shall count the votes given some weeks ago when there were no candidates in the field." What would the returning officer say? Surely he would say at once : " There is no candidate in the field until the candidate is nominated, and when there is no candidate in the field, votes can hardly be counted in an election which comes on later." That seems to me to be reason and common sense. But we are not called upon in any degree to go into the merits of this question here because it seems to he rather a legal question. I was somewhat surprised) at the argument put up by the Hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) when he said the committee had no discretion in this matter. . We passed a resolution in this House referring the matter to a committee. I think I am justified in saying that in so doing we expressed no opinion at all. We simply referred this matter to the committee for inquiry and investigation. " No," says the Minister of the Interior, " we did not; we referred it to you with a command to

settle this question yourselves." Surely that cannot have been the spirit in which this House adopted the reference. Surely it was referred to the committee with the understanding that they should deal with it as they thought best. But even if there were that command given, even if they were instructed to inquire and come to a determination and if, in their judgment they should come to the conclusion that the matter was one which might properly be referred to the court, would they not be justified in reporting accordingly? Would my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior seriously claim that because of the words of the reference, because of the instructions that they were to inquire into the matter, and to reach a conclusion and report, they were thereby not permitted to make a report advising a reference to the court? 'The essence of this question, as between the two motions, seems to be this: The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) desires that the matter shall be .settled by the House and by a committee ot the House. He says that he desires to refer this matter back to the committee in order that the committee of the House may settle it at once. In other words, he does not want any legal reference at all. On the other hand, the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) has proposed that this matter be referred to the higher courts. The essence of the question is whether this House desires to settle this .thing itself or whether it desires to obtain a judicial opinion on a judicial matter. That seems to me to be the essence of the whole question. If the machinery .whereby that judicial tribunal is to be created is dieifective, by all means let us try to make it effective. The essence of . the whole question is: " Shall we deal with this matter in the House or by a judicial reference?" On that question I do not believe there should be any hesitation in the mind of any reasonable man. Parliament has a long history in Tegard to the question of the trial of controverted elections. Away hack in the early times of the House of Commons of Great Britain from which we draw our inspiration and practice it was found inconvenient for the House to deal with these matters because many difficulties arose from that practice, and more than that, they obtained a distinctly partisan decision. And so, in the progress of time the procedure was changed and it was agreed that a committee should be chosen to deal with these matters. For some years the committee procedure was followed. But there again they found that they were using

partisan machinery to deal with questions which were not properly the subject of partisan consideration, After further years of progress it was decided that the committee system was wrong. I have a recollection of such cases' in our provincial legislature. One arose in Nova Scotia in my boyhood days long before Confederation, as a result of which party feeling and great personal bitterness existed for a long period afterwards. The case was tried by a committee of the House and a decision was reported favourable to one candidate and confirming in his seat the member who had been returned. I remember that a very distinguished statesman, who afterwards rose to great eminence in this House, when, in fater years another distinguished man was proposed to be made chief justice of Nova Scotia, declared in the political journal which he controlled that the latter was unfit-to be a judge in Nova Scotia because he had perjured himself in that election case. That is the kind of thing you get if you proceed to deal with these matters through a party tribunal in the form of a committee of the House. There have been some cases even in this Parliament in which it was felt that that procedure was very unsatisfactory and by the common consent of all parties this Parliament resolved that it was incompetent (to discuss questions of that character and that in fairness and justice all such matters should be referred to a judicial tribunal under the Controverted Elections Act.


Mr. CURRIE:: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) tell me when it was decided that Parliament was incompetent to settle these cases?


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot give my hon. friend the date of the Controverted Elections Act, but it was in the early days.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 1873.


William Stevens Fielding: I say that Parliament
decided it would no longer have the committee system and that there should he created a judicial tribunal for the performance of such duties. But Parliament has not absolutely dispossessed itself of authority in such matters. There are cases in which Parliament will still take action, but they are not cases which are purely matters of dispute between the parties. Take the ease in which an Irish constituency returned O'Donovan Rossa. It was reported to Parliament that he was a convict. He was known to be a convict, and not only a convict but actually in prison. There arose
a question as to whether he should he debarred from taking his seat. It was argued that he was not qualified to take his seat, and Parliament decided that it would not allow him to take his seat. There was no dispute as to the validity of the return; it was a question of qualification or disqualification, and it was therefore a question with which Parliament itself should deal. John Mitchell was returned by acclamation for Tipperary. John Mitchell was an escaped political convict, and Parliament decided that he was disqualified. There was no dispute as to the return, but Parliament determined that he was not qualified and it ordered a- new writ to issue. John Mitchell became a candidate again mation, and I would ask hon, members to observe the distinction which Parliament made. John Mitchell having been elected by acclamation, there was no question as to the procedure (by the returning officer; it was purely a question of qualification, and the House of Commons decided that it should have the say as to that. But when John Mitchell became a candidatae again he was opposed, and the question became more than one of qualification; it became a question of dispute between two' candidates. Then Parliament said: "It is not a matter within our power; that must go to a judicial tribunal."
Some years ago a very famous case occurred in this House, commonly known as the King-Baird case.	It will be admitted by anybody who reads the evidence that a/11 the facts in that case were in favour of Mr. King. But Mr. Baird had been declared returned by the returning officer. The issue was threshed out, and, it became more or less a matter of party -controversy. However, the conclusion reached was that Parliament ought not to take any action. Sir John Thompson, who was then Minister of Jus' tice, made a very strong argument based simply on the ground that it was a judicial matter in which Parliament should not interfere. Now the equities were so strongly with Mr. King that public opinion forced Mr. Baird, although he was sustained in his seat, to resign' and be again elected. But notwithstanding that the case, in point of equity, was so strongly in favour of Mr. King, Sir John Thompson took the ground: this is not a question for Parliament, hut one for the judicial tribunals of the country. I do not think this should be a matter of party controversy. We are going to make precedents in this matter to-day, and hon. gentlemen on both sides should be

chary of creating precedents that may be embarrassing in the future. If there is one thing more than another which has been clearly understood' it is that the House of . Commons of Canada ought not of itself to undertake to deal with questions of this kind, because of the danger of partisan-snip entering into the matter, and, therefore, Parliament would be acting wisely in determining upon a reference to the judiciary of the country. If the machinery by which that can be done .is not effective, let us improve it, but let us not try to settle the matter here in violation of the long traditions of Parliament, which declare that the courts, and not the House of Commons, are the proper authorities to decide matters of this kind.
At one o'clock the House rose.
Tlje House resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, the House is certainly indebted to the hon, member for Queens and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding) for having put this matter before it in its proper light. As he rightly said, the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections was certainly not a refusal on the part of the members of that committee to deal with the question referred to them by the order of reference of this House. The order of reference reads:
That the Special Return of the General Returning Officer to the 'Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for Canada concerning the election of a candidate to serve in the House of Commons for the Yukon Territory be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections with power and authority to consider the same and the several documents therein alluded to and to report their conclusion and determination thereon to this House.
The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) to t'he contrary notwithstanding, the Committee on Privileges and Elections have considered the matter referred to them, a.nd they have reported their conclusion and determination, to the House. After having heard the arguments of both parties, they have determined that the question resolves itself into a mere question of law, and that it should net be left to the members of the committee, which may be a partisan committee, to decide, but that it should be decided by judicial authority. That is the gist of the ease. I am not concerned as to whether the drafting is defective; that may easily be remedied by the House. Even, if an Act of Parliament is necessary to give effect to the views of the Committee on

Privileges and Elections, such an Act may very expeditiously be passed.
The question as to who is to represent a particular constituency in the Canadian House of Commons is of very great importance. It is just as important a question as whether a county'will be represented at all, and interests not only the people of the particular constituency affected, but the people of the country as a whole. All citizens of Canada are interested in the ability, integrity, qualifications and standing of all and any of the members of the House of Commons. So the question of considering the conflicting claims of two gentlemen who assert their right to a seat in this House must be dealt with without any party spirit and free from all political bias on the part of the members of this House. By the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, this Parliament, following the precedent of the British Parliament, has left to judicial authority the decision of all questions relating to controverted elections. The principle goes to the extent, as is asserted by British constitutional authority, that the only question which Parliament has reserved to itself to deal with is the question as to whether a proper or fit person has been returned in obedience to the writ. I will quote the words of the late Sir John Thompson, then Minister of Justice, uttered in the House of Commons in 1887, as found on page 157 of Hansard of that year.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him if he does not consider that the whole question is comprised in the disenfranchisement or otherwise of the soldiers?


Ernest Lapointe: I will deal with
that later on. Here are the words of the late Sir John Thompson:
Since the change which I have referred to, and by which Parliament has renounced its rights to deal with the matter of controverted elections, there has been fully recognized in the various discussions that have taken place in the Imperial House of Commons, this principle, that everything has been transferred to the judiciary in connection with controverted elections, excepting the one question of the disqualification of persons who have been returned to Parliament. As was said by Sir Henry James, in 1882, in the oase of Michael Davitt, the only question which Parliament has reserved to itself to deal with is the question whether a proper person has been returned in obedience to the writ As was explained by Lord Coleridge and Lord Selborne in a previous debate in 1870, that reservation is not in conflict with the Statute which says that the election shall only be contested by an election petition, because the House has to consider whether the writ has been obeyed which com-

rnanded the electors of the shire, or the county, to return a suitable person to sit in that House. The House, therefore, is still seized of the right to decide whether the writ has been obeyed by the election of a person who is tit and proper to sit in that House. But as soon as the question has been decided as to the qualification of the person so returned, the conduct of the returning officer, or the number of votes which were received, the conduct of the candidates, and every other question connected with the election, or with the conduct of the returning officer, has been relegated to the judiciary, and the House has always declined to exercise its functions and its power to interfere.
I shall also quote the words of May in his "Parliamentary Practice:"
Before the year 1770, controverted elections were tried and determined by the whole House of Commons, as mere party questions, upon which the strength of contending factions might be tested.
In order to prevent so notorious a perversion of justice, the House consented to submit the exercise of its privilege to a tribunal constituted by law, which, though composed of its own members, should be appointed so as to secure impartiality, and the administration of justice according to the laws of the land, and under the sanction of oaths.	*
Further on he says:
This principle was maintained, with partial alterations of the means by which it was carried out, until 1868, when the jurisdiction of the House, in the trial of controverted elections was transferred by statute to the courts of law.
In this country this principle has been accepted in our Dominion Controverted Elections Act. Section 91 of that Act says:
All elections shall he subject to the provisions of this Act, and shall not be questioned otherwise than in accordance herewith.
And this applies, Mr. Speaker, even when no return has been made. Section 11 of the Act says:
The petition presented under this Act may he in any prescribed form; hut, if or in so far as no form is prescribed, it need not he in any particular form, but it must complain of the undue election or return of a member or that no return has been made, or that a double return has been made, or of matter contained in any special return made,
And so on. And Section 8 says:
Whenever a petition under this Act, complaining of no return, is presented, such order may be made thereon by the court as is deemed expedient for compelling a return to he made.
So Ithat the matter of controverted elections is entirely left to judicial authority, - whether a return has been made by the returning officer, or whether no return at all has been made.
Of all cases, Sir, it seems to me that the present instance should he decided according to that principle. There are no questions of fact discussed or even challenged. The Act of 1917 amending the election law must <be interpreted according to the views of Dr. Thompson, or it must be interpreted according to those of Mr. Congdon. This Parliament cannot make a law for the purpose of changing a law which was passed last year in order that the change can be made applicable to an election which has actually taken place. Retroactivity in a case of that kind would be immoral on its very face. So the law as iit is must be interpreted, and what the members of this House must ask themselves is: What is the proper authority to interpret that law?
I respectfully submit that the judicial authority, not this Parliament, is the only [DOT] proper authority to interpret the statute passed last year. Let me ask members of the House this simple question: Do they consider that they are as well qualified as the members of the Supreme Court of Canada to interpret a law or to decide a case arising from the interpretation of a law, either from the point of view of legal knowledge, of judicial experience or even of impartiality? For my part, I admit that my qualification for that duty is not equal to that of the Supreme Court of Canada. I have my views on the matter; perhaps I may state them in a few words. It is the essential factor of an election that there should be candidates. Without candidates there can be no election. It necessarily follows that votes registered at a time or in a county when or where there is no candidate have no legal value, are worth no more than blank pieces of paper. That is my opinion, but I am willing to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada..
The first principle of responsible Government is the right to vote for a particular candidate and for the man. That rule has never been departed from in any country under the British flag. It was departed from to a certain extent for the first time at the last election, but even then it was provided that the electors could vote for the man. But in the Yukon case the voters did not have that right until after December 31, 1917; therefore all votes cast before that date are contrary to law and contrary to the rights of the parties. But I repeat that I am willing to leave the decision of this [DOT]matter to judicial authority.
As to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada to deal with a case of this kind, I do not think that there is any difficulty. Even the Minister of the Interior

(Hon. Arthur Meighen) and the gentleman who wrote the letter that he quoted this morning, have said that Parliament could pass a law conferring such jurisdiction on the Supreme Court. He could not say otherwise, because section 43 of the Supreme Court Act says:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act contain-*ed the court shall also have jurisdiction as provided in any other Act conferring jurisdiction.
It would be very easy to pass an Act to confer such jurisdiction on the court, but I submit that that is not necessary. Section 60 of the Act provides that the Governor in Council may refer the decision of a question of law to the Supreme Court. It says:
* Important questions of law or fact touching the constitutionality or interpretation of any (Dominion or Pirovincial legislation may be referred by the Governor in Council to the (Supreme court for hearing and consideration.
Surely the present case, which touches the interpretation of a Dominion statute, could, under this provision, be referred by the Governor in Council to the Supreme Court of Canada. I am surprised that instead of passing the Order in Council of February 26 referring this matter to Parliament the Government did not adopt the simpler method of dealing with it by referring it to the Supreme Court of Canada. Let no hon. gentleman tell me that the Governor in Council only can do that. Surely Parliament is superior to the Governor in Council. If an Order in Council is necessary to the marking of such a reference, surely this House may instruct or even order the issuing of such an order. The executive power is the servant, not the master, of the legislative power. However objectionable the assertion may be to their pride, ministers of the Crown are the servants, not the masters of Parliament. Surely a decision of this House confirming the decision of the Committee on Privileges and Elections is equivalent to an instruction to the Governor in Council to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, which they have the power to do under the Supreme Court Act.
The decision of the Supreme Court in this matter would be easy of execution. They would either instruct the returning officer to count or not to count the challenged votes, or instruct the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to declare Dr. Thompson or Mir. Congdon duly elected. Shorn ' of all legal technicalities, the question is, can the votes which were given and registered previous to the nomination of candidates-in other words, when there 
were no candidates-be counted under the law of the country as it is to-day? I respectfully submit that the matter of deciding this question does not pertain to the members of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, or to the members of this House. I strongly urge members of the House not to take a step backwards, but to act according to constitutional usage and ahthority and to leave the decision of such an important question to the judiciary of the land.


Right Hon.   S@: My hon. friend (Mr. E. Lapointe) attaches a meaning to the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections and to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin), which it is rather difficult to follow. Both the report and the amendtaent, if adopted by this House, would be admittedly ineffective so far as the two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario are concerned, and, unless the Governor in Council should act according to my hon. friend's suggestion-I will deal with that a little later- they would be equally ineffective so far as the Supreme Court of Canada is concerned. Does my hon. friend (Mr. E. Lapointe) suggest that the Governor in 'Council, or this House, has without special legislation, power to refer this matter to two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario. The hon. member for North Cape Breton and Vic-1 toria (Mr. McKenzie) who moved the resolution in the iCommittee admitted that, according to his view, the Committee on Privileges and Elections and not the Governor in Council should have prepared the stated case. Hon. gentlemen who have dealt with this matter do not seem quite to understand what it is they do suggest. Let us, in the first place recall the fact that this matter came into this House by reason of a special return which did not declare any candidate elected for the Yukon territory. Having come into this House on the report of the General Returning Officer, it was referred by unanimous consent, as the House deemed proper to refer it, to the 'Committee on Privileges and Elections. I repeat that, according to my conception, the Committee on Privileges and Elections have made to this House a report which is both impracticable and ineffective, and for that reason I think it ought to be referred back in order that they may make a report such as the House contemplated when the reference was made in the first instance. The question came into this House upon a special return.

The House had the light to deal with that return. The Committee on Privileges and Elections, to whom the matter was referred, had the right to deal with it, and that Committee have left the matter just about where it was in the first instance, I have already said that no hon. gentleman in this House would for one moment contend that this report or the amendment could be carried out in its literal terms. Both the report and the amendment suggest that this matter may be left to two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario. Those who vote for this amendment vote tneir belief that this House can properly refer the matter to two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, or that the Governor in Council could do so. The matter would degenerate into a farce if the Governor in Council attempted to do anything of the kind, because everyone in this House knows perfectly well that the Governor in Council has no .such power. So far as the Supreme 'Court of Canada is concerned, neither the report nor the amendment suggests that the Governor in Council should take any action.
The purport of the motion in committee of the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) was that a committee of this House should refer the question to the Supreme Court of Canada. Neither this. House nor the Committee on Privileges and Elections has any such power without special legislation. So- far as the Governor in Council is concerned, I do not concur in the view expressed by the hon. member for Kamouraeka (Mr. E. Lapointe) that this is in contemplation of section 60 of the Supreme Court Act. On the contrary, I am impressed with the view taken 'by the Deputy Minister of Justice. It seems to me it was not the intention of that Act to refer controverted election matters.-'because this practically amounts to that-to refer questions Ibetweeni parties, although these matters concern this House as well-to the Supreme "Court of Canada for determination under section 60 of the Supreme Court Act. No. such jurisdiction has ever been exercised by the Governor in Council in such matters in the past, and I venture to believe it was not the intention of the Act that they should be so referred.
Just one or two words more. My hon. friend (Mr. E. Lapointe) speaks of any action toy this House or by a committee of this House, which would not be based upon an exact and literal interpretation of the Military Voters' Act or the War-lime Elections Act, as quite immoral.


Ernest Lapointe: I never .said that.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend understand that any member of this House during the past session, when those Acts were passed, had it in contemplation that, by reason of such conditions as he has alluded to, three or four hundred men-I forget how many-who have gone overseas to fight for this country and who, equally with the other 300,000 had the right to vote, should be deprived of their franchise? That,
I think, is a pretty important question to take into consideration. This House has rights; the people of this country have rights, and the men who, under the terms of that Act, according to its true intention, were to have the right to vote, must also be taken into consideration when this matter comes to foe determined, and the matter could not Ibe put more clearly than it was put before the Committee on Privileges and Elections by Mr. Congdon, one of the candidates at the recent election in the Yukon. This is what Mr. Congdon said on the 7th of this month before that committee:
There cannot be any doubt that even under the Controverted Elections Act of Canada the [DOT]House of Commons still has jurisdiction over election matters of this kind; that was evidenced by the fact that even in the case of an election petition before a court established under the Controverted Elections Act. the court might report to Parliament, which enables Parliament to go further than any decision which could possibly be given by the court and to come to a conclusion such as the court could not possibly arrive at. The commonwealth is interested in the service of every member of [DOT]the Commons' House of Parliament, and the court and the council of State and Justice of [DOT]which this Committee is the representative is governed by rules of state and law peculiar and more high and more politic than those which govern the court in cases of any matter between party and party. For this reason it ' has always been the practice in regard to matters of this kind not to be scared away by technicalities, not to be hampered by rules which might be binding in courts of Justice, hut to go straight to the heart of the matter, and determine what is just in regard to the matter in dispute.
I do not think the matter could be put in more cogent terms. I may he permitted to recall the attention of the hon. member for Kamouraska to the fact that the Act in question deliberately sanctioned the vote by men overseas, not for a particular candidate, hut for one party or the other in this House. That was the purpose of this Act. Men were authorized to vote either for the Government or the Opposition; and for the very reason that it might, in some instances, be impossible for those men to know who was the particular candidate sup-

porting the Government or the particular candidate supporting the Opposition, that provision was inserted in the Bill presented to the House. For that reason, Parliament sanctioned that principle, and even if there be such a technicality as that hon. gentleman relies on, I think that statute, interpreted, according to the language of Mr. Congdon before the Committee on Privileges and Elections, might not necessarily result in the disfranchisement of three or four hundred gallant men from the Yukon who have fought the battles of this country overseas and who have the same right to be heard in the determination of their representative' in this Parliament as any other man in this country or any other soldier overseas. My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) has addressed certain observations to. this House with the greater part of which I agree, but I venture to think that the very argument which he put forward constitutes one of the strongest reasons for referring this matter back to the Committee of Privileges and Elections. He says that if it is necessary, for the purpose of doing What is right and just and fair in this matter, let us have special legislation. Well if we are to have special legislation was it not the duty of the Committee on Privileges and Elections to suggest that to us; and to prepare a draft of that necessary legislation and report it to the House? Instead of doing that they have brought in a report which I repeat is in its terms both impracticable and ineffective. The committee in short has not discharged the functions conferred upon it by this Parliament when the special election return was referred to it, and under those circumstances I think it is eminently right and proper that the report should be referred back for further consideration by that committee. If the committee reaches the conclusion that there should be special legislation one way or the other-special legislation to assure to these soldiers the right to the franchises which Parliament undoubtedly intended to confer upon them, or special legislation for the purpose of making it abundantly clear that some court in this country shall have the power to determine this matter-then let the Committee on Privileges and Elections take that matter into consideration, prepare their draft of the proposed legislation, and report it to the House. For the reasons which were urged by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens, if for no other reason, I would think that the report should be referred back. I am content to leave the matter there, pointing out to my hon. friend who has last spoken (Mr. E.

Lapointe) that it never was the intention of this Parliament from first to last to deprive a single man of those 300,000 who are overseas of the right to vote because he did not happen to know who the candidate was. That I repeat never was the intention of Parliament from first to last, and if there is any technicality in the statute by reason of which the postponement of the election in the Yukon will bring about a different result from that which would have been brought about if that particular contingency had been foreseen and provided for in clear terms in the statute, I still think it is the duty of this House to take very carefully into consideration whether or not they are to sanction the disfranchisement of the soldiers who have voted and whose right to vote is now called in question.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, the legislation of last session was of such a hasty character that we need not be surprised if it has resulted in a great deal of confusion, one or two instances of which have already come to our attention. The Act was passed without any contemplation of a case such as we have before us to-day; in fact, many of the points which have arisen in the working out of the Act were not foreseen. For instance, the Act provides that a petition to controvert an election must be presented within forty days of the election, together with the return or no return, and so on. The date for the nomination of candidates in the Yukon was the thirty-first day of December, 1917, and as some of the votes were polled overseas, it was not possible to have a full return of the election within forty days of nomination. The same condition applies in practically every riding, and therefore under the law there could be no petition against an election. I might allude to an election in one of the western provinces which my friends wanted to controvert; we thought there was good ground for protest, and wo were satisfied that if the matter was brought before a court the election would be set aside, but we could not bring a protest at all because in framing the new legislation last year regard had not been had to existing legislation. Another contingency was not foreseen. The legislation of last session provided that the election in the Yukon should take place, not at the same time as the general election, but afterwards, and it should have been the duty of Parliament, primarily, the duty of the Government, who had charge of the legislation and introduced it, to provide for the Yukon soldiers' vote being protected. But

their votes were not protected, and the Act was passed with all the blemishes with which we are now familiar. Provision should have been made to secure the soldiers' votes in the Yukon election, but that was not done, and therefore the. soldiers' votes did not apply.
The Prime Minister a moment ago made a strong point of the fact that the soldiers might be disfranchised. That may be, but it will not be the fault of Parliament, but the fault of the law which did not provide for this case. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior said that the soldiers knew whether they voted for the Government or for the Opposition. In the Military Voters Bill of 1915 provision was not made for the mention of any particular candidate on the ballot; the soldier was simply permitted to vote for the Government or for the Opposition. I called the attention of my right hon. friend to that point last year and the section was amended. Primarily, of course, the Government and the Opposition are at issue, but the candidate himself has always an influence on the elector, and we should not abridge the elector's liberty in that respect m the slightest degree. Everybody in this House knows that many and many a time an elector will be influenced to vote for this or that candidate for other than political reasons, and sometimes for political reasons which the elector will not accept generally, but will accept in a particular case. Again, a man may be in favour of the Government or Opposition candidate, but will not support the policy of the Government or of the Opposition. On the other hand, many and many an elector is in sympathy with the Government or Opposition, bu/t not in sympathy with the Government or Opposition candidate. These considerations influence the voters many and many a time. But the Military Voters' Act of 1915 swept all these considerations aside, and limited the soldiers' choice to the Government or Opposition candidate, without mention of his name.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think I can very positively say that my right hon. friend is falling into error when he says that in the Act of 1915 /there was no provision by which a man could vote for a particular candidate. I have not the statute before me, but my recollection is very clear on the point.


Wilfrid Laurier: My memory may be at fault, but I do not think so. Supposing I am wrong, I come now to a provision which I certainly believe was
not in the Act of 1915. Here is -the ballot which was submitted to the soldier:
The deputy presiding officer shall sign such certificate and deliver the envelope on which it appears, with a ballot paper, to the voter, who may mark the ballot paper in accordance with the directions thereon as1 a vote for the Government, the Opposition, or any Independent candidate or candidates, or Labour candidate or candidates or for any candidate or candidates (if more than one candidate is to be elected) designated by name for whom he desires to vote;
Whether that is in the Act of 1915 or not, it is in the Act of 1917. The voter could vote for the Government; he could vote for the Opposition, for Mr. Congdon, or for Mr. Thompson, but at the time he voted he could vote for neither Mr. Thompson nor Mr. Congdon because neither Mr. Thompson nor Mr. Congdon was a candidate. Therefore, his liberty was abridged. He could not select as between any candidate because there were no candidates in the field. Will my hon. friend tell me that liiuler such circumstances it is fair to Mr. Congdon, or fair to Mr. Thompson, when the voters could vote neither for one nor the other? That is the reason that all the arguments which have been put up by hon. gentlemen opposite fall to the ground. The liberty of the elector was abridged. If it was intended, as it should have been when it was made the general law of the land, that the law should be applied in the Yukon as well as anywhere else, it should have been provided that voters in the Yukon should vote not before there were candidates but after there were candidates. Why was that not done? Somebody blundered perhaps but it was not done and that is the condition we have to-day. Mr. Congdon, who had a majority of the votes of those who alone could vote in the election, made a protest to the returning officer that he should not count the soldiers' votes. He gave as a reason probably in his own mind, if not in writing, that the liberty of the voter had been abridged in that nobody was named as a candidate and the choice was limited simply between the Government and the Opposition. The returning officer did not decide the objection himself. He referred it to the Governor in Council. I do not know what authority the Government had to deal with the matter when they passed the Order in Council. I suppose they derived their authority from section 19 of the Act of last year which reads:
For the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Part, or supplying any deficiency therein, the Governor General in

Council may make such regulations, not inconsistent therewith, as may be deemed necessary.
I doubt very much if under this section of the Act the Governor in Council could pass an Order in Council which was passed because it was not a regulation. A regulation would have been passed before the election and not after the election. But they did it. In the preamble of that Order in Council I read this:
The Governor in Council is pleased under authority of section 19 of Part IV. of the Dominion Elections Act, and section 6 of the War Measures Act, 1914, to make the following regulations and the same are hereby made and enacted accordingly.
I do not know whether the War Measures Act would give any power to the Governor in Council but this is the Order:
The general returning officer shall, with respect to the elections in said eleotoral districts of the Yukon Territory, and Nelson, make to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery a special return fully disclosing the conditions and showing the result of the polling and' such return shall be put before the House of Commons for its consideration and for such action by it as may be deemed necessary or proper according to the circumstances.
When this return was laid before the House, the House very properly, referred it to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The committee met, considered the matter and they made the report which is now before us. In it they stated that-in their opinion the matter should be decided by judicial authority. My hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) who made the motion that is now before the House, took exception to this report. I will read it in order to make intelligible that which is to follow. It is recommended:
That a stated case be prepared and submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, or to any two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, for decision.
My hon. friend from West Calgary stated that the committee ha.d not properly discharged its duty. I cannot agree with him and I believe that on reflection he must come to the conclusion that the point that he has now raised is not justified. The reference is in these terms:
Ordered, that the special return of the general returning officer to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for Canada concerning the election of a candidate to serve in the House of Commons for the Yukon Territory be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections with power and authority to consider the same and the several documents therein alluded to and to report their conclusion and determination thereon to this House.

We have .to-day thalt conclusion and determination. The conclusion and determination, ,as stated here, is that a stated case should (be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, or to any two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, for decision. They did not take it upon themselves to determine the case involved for the very reasons which have 'been given in this discussion already. The committee is composed of the members of this House and the members of this House are actively engaged in politics. We may make the concession that we are partisans. However honestly we may hold to our opinions. I suppose our opinions and our convictions may be said to be biased one way or the other. The judges are supposed to be and ought to be above party consideration. I think we can say in fairness to the bench of Canada that whenever a man goes upon the bench, whatever may have been his political proclivities in the past, from that time on he leaves them behind' him and goes into 'the matters that are placed before him and decides the cases with which he has to deal according to . law and the principles of justice as he understands them. The committee, of which my bon. friend is a member, has decided, after taking the whole question into consideration, that the best way is to refer the case to the judicial authority. Is there ,a man in this House, on one side of the other, who believes that in a matter of this kind there is a better way of disposing of it than by having a judicial determination of it? If anybody is competent to go into (these matters, if anybody has to decide whether the soldiers' vote ought to be taken into consideration, or whether the Tights of parties or candidates ought to be considered is it not the judges of our courts? Is there any man in this House more competent or better qualified to do this than those who are appointed by law bo be the arbiters between . man .and man? There may, perhaps, be some technicality, but I am sure that had I been a member of the committee I would haye endeavoured to have made the report firmer than it is. I would have left no alternative in it. Even suppose the House adopts the principle laid down by the committee, it is not deprived of its power to supplement this report in any manner that it thinks fit in order to give it the proper judicial interpretation and sanction which it must have. The report does not ask that the decision should be final, but it asks that a stated case be prepared for submission to the Supreme Court of Canada, or to

two judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario for decision.
They can give their decision so far as it can be given, and if their opinion is that they have not ithe authority to determine this matter, then the report will come back and Parliament will take, if need be, whatever action may be necessary to supplement the opinion which they have expressed. I call the attention of my hon. friends to the fact that again and again matters have been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada in order to have a judicial interpretation of a point at issue, not with the idea that the court should judicially determine those matters themselves and render a decision which would be binding upon all parties, but to permit the court to give their opinion to the Government and to Parliament so that such action as afterwards may be taken, and should be taken, by Parliament, in the interest of all parties concerned, may have the sanction of the law. Sir, I say this to my' hon. friends on the other side of the House: Let us adopt this report, let the case go to the judges, and whatever decision they give, whatever the judicial opinion may be, it is only an opinion, it will not be a final decision binding upon all parties. Then it will be incumbent upon the Parliament of Canada to supplement that opinion in such a manner as to grant justice to whomsoever justice may be due.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I might venture to do so, I would express sympathy with the hon. gentleman who moved this amendment, by reason of the fact that those who support him .seem* to me to have furnished the most conclusive argument why his amendment should not be adopted. First of all, I think that the right hon. leader of the Opposition in his main argument has furnished us with reasons which should confirm us in the belief that beyond a doubt the action recommended by this Committee should not be taken. What is the principal argument of the right hon. gentleman? It is that because these votes were taken, under the statute, before nominations, and because provision was not made in the statute for that, that therefore all of the soldier ballots must be rejected, and the soldiers must be deprived absolutely of their vote. And why does the right hon. gentleman say that those votes should be rejected? Because the statute as enacted, if held to be applicable and to permit these votes, would abridge the right of the soldier, because it would
deprive him of the privilege of voting for a candidate by name. And what is his remedy for this grievance? It is to wipe out entirely the right otf the soldiers to vote. Let us say that the statute in its operation did) abridge the right of the soldier, but it still left him the right, in common with all others- to vote for the Government, or vote for the Opposition, and the right hon. gentleman -says: Let us remedy that !by taking a course that will infallibly deprive -the soldier even of that abridged right.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says that somebody blundered. He does not dispute that Parliament in passing the Act in question intended the soldier voter in the Yukon to have the right to vote like every other soldier, tout he says that somebody blundered. 1 presume that I might take that suggestion to myself, inasmuch as I had a good deal to do with the drawing of that Act. How does he propose to remedy that? I blundered, .therefore let us punish the soldier -by taking his vote aw-ay from him. I am far from admitting that under a correct or reasonable interpretation of the statute those votes should not toe counted. But what is precisely the advantage that results from this return being referred to this House? It is that the House w;ould not 'be tied down. Mr. Congdon himself congratulated us upon that. This House would not be tied down to a literal interpretation of the statute, and if the committee had come to the conclusion that that literal interpretation precluded the counting of the soldiers' vote, if they came to the conclusion that somebody had blundered, the committee had it in their power to recommend to the House that the blunder be corrected. But the right hon. gentleman does not -want that to be made possible. He wants this matter sent to a tribunal that will be bound by the letter 4 p.m. of the statute, and no matter what the people of Canada, acting through their representatives desired and intended, although it be absolutely clear that they intended that those men should vote, and though it be absolutely clear therefore that in substance those men had a right to vote-ibecause there is an irregularity according to the letter of the statute those votes shall be -wiped out. I must confess that if I had any doubts in my own mind as to w-hat the proper course to toe taken with regard to

this motion and this amendment was after listening to the argument of the right hon. gentleman I would feel that it was absolutely impossible for me to reach any other conclusion than that this question should remain in t'he hands of the legislative authority clothed with power to provide an adequate remedy if a mistake has been made, and that it would be the most futile of remedies to send the matter to a tribunal that will be tied down to the letter of the law; and, if the right hon. gentleman is correct in his contention, with the only result that we will have a decision that somebody blundered, and because of that fact the soldier must lose his vote. If, in the judgment of the House, that is the important matter to have decided, I tnink we should vote for the amendment. But if, in the opinion of the House, the proper thing to have decided is whether or not men who had a right to vote-men who, by the admission of the right hon. gentleman, failed to obtain their votes because the statute was not made sufficiently clear -shall be, as regards this election, permanently disfranchised, then we should vote down the amendment. I might point out also that it will be no adequate remedy, to say: You may go back and have another election, because those very men whose rights are in question will, under the statute in such a case, have no votes. So the amendment, if it he carried, assures this one thing: That if the statute is not perfectly clear the soldiers will be disfranchised, and the intention of Parliament will be defeated. The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) says that it is the exclusive privilege of the courts to interpret the statutes. That is quite true if you are dealing with the application of a statute, but is it an unknown thing that when Parliament has discovered that the interpretation attached by the courts to a particular Act of Parliament was not in accord with its intention, that Parliament should legislate to give authoritative interpretation to its own statute? And if ever there was a case, it seems to me, where the exercise of that power on the part of Parliament-if there be need to exercise it -would be justified, it is in this particular case. If there be need for it, and Parliament does not exercise its power to effect a remedy, you irreparably deprive all of these men of the right that Parliament itself, with the people of Canada behind it, intended to give them. I do not think that I need add anything further except to ask, in regard to what the hon. member for Kam-
ouraska said as to the clearness of the right of the Governor in Council to refer this matter to the Supreme Court-assuming he is quite right in that contention, whit is it we will get from the Supreme Court? A decision as to who was- elected? An order is issued to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make a certain return and to the returning officer to count those votes? There is nothing of the kind in that section. What will it be that will come back to us? It will be advice as to what the law is, that is all. Nobody will be authorized to do anything. Parliament will have to take it up, and we will then have to act. And, in my judgment, if there came back to us the advice that, because of the too narrow words of the statute, because, if you will, some one had blundered these men under the strict letter of the Act were deprived of their votes, there would, in my judgment, be no proper course for Parliament to take, having the power to remedy the evil result of a possibly ambiguous statute than to so legislate as to secure to those men the recognition of the effect of their vote.


Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice):: I did not have the
pleasure this morning of being here when my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) moved his motion, and when my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) moved his amendment, as I was kept busy before the Private Bills Committee. We should get down to the cold facts of this whole matter. What are they? Last year we passed two Acts, the War-time Elections Act and the Military Voters Act. A mistake has been made in one of the Acts. We forgot to provide for the Yukon Territory, which, under the War-time Elections Act is a deferred election. Whose fault is that? I say, Mr. Chairman, that every member who sat in this House last year must take his responsibility for not having thought the matter over and suggested it, and those who framed1 the Bill must take responsibility for not having properly studied its provisions, and for not having provided for this contingency. As a result we are confronted with the situation to-day that a deferred election has taken place in the Yukon, and that no return has been made declaring one of the candidates elected. But such grave doubt as to the proper course existed in the minds of the ministers that they ordered the returning officer to report the matter to the House of Commons. I will read section 3 of the Order in Council of the 26th of February:

The General Returning Officer shall, with respect to the elections in said electoral districts of the Yukon Territory, and Nelson, make to the Clerk of the Crown In Chancery a special return fully disclosing the conditions and showing the result of the polling and such return shall he put before the House of Commons for its consideration and for such action by it as may be deemed necessary or proper according to the circumstances.	_
The special return of the General Returning Officer came to the House and the House decided to refer the special return to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. I should here interpret the genealogy of the events. I ask myself, Mr. Chairman, was this return referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections with a mandate to declare one or the other of the candidates elected and more especially, one of them? No. It was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for the purpose of inquiring into it and making a report to this House of its conclusion and determination. A majority of the committee has made a report. - Apparently that report did not satisfy the members of the Cabinet and some of the supporters of the Government, and therefore they tell the committee:	"You do not know your business,
we will tell you what to do, and when you have learned what to do, come back and make us a proper report." I am not willing as a member of the committee to accept that kind of teaching, even from the Prime Minister. I have sat in the committee, and have faithfully and honestly considered the case, and I am going to submit what conclusion I have come to, and justify my vote in favour of this report.
I listened with interest this morning to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) who talked of hair-splitting. I have always awarded him the palm so far as hairsplitting is concerned, and nobody has come into this House to take it away from him. He says: " You cannot put that reference before the Supreme Court; the remedy is to legislate by statute." My hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) says: " Why should we not legislate by statute and also give the court authority?" But the Minister of the Interior immediately contended that we would burden the court with too much work.


Arthur Meighen: I never said that.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend s^id in very words: "It will impose new duties upon the court." This is a special case which is the result of our own fault, because we did not legislate properly, and the Supreme Court has only to substitute itself for the general returning officer and to give
an interpretation to the statute. The Minister of Justice has given an interpretation of the statute, not like the Prime Minister, who says, that if that statute is submitted to the Supreme Court, by the very wording of the statute you will deprive a certain number of soldiers of their votes. I do not consider that we are here to be charged, if we do not admit that the statute should be interpreted as read, as willing to do anything against the soldiers. And under the circumstance of this election taking place after the others, it may well be likened to a by-election. My friends on the other side, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister especially, tried to evade the question by saying: "Are you going to deprive those poor boys of their vote?" We do not want to deprive the poor boys of their vote. We worked steadily at these Election Acts last year, and the Minister of the Interior will give us credit for staying long enough to help him discuss them and pass them.
I remember that the Prime Minister stated at that time that we could not be too careful; that despite all the precautions we were taking, some soldiers would have to lose their votes. And he was right. We could not presume that every soldier who was in Europe would be able to cast his vote. Therefore, there was at the time of the passing of the Act the anticipation that some of the soldiers would lose their votes, and the protection went so far as to provide, in subsection 5' of section 8 of the Military Voters Act, whereby it is enacted:
(5) In any case where, for any reason, unless the vote of a military elector is immediately taken, it is likely that he may not subsequently be able to vote, the Deputy Presiding Officer may take such vote otherwise than at a formally held poll.
There was a provision in the Act whereby the people voting in the Yukon would have been entitled to vote if the Act had been properly put into effect by following certain restrictions imposed under that subsection. If the soldiers' vote was the essence of all these votes, and if the representation in this House was to be based on the fact that all men at the front should give their vote to the man who was elected to entitle him to have the proper status in this House, I do not see why this Act applies only to a general election. My hon. friends will admit that if to-morrow these candidates were both to die we would be compelled to have a new election, and the soldier would not have a vote at that election. If one of us should disappear from this political scene, we should have to have a new election for the constituency affected. What,

then, becomes of all our protestations, of all the eloquence of the Minister of Justice in his remarks on this subject? In a case like that the Military Voters Act would not apply; we wilfully deprive the soldiers of their votes in by-elections. The Yukon election may be likened to a by-election; because that election was deferred, the requirements of the Act with regard to general elections do not apply.
Something has been said about the alleged difficulty of preparing a stated case. The Committee on Privileges and Elections have decided that the matter should be turned over to six judges of the Supreme Court whose duty it is to read laws and to interpret them. After all, the general returning officer undertook to interpret this law. On page 4 of the special report of the clerk of the Crown in chancery, the general returning officer says:
The day for holding the poll within Canada under Part IV of said Act for the election of a member to represent the Yukon Territory is not specifically denominated by said Act, but I have assumed it to have been the intention of Parliament that in the case of a general election, in which case only does Part IV of said Act at all apply, (see Section 1) polling ought to be, as it could proceed for all electoral districts including the Yukon Territory, on one and the same day.
This is what the general returning officer thinks Parliament intended to convey. You say to the members of the Committee on Privileges and Elections: tell us whether the general returning officer's interpretation of the Act is correct; if you say that it is not correct, we will keep you at work until you say that it is, so that we may declare Dr. Thompson elected. I shall say nothing about the reasons which induced Parliament in 1873 to pass an Act taking these matters away from the jurisdiction of politicians. Dr. Thompson and Mr. Congdon are known to most members of Parliament who have been here for a number of years. Both have sat in Parliament, both are able men and are too well known to need any -eulogy from me. I could not pay either of them itoo high a compliment. In deciding this matter, then, where is the line of division? Just your political feeling; jusj, the political affiliations of these gentlemen in the past. Both are eminently qualified to represent a constituency; both would honour the House of Commons by sitting in it; we do not have to decide as to their abilities or qualifications. I confess that if I saw a hole that would sink the man who was not of my political affiliation, I would naturally and humanly be inclined to look upon that hole as bigger than it really was. The -man

who would not see it that way would have to have an aeroplane or some other means of flying higher than ordinary mortals. If [DOT] the reverse were the case, I should be inclined to see the hole a little smaller, so that the other fellow would not get through. That is human nature; that is the reason why these political issues have been taken away from political tribunals and submitted to a judicial body.
This issue has been stated as a mixture of fact and of law. Somebody said that if we were to have a stated case, both parties would have to be represented at its preparation and the case agreed upon by both. I agree to that. But both parties have already been heard by members of the committee. The Prime Minister has read part of Mr. Congdon's statement before the committee. I wish to read part of Dr. Thompson's statement, made through his solicitor, Mr. Hogg, as follows:
Mr. Hogg.-Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Committee, perhaps I may make it clearer to the committee, acting for Dr. Thompson, what in my view' is before the committee for consideration. There is no matter of fact before the committee and upon which a vote would need to be taken. The facts are contained entirely in documents before the committee. The matter is a pure question of law and the first point of law to be determined is as to the interpretation of the Military Voters' Act which covers the voting of those persons qualified by the Act, that is the soldiers, within and without Canada, That is a matter for interpretation with respect to that Act as dealing with this question as follows: First, does this Act apply to the Yukon, and second, were the soldiers' votes taken with respect to that constituency at the proper and lawful time, and at the only time laid down by the Military Voters Act?
Further on, Mr. Hogg says:
There is a stated case laid before Parliament as to the interpretation of this statute and as to the legality of Mr. Congdon's nomination paper.
This is Dr. Thompson's view of the whole matter. The special report of the general returning officer was submitted to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, as it could be to the Supreme Court, as a stated case. The committee, after considering the matter, have come to the conclusion that the point should be decided by proper judicial authority. Ilf it is said that the report is defective, that is no reason why i; should not be corrected when the. defect is shown. If the law is defective, that is no reason why Parliament should not have the courage to amend iit. Time and again the Minister of Justice has asked the House to adopt amendments to remove ambiguities in enactments. In the Committee on Privileges and Elections we have

no press gallery; there is a kind of muffler on the proceedings. Committees do not [DOT]draw as much interest or publicity as the House does.' If we have erred; if we have not treated the soldiers properly; if we have made a mistake in not making proper provision in the Military Voters' Act under which the soldiers could vote, let us assume the responsibility like men and enact such legislation as will correct the law. If, on the other hand, there is a doubt as to the interpretation, we should not undertake to make that interpretation.
It has been said that the general returning officer is a good lawyer and a man of [DOT]ability. In that I 'Concur. Nobody will dispute the fact that the Minister of Justice is a good lawyer, that his legal experience has extended over many years, and that he is a man of ability. Here are two conflicting issues. The general returning officer says that he took the Apt to mean that the voting of the soldiers would take place on the same day all through Canada for all elections. If that holds good, there is no reason why the votes polled during the general election in the riding of any ho.n. member here should not be counted if a by-election should occur. Supposing some of us should die to-day, if the interpretation given by the general returning officer holds good that you can vote for a candidate when he is not a candidate, and that the fact that you vote for the Government means that you vote for the candidate endorsed by the Government, the same principle must apply in a by-election. The vote is there; the question is there; the issues are there, and there is no reason and I do not think any good reason can be given why the same principle should not apply. The Act is mandatory. There are three things to be done before you can vote for a candidate. In the first place, there must be a nomination. Nominations in the Yukon took place on the 31st of December. Voting overseas ceased on the 17th of December, and there was no candidate in the Yukon before the 31st of December. Does the House wish to establish the principle that people have the right to vote for a man who has not been nominated? If the votes given for the Government or against the Government are to be applied to one candidate or the other, there is .a jurisdiction pre-requisite. You cannot endorse a man unless he has been nominated, and, therefore, the en-dorsation, if given before nomination, is worthless. Subsection 5 of section 12 of the Military Voters' Act says so in as many words:
A vote for a party shall be counted as a vote for the candidate or candidates who has or have been recognized, in the manner hereinafter .prescribed, as the candidate or candidates representing that party in the electoral district to which the vote has been applied. Some recognition shall be made in the case of the Government party by the Prime Minister, in the case of the Opposition party 'by the leader of the Opposition, and in the case of any Independent or Labour party by the recognized leader of such party. Within five days after the day of nomination the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition, and the recognized leader of any Independent or Labour party, shall severally notify the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.
The Act is mandatory. If not, those votes cannot be applied. In this case nomination took place on the 31st of December, 1917. On the 5th of January, 1918, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for Canada, by virtue of the subsection which I have just read, published in the Canada Gazette the official recognition of Alfred Thompson by the Government party and of Frederick 'Tennyson Congdon by the Opposition party. If you are going to take the votes that were polled before the 17th of December, you will be completely ignoring the Act. The Act says that you shall endorse the candidates within five days after nomination, and if you have endorsed them within five days after nomination, how are you going to apply those votes which were given while there was not a candidate in the field? Under the circumstances I have not heard any answer which would justify sending back to the committee the whole question which the committee has decided not to consider any further, but to submit to another body. The committee has referred' the matter hack to the House. Why should we, as members of the House, saddle the members of the committee with the responsibility of deciding the matter? If legislation is necessary for a reference, let us have it. We can pass it If the House decides that we should pass legislation and say: In the matter of the Yukon Territory, we shall count the soldiers' votes, although, according to law, we are not entitled to do so by any interpretation of the Statute as it exists, let us pass such legislation; but why refer the matter back to the Committee on Privileges and Elections? If Parliament is supreme, Parliament ought to take the matter in hand and respect the wishes of the committee which are expressed in the resolution saying: We want to refer the matter to the Supreme Court; we do not want to assume the responsibility of deciding it. If Parliament thinks the Supreme .Court



should not be given the matter to decide, let Parliament take the matter in hand themselves and legislate accordingly. I do not think it is fair to treat the committee in the way it is proposed to do. We are all members of this House and we have expressed our views. If what is in the minds of those who wish the matter tO' be referred' back to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, is that, when it is so referred back, a candidate will be elected as a result of that reference, I say: Let us act as a whole; let us take the responsibility of enacting the legislation. It is not fair to saddle this matter on the committee for the committee to pass judgment, to sit as a Court of Appeal and say what decision should be given in regard to the matter, and then, when the decision of the committee comes to the House of Commons, the House will say: The report is concurred in, and that will be the end of it. A full discussion should take place as to what legislation we should enact and as to how the matter should be disposed of. I suggest that, if there is any irregularity in the report, we should correct it. If there are any suggestions to be made, let us make them. The Prime Minister has said that the two judges of Ontario should not be mentioned, in the motion. Let us strike out that part and refer the matter to the Supreme Court. If a case has to be stated, the Governor in Council, who has been willing to take the stated case of the general returning officer, ought not to object to have the stated case prepared, and agreed upon by Mr. Hogg submitted to the Supreme Court. I think the Governor in Council does not think less of the Committee than, of the Supreme Court, and what is good for the Committee ought to be good enough for the Supreme Court to inquire into. As Mr. Hogg has said, the question is-shall those military votes be counted or not, and under the Act as it now stands, can we, by any method of interpretation-I do not care how elastic it is-say that the Military Voters' Act goes as' far as to say that votes polled (before a candidate was in the field should be counted for a candidate who later on comes into the field for election? This ought to be looked upon as a by-election as it did not come on at the time of the general election. The general election meant all elections that took place qn the same day and the nominations for which took place on the same day. At the time we passed the War-time Elections Act, we made an exception for the Yukon; we forgot it, and I submit that it is up to Parliament, if we come to the conclusion that 
we are to do justice to the soldiers, to legislate to repair that injustice, but we should not saddle the committee with the interpretation of that law and then put the responsibility on it when the report of the committee is concurred in by this House.


Mr. H. M. MOWAT (Parkdale):: every possible way, and judge afier judge of the greatest eminence has declared that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to decide these questions. The same opinion has been expressed by the Privy Council in England. Here is a case where the Supreme Court judges would say: "This matter does not come to us under authority from the Governor in Council." Because, if this amendment passes, we cannot compel the Governor in Council to pass it on; the Cabinet is a body of men of independent judgment, and we cannot force them to do it, and, therefore, the case would inevitably go to the Supreme Court direct from Parliament, and, as I said before, the judges would return it, respectfully saying they could not deal with the case. Why, therefore, should we take such a futile proceeding? No matter what the Supreme Court does, no matter what kind of a stated case is made on which to get their opinion, the case is bound to come back to this Parliament. There is no power under the statute enabling the Supreme Court judges to say that So-and-so is elected in such a case as this. All the court can do is to find on facts, and give their opinions thereon. Why should we postpone this case and keep these two gentlemen, who I believe are now in the gallery of this Chamber, in suspense for a year or more, if the case is appealed, instead of taking it up ourselves and deciding at this session what is the just thing to do, not only as between these two gentlemen, but as regards the men who voted ?


Mr. LUCIEN CANNON (Dorchester):: 
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red DeeT):: Mr. Speaker, in the very few words that I shall address to this House on this question, I need scarcely tell you or the House that I do not speak as a lawyer. Edmund Burke said somewhere that while legal training increases greatly the intensity of the human intellect, it does not add correspondingly to its breadth. And Edmund Burke, .sir, was a very great man. Leaving on one side the righteousness or the wrongness of Burke's opinion, I do think, Sir, that this discussion has fallen perhaps too much into the hands of the legal profession and I approach it purely as a layman. And it seems to me to' he one of those questions that can he settled by the rough common-sense of Parliament, or its committees, better than the superfine distinctions of the legal mind. The distinguished layman from Queens and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding)' who spoke on the question for once in a way became more legal than the lawyers, if such criticism will :be considered by him fair and courteous. He referred at some length and learnedly to precedents. Well, that is just what the judges would do. They would settle this thing along the lines of precedents. Why, Sir, all precedents were thrown to the windis in the last election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: And my friends opposite say, "Hear, hear." The most striking precedent in regard to the election was thrown to the winds by my right hon. friend opposite (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when he extended the life of Parliament. The election was a year late in being held. My right hon. friend agreed to throw precedents to the winds in an oration as noble, persuasive and eloquent as was ever addressed to this or any other Parliament. Precedents were thrown to the winds because we are in the midst of an unprecedented war.
What was important in the last election was that the mind of Canada should go forth with no uncertain sound' that the Kaiser and the Allies and the whole civilized world should know that on the part of this proud young country there was going to be no faltering until we carried this war to victory. Speaking as a layman, and looking at this question as a layman what is the one question that I have to settle? What the judges would settle the lawyers have not told us; they have a shrewd suspicion, I am quite sure of that. They know how the judges would go about the consideration of
the question. Why they would call up all the precedents of John Mitchell and O'Donovan Rossa and the others we have heard of from the other side of the House. They would look into the musty documents of the past and give an exact technical decision as to the legality or otherwise of the election. What I am perfectly sure the majority of the people of this country want to know about the election is this: What set of opinions will represent the mind of the majority of the electors of the Yukon Territory as they voted in the election, whether in the Yukon or overseas? That is the one question which appeals to my mind. And I agree very much with the remarks that fell from my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) that the opinion of one soldier in this election is of as much importance as the right of either Mr. Cong-don or Mr. Thompson to sit in this House. That is the one question that would appeal to me as a layman, and that is the one question I think that would appeal to the great majority of the people of this country.
With regard to the gentlemen concerned,
I endorse every word that fell from my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) about the House being fortunate if the Yukon was represented by either of the candidates in the last election. With regard to Mr. Oongdon especially,
I have enjoyed his intimate personal friendship for many years, so that my opinion on this subject is most dispassionate. I have always admired his wide culture, his great reading, and his fair and well-balanced mind. If I had anything to say against Mr. Oongdon, however, I should say that in the last election his political affiliations were, to say the least,^ elastic, flexible and adaptable. I do not think anybody who knew how Mr. Oongdon conducted that election could be quite clear that he was a supporter of Union Government. I think there was grave room for doubt on that subject. On the other side, you have an undoubted1 supporter of Union in the case of Dr. Thompson; there is no doubt about where he stood in the matter. The majority of the votes of the Yukon and the imen overseas were cast for Union, and Dr. Thompson was the Union candidate. That is the consideration which I believe will sway the minds of the people; it will certainly sway mine-were the votes for Union or against it, and which of the candidates was for Union and which against it?


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Is it not true that. Dr. Thompson was named by the Prime Minis-


Charles Murphy: No, it is not.


Michael Clark: I really could not say about the endorsation in this case.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is in the return.


Michael Clark: So far, so good. But I have far more regard for what was in the minds of the candidates than I have *for the endorsation of leaders. That is how we decide whether a man was for or against Union.
Stripped of all legal trimmings and the refinements of the law, what have we in this amendment which has 'been submitted by the member for Wright (Mr. Devlin)? It is a mere move in the party game. I was charmed with the sentiments expressed by the member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) just before he took his seat. Apparently there is no partisanship in Dorchester. Let us rise to view this thing above the lines of party. This amendment is an attempt to take advantage of an oversight in an Act of Parliament to gain a supporter, or a semi-supporter, if you will have it so, 'by the disfranchisement of the soldiers from the Yukon who voted overseas. If I talked all night I could not say anything better than I have just said, and viewing it in that light I shall vote against the amendment.


Mr. JOSEPH READ (Prince, P.E.I.):: Mr. Speaker, as a layman I wish to answer the layman who has just sat down (Mr. Michael Clark). I shall not go into the legal aspect of this question. The member for Red Deer says that the question is: How would the -soldiers have voted? As a matter of fact, how would the soldiers have voted had they known who the candidates were and what they represented? If I were a soldier at the front and had been asked to vote for either Mr. Congdon ot Dr. Thompson, certainly, if I were a Liberal-Unionist-or a pretended one, like the member for Red Deer-I should have voted for Mr. Congdon, on the principle of Liberalism and on the principle of Unionism. The boys at the front did not cast an intelligent vote when they were voting on a ballot the first blank space of which was prepared for the name of the candidate, not for the Government, not for the Opposition, not for an independent or labour candidate. They could not have the name of the candidate if there was no candidate; so how were the boys to vote? The probability is that the majority 
of the votes would have gone to Mr. Congdon, because the bulk of the men at the front are Liberals. Most of the Canadians fighting to-day on the fields of France and Flanders are Liberals, fighting for Liberal principles. What is Liberalism? It is anti-Germanism. Gentlemen on the other side of the House do not seem to recognize that they are the representatives in Canada of Prussian polity and Prussian principle.
The proper thing to do in this case is'to refer the matter to the judicial tribunals of the country. All questions as to the validity of elections have been referred to the judicial authority. In this case, owing to the peculiarity of the vote and of the election, it was impossible for either of these gentlemen to lodge a protest. If one of them had been declared elected, the other could have filed an election petition; but in this case neither was declared elected. The Government stopped the returning officer from declaring one of these men elected, and thus preventing the other from entering the courts; consequently it is proper that this House should give back to that man what they took away from him illegally by Order in Council.


*Mr. COPP:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Charlotte (Mr. Hartt). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HUNT:: 1 was paired with the hon. member for'Strathcona (Mr. J. M. Douglas). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CLEMENTS:: II was paired with the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My attention has been drawn to the fact that the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), with whom I was paired throughout the last Parliament, whom I have not seen during the present Parliament and who, I understood, was not coming here, understands that the pair still stands. Of course, under those circumstances, I would beg, if it be possible, to be allowed to withdraw my vote.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I regret that, according to the rules, a vote once given cannot be withdrawn.


John Archibald Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to move to the motion as it now stands. I have felt throughout this debate, to which I have listened very attentively, that a considerable number of hon. members, including myself, are not satisfied with either the main motion or the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wright. Some of us have voted for the amendment and some have voted against it, including myself.
It seems to me there is a sort of middle course to pursue, a course which, if I understood him correctly, is in accord with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister. This is a large qu^stkn, and in my humble opinion it will not be settled by adopting either the motion or the amendment. The question which we want to determine is the procedure to be followed not only in the present' instance but when cases of this kind occur in the future, andi we make no progress in that direction by voting for either the motion or the amendment.	If
the matter is referred back, the committee have carte blanche to do what they like, and if they decide who shall represent the Yukon constituency we shall still be in the dark as to the procedure that should be followed in similar cases. Like my hon. friend from Red- Deer (Mr. Clark) I would sweep to one side ail technicalities and meet tfce isme fairly and squarely. There is no one on either side

of the House, I believe, who does not want to do full justice to the soldiers and their votes. There is no question here of distinguishing between justice to the soldiers and justice to the candidates, because if justice is done to the candidates, justice is done to the soldiers, and vice versa. If one candidate gets soldiers' votes that he is not entitled to, he is not getting justice nor are the soldiers. The question is how would the soldiers have voted? The candidates had not been nominated when the soldiers voted, so there was no candidate for whom they could vote personally. I also understand there was no Opposition candidate in the field, because both .candidates favoured conscription and .both were supporting Union Government. If I knew that one of the candidates was not supporting the Government policy I would have nothing-to say at this time, although technically and from a legal standpoint that would not alter the merits of the case. But all the reports I have received are to the effect that both candidates stand on practically the same platform. There was no difference as to policy, but there was doubtless a preference amongst the soldiers as to the man who should be elected to support and carry out that policy. As far as I am concerned I might, .as I do, stand for Union Government and the Union Government policy for conscription, but the candidate opposing me might also be doing the same thing, and soldiers would undoubtedly prefer one of us to the other to carry out their policy. The question is now as to the disposal of these soldiers' votes, and whether they can be allotted as the soldiers intended that they should be, or whether they should rightfully not be counted, as was the case in many other instances. If a reason were wanted as to why this should be decided by a judicial body instead of by a committee of the House, I think we have been furnished with a very clear reason this afternoon, in the debate on the question. I do not think any hon. member will say that this House or a committee of this House would approach the case from an absolutely non-partisan standpoint. I therefore think the only thing to do is to submit Tt to the highest court of the Dominion. I do not know just how we can overcome the technicalities in the way, but there certainly ought to be some means of submitting the case to that court. What are those means? I take it from the speeches we have heard from hon. mem-
bers of the Government that there are means of accomplishing this, but that the method is not indicated in the amendment which has just been declared lost. Therefore, without taking up further time as the question has been very fully argued, I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) :
That all the words after the word "that" at the end of the question be left out and the following substituted therefor:
The report be referred back to the committee for the purpose of devising means of submitting the matter in dispute to a competent judicial authority in accordance with the long established practice of this House to have controverted elections tried by the courts and not by the House.


William Stevens Fielding: As a choice between the motion by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) and that of the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin), I prefer the latter although, as may have been gathered from some of the remarks, the wording of the amendment	of the	hon. gentlemanfor Wright	might	have been improved. The essence of the difference is this:	The hon. member for Calgary was strongly of opinion, as he said in his speech, that this was a matter which should be settled definitely and finally by the committee, while the hon. member for Wfcight advanced the view that the ,matter was one for judicial decision. As between these two theories I have no hesitation in supporting the idea of a judicial decision, but I think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Campbell) presents the matter in a form that ought to be acceptable to the whole House.
The Prime Minister did me the honour of saying that he agreed very heartily with nearly all I had said on the subject. That was a great compliment, which I appreciated. The right hon. gentleman will remember, however, that the burden of what I said was this, that following the precedents in this House for a great many years, this House by itself or by a committee should not undertake to deal with a matter of this kind, but should devise means by which a decision could Ihe reached. The Prime Minister having said that he agreed to nearly everything I said, I have a right to assume he agreed to that principle. He went on to say that he thought I had laid a good foundation for the argument that the case should be referred back to the committee, presumably in order that the committee might do something to the end

which he had in view. I want to ask the House now to consider whether they will not deal with this question -as essentially this: -Shall this House go back to the bygone days when these matters were decided by committees with* a partisan bias? I wonder it it could be said that there is not some partisan bias on some of u-s to-day in this matter. I heard one hon. gentleman speak about "pairs." Pairs relate to- party divisions, and therefore if this questiqn of pairs exists, the question has been decided, so far as -we have decided it this afternoon by a partisan division. I submit that we have in this very transaction given evidence of the fact that however good our intentions may be, it is almost inevitable, as- has been shown in the long' experience of the Imperial Parliament and this Parliament, that when matters of this kind are dealt with by the House there is imported into the case some element of partisan feeling. I thin-k the motion my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) has just made meets the objection that the -first proposal to refer the matter back to the committee was too vague, and he has also met other objections- that -might be raised. If the House approves this -motion, we refer the matter back to the committee, but with the full understanding that it is not the desire of the Houhe that the committee shall finally settle it, but -shall rather advise as to the -best means of getting this matter before a legal tribunal. It seems to me that this is a motion which ought to command the support of the- whole House.


Robert Laird Borden: If I might be permitted just one sentence I would say that the proposal embodied in this amendment -seems to me to amount to this: that we -are not to leave this matter free to the Committee on Privileges and- Elections, but are to give them a direction that they shall find the means of avoiding a technicality which stands in the way of referring this -matter to the court, in order that a technicality -which prevents the so-ldieis' votes from -being counted may be maintained and perpetuated. I cannot agree with that for a moment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question now is on the amendment of the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. J. A. Campbell):
That all the words after the word "that" at the end of the motion toe omitted and the following substituted therefor:
The report be referred back to the Committee for the purpose of deriving means of submitting the matter In dispute to a competent judicial authority in accordance with
the long established- practice of this House to have controverted elections tried by the courts and not by the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will put the question to the hon. member for Welland whether he was present in the House and heard the question put?


Mr. E. E. FRASER:: I was not in the Chamber, I was just outside.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: According to Bourinot, the hon. gentleman must answer the question either in the affirmative or in the negative. I therefore put the question again; Was the hon. member present in the House and did he hear the question put?


Evan Eugene Fraser: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In that case the vote of the hon. member must be stricken from fMr. Speaker.)
the record. I now ask the hon. member for Halton: Was he present in the House and did he hear the question put?


Mr. R. K. ANDERSON:: I heard the question put by Mr. Speaker before I went out of the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member must answer in the affirmative or the negative '


Robert King Anderson: Then I will answer yes.


Mr. LABOR:: I beg to draw your attention Mr. Speaker, to the fact that an hon. gentleman on the opposite side, with whose name or constituency I am not familiar, entered the Chamber after the question had been put.
Several hon. MEMBERS: Name, name.
Mr. LAiLOR: I am unable to give the hon. gentleman's name. He came in after the question had been put and my statement can be corroborated by several other hon. gentlemen. The hon. gentleman in question is now sitting beside the Deputy Speaker.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will put the same question to the hon. member for'St. Mary's: Was the hon. gentleman in the House and did he hear the question put?


Mr. H. DESLAURIERS:: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Mr. Speaker, I am paired with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Hartt). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment. .


Aylmer Byron Hunt: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Douglas). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question now is on the main motion (Mr. Tweedie).' I declare the motion carried on the same division reversed.
At six o'clock the'House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. QUESTIONS.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)



REGISTRATION IN ElAST PETERBOROUGH.

Mr. SEXSMITH:: 1.	Who is appointed Registrar under the Act
for man-power registration in East Peterborough ?	.
2.	"Who recommended the appointee?
Hon, Mr. BURRELL:
1.	R. B. Rogers.

2.	On recommendation of the Superintendent of Registration.



APPOINTMENTS NOT BY EXAMINATION.

Mr. BURNHAM:: 1.	Is the Government aware that constituencies hold their representatives responsible for all appointments not made by examination?
2.	Is the Government aware that it is impossible to shift this responsibility to others?
3.	Does the Government therefore intend to refer appointments to the representatives concerned, for approval?


Robert Laird Borden: With reference to this 'question I do not know that I can add very much to the reply which was given to the hon. member on 6th ,May, and which is to be found at pages 1536-1537 of the TJnrevised Hansard. The Government, in respect to appointments to the public service, is responsible to Parliament; Parliament is responsible to the people. In making such appointment the Government is, of course, desirous of obtaining the best possible information that may be available as to the qualifications of the persons proposed to be appointed. It will always be very glad to receive suggestions or recommendations from members of this House in regard to such appointments'.


Mr. BURNHAM:: 1.	What appointments will be made to the Public Service by recommendation and not by examination after the regulations respecting the Civil Service now existing and in contemplation become law?
2.	Who will make these recommendations?
3.	Will these recommendations 'be founded upon inquiry made by those making them?
4.	Of whom will those making suoh recommendations seek information?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	That depends, of course, on the provisions of the regulations and the Civil Service Act in its final form.
2.	3. and 4. The word "recommendation" is capable of two meanings. If it is intended to ask as to recommendations to members of the Government by others, it would be impossible to foretell in advance who might desire to offer such recommendations or on what inquiry they would be founded. If, on the other hand, the word is intended to allude to recommendations to Council for such an appointment, it is obvious that the recommendations must be made by the responsible minister in whose department the appointment is to he made.



*MEDICAL EXAMINATION OP OFFICERS FOR OVERSEAS.

Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Since the outbreak of war has It been a military rule that all officers receiving commissions and appointments in overseas forces should submit to a medical examination and receive a certificate of physical fitness before receiving such appointment?
2.	If any appointments in the Military forces have been made or commissions granted in active service dn the C.E.F. without such medical certificate as to physical fitness, is it the policy of the Government to grant pensions to such individuals who may have been suffering from physical disabilities before their appointment and who may claim, pension after a period1 of service?
3.	Did Colonel Labatt, member of the Pensions Commission, secure a certificate of physical fitness before receiving appointment in the C.E.F. ?
4.	What was the date of Colonel Labatt's appointment as a member of the Pensions Board ?
5.	What was the date on which the pension was granted to Colonel Labatt by the Pensions Board, and from what date did such pension take effect?
6.	How much has Colonel Labatt drawn in pensions ?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL (for the Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	No information, is available as to medical certificates of officers of the First Contingent concentrated at Valcartier, but, through inquiries made, it is understood that all officers had a medical examination before proceeding overseas with the First Contingent.
2.	Where there is evidence that a disability pre-existed enlistment, a pension is awarded for aggravation of such disability on service, if not due to intemperance or improper conduct.
3.	It is understood that Colonel Labatt did have a medical examination as to physical fitness at Valcartier before proceeding overseas with the First Contingent.
4.	September 11, 1916.
5.	Pension was awarded November 27, 1917, to take effect from October 16, 1917.
6.	$1,334.11.



STEAMBOAT HELENA.

Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Is the steamboat Helena in the employ of the Government at Sydney Harbour, N.S. ?
2.	If so, who is the owner?
3.	How much per day is being paid for this steamer ?
4.	What was the total amount paid during the year 1917?
5.	Is it intended to keep this steamboat permanently on the service?
6.	What duties is she performing?
7.	What is the total amount paid for the services of this boat since first employed?
Hon. Mr. 'SIFTON:
1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. Finlay MacDonald.
?. $15 per day, owner to supply gasolene and oil and a man to run the boat.

4.	$3,975.
5.	The engagement is only for temporary service, paid by the day.
6.	This motor boat has been employed for the purpose of enabling Customs and naval officers to board steamers while in port- 'before coming into the dock, in connection with the Naval Detention Service.
7.	1914-15, $2,130; 1915-16, $4,065; 1916-17, $3,855; 1917-18, $3,855.



CASUALTY RECORDS OF CERTAIN SOLDIERS.

Mr. KENNEDY:: *1. Is there a casualty record attached to any of the Overseas soldiers represented by the following regimental numbers, viz.:-2085431, 166045,	402736,	1042448,	2304223,	1033209,
435837, 2,432148 and 340263?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the casualty in each case, when did it occur, and are any of these soldiers discharged from active service?
3.	If so, on what dates were said men discharged?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL (For the Minister of Militia and Defence):: If the hon. member {(Mr. Kennedy) would give further information as to the names and units of the men above referred to, the desired information will be obtained, lit may be explained that regimental numbers have no significance other than as a verification of identity, and no records- are maintained on a numerical basis.



THE KENT HOUSE AS HOSPITAL.

Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Has the Kent House, a hotel situated at Montmorency Falls, Quebec, been recommended as suitable for a military hospital by some medical board? If so. when, and what are the names of the persons on said medical hoard?
2.	Did the Government get an estimate as to the amount required to put said Kent House in suitable condition to receive patients?
3.	If so, from whom, what is the estimated cost of repairs, alterations or additions, and how many patients can said Kent House accommodate?
Hon. Mr. Burrell (For the Minister of Militia and Defence):
1.	Yes. Colonel I. H. Cameron, President; Colonel J. D. Courtenay, Lt.-Colonel D. McGillivary, and Lt.-Colonel R. J. Wilson, members.
2.	Under consideration.
3.	Under consideration. Officers, 89; Other ranks, 165.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.

Mr. SEGUIN:: 1. What is the total number of the families of soldiers deceased since the beginning of the 
war, who receive pensions from the Government?
2. Of this number, how many reside in Great Britain, how many reside in Canada, and how many reside elsewhere?



CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY.


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 87, supplementary to chapter twenty-four of the statutes of 1917, respecting the Canadian Northern Railway system-Hon. A. K. Maclean-Mr. Boivin in, the Chair.
On section 1-Guarantee on renewal or postponement of payments:
John Allister Currie: a single dollar in this common stock, whilst the evidence shows that the Grand Trunk people put $25,000,000 of cold cash in' the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific invested $25,000,000 of their own money represented by common stock. There is no great difference between the condition of the other propositions and this Canadian Northern.
I am sure every member of the House will be satisfied that the Grand Trunk is to he taken over by the country in connection with the Grand Trunk branch lines in the West. I have here a book, Poor's Manual oi Railways, containing' the statistics of all the railways, showing the number of box ears, passenger cars and all classes of rolling stock equipment, and details of earnings, and so on. Anybody with a fondness for statistics on railway matters can consult Poor's Manual, which will be found in the Library. I do not intend to hand out a lot of statistics to the people or to this House, because we have had a tremendous lot of statistics already. We have had statistics on this Canadian Northern until I was not surprised to reach the House the other day and 'be told that they had a surplus of something like $35,000,000. They may have an operating income of that amount, but it is a very remote date till they have $35,000,000 net income. The actual facts are these. The possible deficit on the Canadian Northern for perhaps many years to come, if things were allowed to remain as they are, will amount to about $12,000,000 annually. Everybody can understand that. That was virtually the deficit reported for last year. The deficit on account of the Grand Trunk is something like $9,000,000; I am told it may reach $11,000,000 this year, making a total of $20,000,000 or $21,000,000 of a deficit on these two roads that this country will have to meet by votes every year. How are we going to meet it? We are,going to take these roads over, and we must meet that deficit some way. There is no use arguing that these roads will pay when we are face to face with that deficit. Unless there are betterments tihey can never pay. That is the reason the Government is asked to do something for them. The deficit on the Canadian Northern will be met to the extent of $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 a year by the increase in freight rates recently put in force. About $7,000,000 more will be added to income from that source. About $4,000,000 or $5,000,000, perhaps $6,000,000, will come from the Grand Trunk also from a similar source. That is to say, we have increased the freight rate fifteen per cent, and having increased the freight 
rate we must naturally expect an increase in the income of these roads, with the result that there will be virtually 15 per cent added to their income. Against that there will be an increase, however, in the operating expenses. We cannot expect men to stay loyally with these roads as they have been doing without getting something in the nature of a war bonus to assist them in maintaining their families, and they will hardly be satisfied to receive the same rate of wages as before. Altogether we might expect that one-half of this deficit will be met by the increase in the income from traffic. The Canadian Pacific railway will put up $7,000,000 more, making $17,000,000 out of the $22,000,000; and the Government will have to make up the balance unless something unforeseen arises. Fortunately something has arisen. The railway operations are now controlled by a war board. I made a calculation from the figures given by the Prime Minister yesterday, which led me to the conclusion that if the savings to be made by this board were such as they stated we might expect an additional $10,000,000 or $11,000,000 as a result of the operations of the board, one-half of which would go to the railways owned by the Government. This would mean that we would have about $6,000,000, which would practically wipe out our deficit. If that is done and care is exercised in the management of the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk, .there is still hope for these roaids.
We have heard a great deal about the matter of wiping out the investment in these 'companies. The investments in these companies consist of practically three things. First, a funded debt covered by mortgage. Against this there is a fixed charge which we must pay for twenty or thirty years unless we extinguish it in the meantime by a sinking fund-and we cannot do that, 'because in order to establish a sinking fund we should have to continue to buy up the stock out of earnings. Second, guaranteed debentures or stock, third the first, second, or third preference stock. Sometimes these stocks are guaranteed, as in the case of the' Grand Trunk, by floating mortgage constituting a charge on all the valuable property of the road, similar to a second mortgage on a farm or building. These are known as debentures, as distinguished from bonds. Bonds are generally first mortgage charges; debentures are second mortgage, or floating charges funded. When a man gets a railway debenture he knows that he is getting a second mortgage on something, the road,

the equipment, or the net income. The stocks are preference stock; first, second, third, or fourth, with a fixed dividend, and last of all, the common stock. We need not take into consideration the common stock of these roads. The common stock of the Canadian Northern has never paid anything, and, so far as I can see, never will. So that we might as well eliminate that $100,000,000, though we shall always have to carry on our books the $35,000,000 that we pay Mackenzie and Mann for the common stock, and on which	we must consider that	we
are entitled to interest. The common stock of the Grand Trunk paid a small dividend once or twice, but it can also be eliminated by the payment of a very small sum. So that so far as the Can-9 p.m. adian Northern is concerned, the charges narrow down to, first, the mortgage bonds, and, second, the debentures. Most of these bonds are guaranteed. If this matter were placed before arbitrators or judges they would certainly decide that if there were a deficit every year in the operation of the Canadian Northern the provinces should pay their proportion of that deficit, because these mortgage bonds and debentures in certain cases; are guaranteed by the provinces. A fair proportion of the annual deficit on the bonds and debentures that the provinces have guaranteed would be as follows: Ontario has guaranteed some $7,000,000 worth of bonds of the Canadian Northern Railway Corppany. The province's annual payment in Tespect of its proportion of the deficit would, at three or three and one-half per cent, amount to about $210,000 a year. Manitoba has guaranteed $25,500,000 worth of Canadian Northern bonds; its proportion would be about $750,000 a year. Saskatchewan has guaranteed $14,000,000; they would pay about $420,000 a year. Alberta. has guaranteed about $19,000,000; theiT proportion would be about $550,000 a year. British Columbia has guaranteed $40,000,000, and would have to pay about $1,000,000 a year.
The securities of the Canadian Northern are of three kinds, so far as the bonds are concerned: first, bonds guaranteed by the provinces; second, bonds guaranteed by the Dominion; third; bonds and debentures not guaranteed. I have given the amount of bonds guaranteed by the provinces. Bonds to the value of $104,000,000 have been guaranteed by the Dominion, and of unguaranteed seeuritiesi there are $147,000,000 worth. We might eliminate the unguaranteed securities altogether and take over the road if it 133
went into the hands of a receiver, but if has 'been pointed out that that would be a very bad thing to do; and it is only right that we should act fairly to those who have put their money into the road. But there is a very large issue of debenture stock, which is a guaranteed security. Nobody knows who holds that debenture stock, I am told, and nobody knows what was paid for it. An effort should be made by the arbitration now proceeding in Toronto to find out at what discount those debenture stocks were sold, because if we are to undertake to pay for them one hundred cents on the dollar somebody is going to reap a rich harvest. I am satisfied that they did not sell to the public at over 60 or 70. The arbitrators, when they are ascertaining the value of the common stock, should ascertain also the value of that other debenture stock which stands between the common stock and the value of the road. It is a matter of public interest.
I understand that the short-date notes, for which collateral was put in the banks, were under a very heavy discount in New York. I do not think that the railway got more than 75 or 80 cents on the dollar for them. Nobody knows how much was received for them, but they are to be renewed in a few days by the Government, and, of course, the moment the Government goes on those notes they become worth 100 cents on the dollar. Somebody will make a million or two there. These are matters of detail which the Government should take under advisement and which the arbitrators in Toronto should consider in connection with their inquiry into the value of the common stock-what was the actual loss on the sale of debenture stock and shortterm notes?
I understand that a number of branch lines are to be built in connection with the Canadian Northern. In the statement given the other day we were informed as to the estimated requirements for the year 1918. Item 5 in that estimate reads:
Construction: completion ot western branch lines already graded; terminals, etc., as per statement, etc.
That means that during the current year the minister expects to spend $7,185,000 on further extending the Canadian Northern. That expenditure may not be remotely removed from the fact that Mackenzie and Mann want to hang on to the road, possibly until the contracts are made for these extensions. I have gone into the question of what these extensions are. The Acting



Minister of Finance should explain very clearly to the committee what extensions it is intended to continue and to complete this year. There is an extension from Calgary to Macleod which absolutely parallels the- Canadian Pacific. The. House should, during the war, frown down on this paralleling of roads. The hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. G. B. Nicholson) yesterday told us we could pull up the rails on the Canadian Northern between Ottawa and Sudbury. I agree with him. There is hardly a pound of traffic between those two points. , He also stated that the rails on that road between Napanee and Toronto could very well be pulled up. Between Napanee and Toronto, the 'Canadian Northern runs within 150 or 200 yards-of the Grand Trunk all the way. If we take over the Grand Trunk, what is the use of maintaining stations along that portion of the Canadian Northern? It will not be the first time in the history of Ontario that roads have been pulled up to obtain efficiency. If you travel along the Canadian Pacific from Smith's Falls to Toronto for forty miles, if you look out of the window on your right hand side, you will see the bed of a road which was built twenty-five or thirty years ago and which was pulled up, everything being removed, but the grading, in order to bring about greater efficiency and economy. It is, therefore, not a new thing to pull up rails and ties on a road. The road between Strathcona and Calgary-that is virtually between Calgary and Edmonton-also parallels the Canadian Pacific. I cannot, for the life of me, see why we should build 32.66 of a railroad there. The proposed 103 miles of railway between Calgary and Macleod will parallel the Canadian Pacific all the way and yet it is mentioned by the Government in the list of roads they intend to build this year. Those extensions are all set forth on pages 1773 and 1774 of Hansard in the report of the speech delivered by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean) the other night, and he stated that these proposed lines would cost in the neighbourhood) of $17,000,000. It would be well for us, if we have $17,000,000 to .spend on extending the Canadian Northern, to wait until the war is over, and then after the men come home from the war, looking for work, we can utilise them to good purpose in constructing those extensions. The map shows not only the paralleling system of the Canadian Pacific, but other parallel lines. There are five proposed lines running within a short distance of each other. 'Charters were ob-[Mr. Currie 1
tained for these, but I think most of the charters have elapsed.
The Swift Current branch runs southwest, if I remember aright, paralleling the Canadian Pacific. It runs to Vanguard.


Mr. MAHARG:: The hon. member is wrong.


John Allister Currie: I have the map right here. The map shows that the road runs from Swift Current southeast, and, as I stated, parallels and' crosses the Canadian Pacific extension from Swift Current to Vanguard.


John Archibald Maharg: When it is completed.


John Allister Currie: Well, then, what is the use of saying that I do not know what I am speaking about? I know quite well what I am speaking about. I hold the map in my hand. I was over the road before the hon. member ever was.


John Archibald Maharg: I know every part of that country. I have travelled back and forth over it for the last twenty-seven or twenty-eight years. The proposed extension runs out fourteen miles from Gravelbourg. If the hon. member looks at the map, he will see that fourteen miles from Gravelbourg is a long way from Swift Current.


John Allister Currie: All I can say is that the railway item in the. estimates reads, "from Swift Current southeast."


John Archibald Maharg: Quite right.


John Allister Currie: If it is not intended to commence the line from Swift Current, that is all right. I have stated what the map shows. What is proposed to be done afterwards does not matter very much, but it is a deliberate paralleling of the Canadian Pacific, if that extension is constructed in the manner shown on the charter. That country is already fairly well served with railways. I think from the station at Vanguard you can see the station of two or three roads. The next branch, which is known as the Elrose extension, runs from Moosejaw to Kerr-Robert, and is fifty miles long.


John Archibald Maharg: It does not run within eighty miles of Moosejaw.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member may be right. These new names puzzle me somewhat. The next branch is from Medicine Hat to Hanna. I know that ground. That runs in a northerly direction and crosses the Red Deer river at Walsbury, and all that country that is fit for settlement along the Red Deer river is virtually served by the Empress branch of the Canadian Pacific, and that is the extension in regard to which

I notice there is in (the press an article stating that work on it is going to be proceeded with during the summer. That extension is to be 145 miles long.


Mr. J. D. REID:: The extension is from Hanna towards Medicine Hat, not from Medicine Hat the other way, and the proposed extension of fifty miles is from Hanna to the river that runs between Medicine Hat and Hanna, and in that section there is no railway .at all. This will serve a population that has been there for many years without any railway facilities at all.


Michael Clark: I might supplement the statement of the minister by saying' that if those railways are not constructed, settlers in the country about which the hon. member has just spoken will be compelled to haul their produce thirty or forty or fifty miles to a railroad.


John Allister Currie: But in the province of Ontario there are places, for instance, in the county of Huron, where the settlers have to haul their produce thirty or forty miles to a railroad. The country that I was speaking about is arid country, only fit for ranching. The hon. member cannot tell me that there are any settlers north of Medicine Hat, until you get near the Red Deer river, along which there are settlements served by the Canadian Pacific Railway line. From the river it goes to Hanna. I do not know if it runs as far as Big valley. That country is largely arid ranching country, and for twenty years before the war w.as given up to sheep ranching. I say without any hesitation that the people of this country should be well advised before they ask any Government to adopt and any Government should be well .advised before adopting the policy of building (branch lines and pioneering when the country is now sweating blood in this war and requires every dollar for the war. I do not think that north of the Red Deer river valley, ,as it is called, theTe are ten settlers. I know the country; it is a ranching country, largely from Hanna south, and for that reason, whatever may he the case in the near future-I grant the hon. member that possibly ten years from now, when all the rest of that country gets filled up fairly well, they will need1 a railroad there. They do not at present need one. If you go through that country, or if you look at the map, you will see that the Grand Trunk Pacific has a road projected running through by Kennersley to Empress and across that same country. I do not wish to be understood as opposed to the West getting branch line railways,
133i
but I say that one-half of the railway mileage built in the last ten years was not required. It was paralleling existing, useless duplicating. What use was there in the Canadian Northern paralleling the Can-dian Pacific Railway from Sudbury to Toronto? It was of no earthly use whatever. There was not enough traffic there to keep one road going. What use was there in paralleling as far as Napanee? What use was there in building a road from Sudbury through the wilderness to Ottawa here? There are no settlers in that country, and the territory was. well served by the old Booth road or the Canadian Pacific railway. I say that without hesitation the same of Ontario as in the West. When the Grand Trunk Pacific was built in the West, if the management of the road had been allowed to build it as they wanted to build it, through the country they wanted to build through, the road would have served a far more useful purpose than it does now. * The original intention was that the Grand Trunk Pacific was to keep fifty or sixty miles away from the other roads, so that it would be a colonizing road and open u.p new territory. But the minute they started [DOT] to build through the West deputations came, down, political pull and pressure was exerted, and the road was compelled to go from one point to another all over the West through what would be known as competitive territory. Now the day has gone by when we need any competition in railways; in fact we have had to raise the rates and put the railways under an operating board., which is convincing evidence to everybody that the day of competition, as far as railway rates and service are concerned, is not now over. The Railway Commission that was constituted fixes the freight rates, and if two roads run into one town it simply means that they will divide the freight between them, and the rate will remain the same. The only other form of competition, and it was the form of competition that nearly destroyed the railroads, was competition in service. At one time three magnificent trains pulled out of Ottawa every night for Toronto within half an hour of each other. Everybody knows that one train would have been sufficient, and in fact the service has been cut down one-half all over the province of Ontario. An effort has been made to prevent duplication of service. The saving will be, $6,000,000 per year. While it is a great hardship to a town to have only one train in and out every day it undoubtedly saves the railways from financial destruction,

and saves the people of 'this country from hearing greater burdens than we are now bearing and must continue to bear for a few years.
When I speak of extensions, I want the minister to understand that we in the East do not intend to vote money for any further extensions into territory in the West already served. I go to the West about twice a year, and not only to one point, but pretty well all over it. I know the various towns and cities growing up out there and the magnificent country areund them. I know it would (be far better for that country if the railways and speculators which own the land all through that country along the right of way were compelled to. give it up and place it at the disposal of settlers, and that would avoid the building of many branch lines forty miles out from the main line to give the farmers access to a market. From Saskatoon westward on the Goose Lake line one-half of the land on each^dde of the road, a6 every member who lives up in that district knows, is not even settled, but is held foT speculative purposes. Would it not be far better if the railways and speculators were compelled to give up that land, which is the best in the West, for the use of settlers? At the present time the settlers have to drive out with an ox team fifty miles away from a railroad to get land, and I have seen lots, of them do that when theTe was rich virgin land lying idle all along the line of railway. Under the present policy the settlers who go out forty or fifty miles from the railway will in time build up a farming settlement, and then some one will come down to Ottawa and demand money to build a branch line out to that settlement, and the branch line to reach that settlement will have to cross these vacant lands owned by the railways and speculators. If the Gov-'ernment are going to take these roads over, they should take very seriously into consideration the question, of also taking over large sections of the farming lands alongside of the roads. When Ontario was first settled we had "string" or narrow farms extending (back along the main road so that there would be enough houses built and families settled along the waggon roads to keep them, in repair. The same policy should have 'been adapted in the West. When the railways wanted extensions they should have released at least a portion of the land along the line, so that the settlers could go in and take them, then the country would have been better served by the different railways as they went through.
[Mr. Currie. 1
I have this to say in connection with competitive extensions, and I think I aim supported by the majority of the members in this House, that this is not the time to expend seven, eight, or ten million dollars in such extensions until we know exactly where we are in out expenditure on the w.ar and on the railways of this country. Within a year or two the railways may be all under one system, and then what use would it (be to have, say, a parallel l-ine from Macleod to Calgary? Nothing of the kind, is desired. Why the Canadian Northern. railway in many cases were not satisfied with paralleling other roads, but if I had time to describe their operations I could show that in several places they have even paralleled themselves or have acquired railways running parallel to their own line and are still running both roads.
Nothing has been said about the finances of the Grand Trunk railway, but I want to say this: You can read Poor's Manual from cover to cover and you will not find a road with as small a funded debt as the Grand Trunk railway, and Poor gives them credit for that. He says their funded debt is almost infinitesimal. I think possibly ten millions would cover the funded debt of the whole Grand Trunk railway with all its branches. The securities against the Grand Trunk railway are guaranteed stock against which there is a floating charge or mortgage, and guaranteed first, second and third debenture stocks. Now you can wipe out a stock, but not a bond security, because a bond security ds a mortgage, and you will always have to pay interest on it until the mortgage is extinguished; but you can always wipe out a stock, unless it is a guaranteed one. So I think the securities of the old Grand Trunk railway, so far as the common stock is concerned, could be wiped out, except $25,000,000; but the preferred stocks, for instance, have received dividends from previous to the time the Grand Trunk railway went into this unfortunate speculation.	[DOT]
The speech of the Prime Minister yesterday was notable. I hope that when a board is formed the ablest men in the country will be appointed to it. If you figure out what the War Board has saved to this country during the last year, since it has been in operation, you will find it has effected a saving of about seven million dollars. I trust the War Board will continue to operate these roads, and that we [DOT]shall only build such extensions as are absolutely necessary. The question is, where are you going to get the steel? None of the big roads are able to get steel

enough, as the hon. member for Algoma said, to replace the rails that are broken and wearing out every day, and broken rails have to be cut up and inserted here and there to patch the roads up. I think altogether seven hundred miles of new road are shown in the minister's abstract. Now what is the use of undertaking this work when we cannot get the rails? The great railways of Canada would buy another one hundred million dollars' worth of rails if they could simply for renewals. They have asked the minister for that, but they cannot get the steel anywhere, because it is required for shells and other munitions. And why should we rob the munitions industry to extend our railways into new country? I say that the service our railroads are giving at the present time is sufficient for our purpose. I know that some members from the West will say: "Colonel Currie is going after the West, and does not want railways built there." If hon. gentlemen will read what I said in the House-


Mr. J. F. REID:: May I interrupt? Would the hon. gentleman be willing to stop the building of canals in Ontario and build branch lines in the West?


John Allister Currie: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John Allister Currie: Yes, yes. There is no hope for that railway. I was told in the West, when speaking about the Hudson Bay railway: "It is- a very good thing to talk about if you want to sell town lots." The West has been pretty liberally dealt with and we are quite willing to do the best we can for that part of the country, but there are other parts of the country which are doing their duty just as well as the West. If the building of duplicate branch lines everywhere in the West is -going to be the policy of the new board from now on, I feel satisfied- that this country will be bankrupt inside of ten or fifteen years. The United States did not build its western roads to any extent. They were built by private capital. Outside of the Union Pacific and one or two lesser or greater roads, none of the western roads was built with public money. In Minnesota and through country in the United -States similar to our West, you will not find half of the mileage that you find in our West. The West has tne best system of railways that you can find in any section of the world to-day. The Canadian Northern needs grading much more than it needs branch lines. If it is provided with steel bridges, station houses and terminals it will be able to take care of its branch line extensions itself later, because the Canadian Pacific have shown us that once a road gets upon a paying basis it can build extensions wherever it wants them. For goodness sake, let the people of this country have a breathing spell for a minute or two before you start building parallel lines in any part of the country either West or East. What would be said of a proposal to parallel the roads in -Ontario and Quebec? I do not think Ontario will need any roads for a long time, especially leading to and from the West. There is a part of the riding represented by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. G. B. Nicholson) where

there were thousands of settlers-that is Manitoulin Island-and because of the lack of railways at one time many of them had to leave that section of the country, which is fairly fertile, and go where there were roads. Yet, they did not send deputations down here howling for competing branch lines; they took their medicine. There are parts of the province of Quebec where they need colonization roads just as badly as they do in any part of Canada. 1 think I have dealt sufficiently with that feature of the question. Any declaration of an intention to make another grab at the treasury for branch lines until this war is over will be resented by the country.
With reference to the railways, I think I have covered all the ground that is necessary. I wish we had some substantial analysis or an abstract with reference to the Canadian Northern prepared by, say, Price-Waterhouse, or some competent auditors, on the same lines as the other statements that have appeared in Poor's Manual so that we would know how to compare the condition of the Canadian Northern railway with the condition of other roads. We would then know what we were getting. I am satisfied if the proper policy is pursued with reference to this road, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk, the result will be very much more satisfactory to the country. I do not look for anything but deficits for the next five or ten years. If the management is any good, I am satisfied that in ten years these railways will be .self-sustaining and that in twenty-five years they will be able to take care of their own branch lines, their mileage will be materially increased and large portions will he double tracked. They will be a great asset.
This Railway War Board which has taken charge of our railways has inaugurated a policy of switching the traffic. The traffic which arises on the Canadian Pacific is switched to the Transcontinental, the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific. It would be very easy for that board, if they so desired, with that policy to destroy the premier security of this country-the Canadian Pacific. In that way the Canadian Pacific would be deprived of half its traffic in the West and the traffic routed over these non-paying lines. In this way they can make the other lines pay but they will destroy the Canadian Pacific. I trust that is not the policy that the minister would stand for. The Canadian Pacific has consented and is quite willing to have this tax of $7,000,000 handed over to the other two roads. It 
would have been much easier if an adjustment had been made of the amount of money that should have been collected in rates from these two roads and if a proper war board had been established at the time the war broke out, there never would have been any real deficit from thtee roads at all. But the deficits stare us in the face, and it will be necessary to increase the freight rates payable by the people, and to take one-half of the amount realized from those increased freights and turn it back into the public treasury. .The hob. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) was quite right in his statement that this increase is pretty hard on those who pay these freight rates. If the charges were increased one-half under a war board they would take care of most of the deficits, but the rates have got to be doubled, and' "what the Canadian Pacific makes out of the increased rates is taken away from them by Order in Council and turned into the public treasury. I do not think myself that is just to the Canadian Pacific. Every dollar which that company has made since the war it has invested in far securities, in fadt I think they have put into war bonds over $100,000,000. They are behind the credit of Canada just as much as the greatest public institution in the world. There is no other railroad in the world, for example, that can give you a through bill of lading to. any point on the globe, under peace and ordinary conditions, like the Canadian Pacific. A Canadian who wants to ship goods to any part of the world by the Canadian Pacific railway can go to that company's agent at any station and get a through bill of lading to the uttermost parts of the earth. What is more, if he wants to have his bill collected, he can send it C.O.D. Canadian Pacific to Ceylon or to any part of China, Australasia, or South Africa, and the Canadian Pacific agent at that point will collect his money. Furthermore if he buys goods in any part of the world and wants to check up the weight of those goods or anything else, he will find a Canadian Pacific freight agent there who will do it for him. After the war those agents are going to' be a most potent influence in favour of this country in securing a share of the world's trade. For this reason we should be very careful not to do anything to disarrange the operations of that road. If anybody thinks that a reduction of freight on every road is going to help the country let me say that the Canadian Pacific can carry freight cheaper than any other line and make money on it. All of these other railways

that have been built have beeen loaded up with tremendous fixed charges so that none of them -will be able to carry freight as cheaply as the Canadian Pacific, at any rate not for twenty-five years. Now, Mr. Speaker, the debate over this Bill of my hon. friend 'the Acting Finance Minister has been considerably prolonged, and I regret very much that my remarks haye been at greater length than I intended, but their length was due in large part to interruptions.
Hon, J. D. RF-tD: I do not intend to discuss the merits of the Bill before the committee, but I would like to correct a few statements which have been made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Currie) who has just taken his seat. In the latter part of his remarks, he spoke of the work of the Canadian Railway War Board in Montreal. Let me expand the hon. gentleman's observations on that subject a little and explain the workings of that Board, because I do not believe the people of Sanada realize the good work which it has accomplished. The board was organized in October last, when the heads of the several Canadian railways came to Ottawa for the purpose, and it was agreed that it should operate the several railways of Canada practically as one road. The organization of that board was fully described by the Prime Minister and its record is set out at length in his speech as reported in Hansard. I only wish to say that the Department of Railways and Canals have been working in harmony with the board, and the several Canadian, railways have also displayed a similar spirit of co-operation. Where freight was congested at any terminal one railway has not hesitated in the slightest to hand it over to another in order that there might be the least possible delay. The intention of the War Board is to continue operating the Canadian railways as they have been doing during the last six months so long as the present war continues, and perhaps for some time longer.
It was not with reference to the operations of the War Board, however, that I desired particularly to speak. There is a point that seems to call for a word in fairness to the Government, the people and the Canadian Northern. The Canadian Northern railway has been taken over by the Government ; it is owned by the people of Canada; and it is indispensable for the continued operation of the system that it should be financed by the Dominion Government. I feel that it is hardly doing justice to the Canadian Northern or to the Canadian people that we should continue " knocking" that system from day to day now that it has become the property of the people. It is neoasary for the Finance Minister to go into the open market and raise money to finance the Canadian Northern, and as I said a few days ago, those to whom we apply for the next loan will no doubt have been reading the remarks made by hon. gentlemen in this House, and it certainly will not assist the Finance Minister in raising that money for hon. gentlemen to continue attacking the past history of the Canadian Northern, and giving the public the impression that it does not possess the value, and is not of the good character that it really is. The hon. gentleman makes the statement that the Government, now that it has assumed the ownership of the Canadian Northern railway, is starting out to build branch lines in the West in connection with the system that were never heard of before. That is the' impression I gathered from his remarks, but it is not in accordance with the facts. As I understand the situation, the Canadian Northern, prior to the war, laid out branch lines from certain points along its system in the Northwest. Those branch lines were graded, and in some cases the ties were laid down. Settlers went into those districts and located there, believing that the Canadian Northern, having expended a lot of money and done a certain amount of work, and having promised to build lines, would go on and complete the work. Hon. members have asked whether it is the intention of the Government to carry out the promises, honest promises, that were made by the Canadian Northern in that regard. In view of the promises that were made to settlers that if they would go in along the route of the proposed lines, settle there and cultivate the land, these branch lines would be built, and in view of the large expenditure of money that has already been made on these lines, I do not think it is right for the Government to repudiate the promises that were made to those people that they should get branch lines as soon as they could he constructed.	-


John Allister Currie: Do these lines parallel existing lines, or are they colonization railways?


John Dowsley Reid: I am going to deal
with that question. So far as the four lines that it is proposed to construct ore concerned, I have gone into the matter thoroughly and there is absolutely no truth in

the statement that they parallel either the Canadian Pacific or any other line.


John Allister Currie: These four lines?


John Dowsley Reid: As far as I can remember, I have not the record here. There is an extension of fourteen miles from Gravel-bourg on one line. Between the Canadian Pacific and another road, I do not recall at the moment whether it is the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Canadian Northern, there is a large expanse of country, and the road from Gravelbourg is fourteen miles into a country without railway facilities for many miles on either side of the proposed line. Then there is the Elrose extension. If I remember right-and members from Saskatchewan will correct me-that is an extension to another point where it will connect with the Canadian Northern. If this line goes on it will connect with the Canadian Northern and save a long haul, and in addition will give the farmers of that section the railroad they were promised years ago, and which they would have had if the war had not prevented the Canadian Northern from carrying out its promises. Then there is the Oliver branch, simply extending the present line in that district seme twenty-five or thirty-five miles further on, where the road is already graded and ready for the rails. The statement is made that we are spending $7,000,000 for these few extensions, but that is not in accordance with the facts, because all we are doing is simply laying the rails on the grading already done. And what the Government are suggesting to the Canadian Northern is that the second-hand rails we are taking up on the main line, where we are putting the 85-pound rails, should be put on these branch lines. Then there is another line from Hanna south. I believe the hon. gentleman stated that there were very few settlers in that section of the country. My information from members knowing that country is that there is one of the best settlements of farmers between Hanna and the river to be found in the great Northwest. The mayor of Medicine Hat came down here and assured me that the farmers were in there, and had been in there for some yearsi, that they had this promise, and that if was unfair that these branch lines had not been built. I went into this matter thoroughly, and my information is that if those branch lines are extended millions of bushels of wheat will be raised during this coming season and will be brought out, which never would 
have been done if these lines were not extended.
Another remark of the hon. member w,as with reference to the Hudson Bay railway. We all realize that when that railway was built it was not expected that it would pay for some time. But since the Hudson Bay railway has been built, it is very evident that we must do something with it. Last year it was operated because we were told that there was a quantity of fish which could be brought out, and which was necessary for food' for the western provinces, and also that there were some mines along the railway which could be developed. The result of the operation of trains, which I think ran twice a month, was that the operating expenses were paid with simply the receipts from the fish and the mine traffic.


John Allister Currie: How far was it operated?


John Dowsley Reid: The most of the freight was hauled about one hundred and twenty miles.


John Allister Currie: Is the road operated from the 'bay itself?


John Dowsley Reid: It is not operated from the bay. The rails are laid 324 miles, speaking from memory.


John Allister Currie: The hon. minister gave the House the impression that the fish had been brought from Hudson bay.


John Dowsley Reid: There was none from the bay. But there are lakes all along the railroads. Fish was brought from these lakes, and there was freight from the mines.


John Allister Currie: You have not carried on any construction work for a couple of years,
I understand? .


John Dowsley Reid: We are not doing much work on the Hudson Bay railway, simply keeping the line in order as it is.


John Allister Currie: Could the minister give me off-hand what the loss was on the operation of the Hudson Bay line?


John Dowsley Reid: There was no loss on the operation carried on during the winter just ended. I think it is twice a month the train runs up and down. It has not cost the country anything for the operation.


John Allister Currie: Is the contractor running the road?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, it has not been taken off the contractor's hands. So far

as the province of Ontario' is concerned, I come from that province, and I wish to say that we have all the railways we require at the present time. The hon. member has stated that Ontario has not been building many railways of late, that the great Northwest has been getting them all. If my memory serves me aright, within the last five years we have had a thousand miles of railway built in Ontario by the Canadian Northern between Port Arthur and Ottawa. Then we have had the Canadian Northern built from Toronto to Ottawa, and many other lines have been built in the province of Ontario. So that we have had a great deal of railway construction in this province. I am free tO' admit that a great deal of it should not have been built, there is no doubt about that. I agree with the hon. member that the line from Toronto to Ottawa should not have been built.


John Allister Currie: For part of the way.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, and a great deal of the road from Port Arthur to Ottawa. I only wanted to emphasize the fact, however, that we have had all these railways built in Ontario. Although we have many railways in Ontario, there is a great influence at work in the province to give us more railways, which will parallel each other, too. When the Canadian Northern Bill was up in the Railway Committee a few days ago for extension from Toronto to Niagara Falls, undoubtedly the impression left on the committee was that an electric railway should1 run from Toronto to Niagara Falls instead of the Canadian Northern system. If that railway is built between Toronto and Niagara Falls there is no doubt but that it will parallel two railways that are now in operation. I am not saying that I am in favour of the road between Toronto and Niagara Falls being built by the Canadian Northern system; I am not advocating that at all. But what I do say is that I cannot see at the present time, why there should be another road, electric or otherwise, built by any other corporation from Toronto to Niagara Falls, to parallel the two existing roads. When the hon. member stated that in the West [DOT] the Canadian Northern are now commencing to parallel other lines', I want to say as Minister of Railways-, and on behalf of every member of the Government, that we are not paralleling, and we will not parallel other lines. We will see that the Canadian Pacific railway gets its territory; we do not want to build any railways where they will build them. We will
keep the Canadian Northern away from the Grand Trunk Pacific or any other line; the Government will not parallel any lines. The paralleling of lines is being urged in Ontario toy other railway corporations; that policy has my disapproval in Ontario as it has in the great West. It is the duty of this Government and of the provincial governments to prevent the paralleling of railway lines. That is my policy and I shall carry it out so long as I am a member of this House.


John Allister Currie: Is it the policy of the
Government not to continue the program of paralleling that has been the program during the last four or five years?


John Dowsley Reid: The Government are now the owners of the Canadian Northern. If paralleling has been the policy of the Canadian Northern in the past, it will be stopped at once; it will not be proceeded with by the Government.


John Allister Currie: I do not object to colonization roadis when we have the money to build them, but I do not think it is necessary to parallel now.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: It is not necessary to parallel at any time.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood the hon. gentleman (Mr. Currie) to say that the Government were proceeding with construction work on the Canadian Northern and that the lines which we were extending paralleled other railway lines than the Canadian Northern. That is not in accordance with the facts. Our policy is not to build parallel lines, and we are not doing that, in the case of the few lines that we are extending. Why hold a post mortem on the policy of the Canadian Northern in the past? The Government have taken over the Canadian Northern and put in a new set of directors, or commissioners-call them what you like; men who go there with a business-like policy, men who know that the Government will not undertake to- build parallel lines. When hon. gentlemen know that these directors cannot construct a mile of railway without having the money voted by Parliament, surely it is in the best interest of the Canadian Northern, of the Government and of the people
10 p.m. that we forget the past, that we start anew, that we do not try to disparage in the markets of this country and in the eyes of the people of Canada this railroad that we own.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: In my judgment, the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) un-

derstands western railway conditions a good deal (better than the member for North Sim-coe ('Mr. Currie). Mention has (been made of the proposed Canadian Northern line between Hanna and Medicine Hat. The section of country from Hanna south to the Bed Deer river is thickly settled; it embraces settlements which are fifty or sixty miles from the Goose Lake branch of the Canadian Northern. This district has no railway facilities. I aim not in a position to say whether south of the Bed Deer river there is sufficient settlement to justify railway construction, tout certainly there is from Hanna south to the Bed Deer river. I am an advocate of the construction of branch lines during the war. The people living in the section of the West from which I come have been patiently waiting until the war is over before they make any demands for the construction of branch lines. Settlers who, even for the last three or four years, have been hauling their products from forty to fifty miles to reach railway communication in the constituency which I represent originally went into those sections of the country because charters had been granted by Parliament to the Canadian Northern and other railway companies to construct lines into those districts, and the people had been promised that those lines would be built. In one section of my constituency the people who have to haul their grain forty or fifty miles to a railway have been there since 1909. The member for North Simcoe mentioned the people on Manitoulin Island1. I happen to have a colony of Manitoulin people in my constituency; they are living in what is probably the oldest homestead district in Southern Alberta. But they have no railway facilities; they haul their grain twenty or thirty miles to the nearest station. These people have been contributing to the development and enrichment of the country, and we shall have to provide branch lines very soon to give them railway communication, or we shall lose them; they will leave Canada and go to some other section of the continent. I went over most of my constituency a few months ago, and in places twenty or thirty miles from a railroad I saw as fine dwellings and farm buildings as you would see in some of the oldest districts in Ontario. That is indicative of the faith which these people have. They are patiently waiting for the construction of branch lines. I have not been pressing the matter on the minister, but the Government would be mistaken in not considering the construction of branch lines 
in the West, because lack of attention to this subject may mean a great lpss to our country through the departure of many of the settlers in the western provinces.
I am satisfied with the position taken by the leader of the Government with regard fo railway policy. I do not believe in 1 the 'Government rushing to a quick decision concerning railway affairs. Proper consideration should be given .to them, and after that consideration has been given it will remain with supporters of the Government and members of the House to decide whether or not the policy adopted by the Government is proper.


Charles Murphy: It is not my intention to enter into a discussion of the general railway situation, nor do I intend to present the railway needs of any particular locality. Were it necessary for me to do so, 1 am rather dubious as to the reception any representation that I might make would meet at the hands of the Government. I desire to come back to a discussion of the Bill before the committee. I have Tefrained from doing that in order to give my colleagues in the House who desired to discuss railway -matters generally an opportunity to ventilate whatever views or grievances they might desire to place before the Government and the country.
When the Bill was in committee yesterday, just before the House rose at one o'clock, I had drawn attention to the fact that the difficulty in getting information from the Canadian Northern Bailway Company, which has attended every piece of legislation brought before this Parliament, is a prominent feature of the arbitration proceedings now in progress in Toronto.
I was surprised at a statement by the . Minister of Bailways that the country's interests were admirably protected because the country was represented there by an eminent counsel in the person of Mr. Tilley. Following the lead of the Minister of Bailways, the Prime Minister was unlucky enough to repeat that statement.
I drew his attention to the fact that I had in my hand a clipping from a newspaper giving expression to a statement made by Mr. Tilley at one of the sittings of the board, that he, the Government counsel, and assumed to be the representative of the people before that board, could not get. the information to which he was entitled. I have that clipping here for the information of any person who may be curious to look at it.


Joseph Read: Will the hon.
member read it?	[DOT]


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend from
Prince (Mr. Joseph Read) asks me to read this clipping. He is always so reasonable in his requests that I shall comply with this one. The despatch in question is from Toronto under date of April 9, and it details the proceedings at the meeting of the Board of Arbitration sitting in that city on that date. It goes on to say:
Mr. Tilley, K.C., chief Government counsel, sprung a mild sensation just before adjournment for the night when he announced that he was unable to get any information from the railway officials as to what the gross earnings and operating expenses have been since October l'St, 1917. -Sir William McKenzie declared that no one in attendance possessed the information requested.
It will be within the recollection of. the Committee that yesterday after I had checked up the Prime Minister with that item, he hurriedly consulted with one of the officials of the railway department in attendance on the floor of this House, and then he qualified his remarks by saying that he was informed that Mr. Tilley did make that protest, but that the information was on the way to him at that time and that he received it afterwards. That .statement, as hon. members will observe, hardly squares with the statement made by Sir William Mackenzie that there was no one in attendance who possessed the information required.


John Dowsley Reid: I noticed that, item in the press the next morning. I asked Mr. Tilley if there was any truth in the -statement that he had not received all the information, and in a telegram or a letter- or it may have been in a conversation over the telephone-Mr. Tilley assured me he had received all the information he asked for at that time, and almost immediately after he made that statement. It was on the way to him at the time he made the -statement.


Charles Murphy: Of course, II am not in a position to discuss this new phase now interjected by the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) but I venture to say a very slight inquiry will establish the fact that this is only one of innumerable protests made by Mr. Tilley against the withholding of information. We have had experience of that in this House year after year. No matter what comes up in connection with the Canadian Northern, the committee may take it for granted in ad* vance that they will not get the information necessary to discuss the matter intelligently. The tittle of this House has been taken up by hon. gentlemen on both sides- with
demands for information; that information is never forthcoming. I am going, in a few minutes, to put the minister to the test in order to illustrate to this Committee that even now the Government have not the information to justify it in going on with this legislation. Before I come to that, I want to emphasize this point, that the Canadian Northern railway, unlike every other company or body in this country with which Parliament is called upon to deal, will not supply information. When that attitude is assumed towards me in my ordinary business or private relations, I am willing to accept the challenge, and if I were dealing with the Canadian Northern railway, they would either give the information or get not one farthing of what they were after,-the information would be forthcoming first, and afterwards a decision would be reached as to what they were to -get. I refer to this matter now, because if a stand is not taken upon it by this new Parliament, we shall have the same thing repeated over and over again during the lifetime of this Parliament. I feel I am discharging a necessary public duty in once more drawing the attention of the House to this feature of every transaction with which the Canadian Northern Railway Company and Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, are connected.
I agree in the main with my hon. friends on the opposite side of the House who have dealt at length with the provisions, of this Bill and with the 'attitude which the country as a whole should assume towards the Canadian Northern Railway system. I could point out differences of opinion, differences, of view that exist as between them and me, but at the present stage I do not think any good purpose would he served by taking up the time of the Committee in doing that, and so I shall pass on.
I want for a moment or two to refer to the speech delivered last night by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson), in whose utterances I always take a great interest, but who, like the rest of us, is fallible, and who will not think it unkind of me if I draw his attention to a few slips that he made in the course of his very interesting address. My hon. friend, as was natural in such a general review as that in which he indulged, dealt with the question of railway mileage in this country and the relation which it bore to the population of Canada. I think I am correct in saying that the deduction drawn by my hon. friend from that comparison was that we had too many miles of railway, and that several

railways need not have been constructed. He proceeded to apportion the responsibility, and if my memory again serves me correctly, 'he apportioned the greater part of the responsibility for that state of affairs to the Government previously led by the present leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I did not happen to be a member of that Government at the time any of its railway policies were determined upon, but I was a member while some of them were being carried out. I do not, however, wish to be understood as disclaiming responsibility for anything for which that Government may fairly be held to be responsible. My hon. friend, in the same connection, spoke of the Drayton-Acworth report, and as he seemed to set great store by that report and to be in general agreement with it, I may be pardoned if I direct his attention to what is stated in it with regard to the mileage of railways in Canada and the proportion which that mileage bears to the population of the Dominion both now and in decennial periods past. At page 10 of the report the members of the committee say:
We may put the same thing in another way. The growth of the mileage has far outstripped' the growth of the population. In 1901. with a a population of 5,3711,3116, Canada had 18,140 miles of railway in operation; roughly, a mile of railway for every 300 inhabitants. In 1911, the papulation had increased '34 Per cent to 7,200,043, while the mileage had1 increased by forty per oent to 25,400 miles; a mile of railway to every 284 inhabitants. Since 1911, the population has, it is understood, not much increased, but the railway mileage open and under construction has grown to 40,584 miles. In other words, Canada has to-day, taking the present population as 7,500,000 only 185 inhabitants to support each mile of railway.
Running over that, for the purpose of giving a summary comparison, it will be observed' that in 1901 the total mileage was 18,401; in 1911, after a period of ten years, it was 25,400, or an increase of 7,260 miles. Starting with the mileage of 25,400 in 1911 the mileage had grown between that year and 1917 to 40,584, or an increase of 15,000 miles-an increase, mark you, which had taken place under the Government of which the present Prime Minister was the leader. I am not advancing this argument, but rather applying it because it has been advanced by the hon. member for Springfield. So that if a mistake has been made in building too many miles of road, if the responsibility is to be placed anywhere, 1 submit that according to the report which was cited by my hon. friend himself the burden of the responsibility must be placed on the sh mlders of the Government of which

my right hon. friend the Prime Minister was the head.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: When was the building of that 15,000 miles of railway projected and determined upon? When was the country bound to the policy by which that 15,000 miles became a necessity?


Charles Murphy: I would he glad to give my hon. friend exact information on that point if I had it at hand. I do not happen to have it at hand, but I would point out this: that if we had too many miles of railway then, as the Government claim now that we have, that discovery should have been made by the Government between 1911 and 1917.
My hon. friend from Springfield also referred to a statement which he attributed to the Government of which my right hon. leader was the head, and which he expressed in these terms:
We were assured by the Government of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) the railway (the Transcontinental) would only cost the country $13,000,000.
My hon. friend has been out of Parliament for some years, much to the country's loss-and I say that in all sincerity-but had he been in Parliament he would have heard that fable exploded over and over again by hon. gentlemen among whom he is now sitting and by members of the Government of which he is now a follower. The last time I have a distinct recollection of that argument being taken up and refuted was by the hon. Mr. Justice Lennox, the former Conservative member for South Simcoe, I believe, at all events one of the Simcoes; and when I have time I will refer my hon. friend to the page in Hansard containing Mr. Justice Lennox's refutation of that argument.
My hon. friend from Springfield also referred to the investigation which was carried on by the commission appointed by the late Government into the construction of the National Transcontinental railway, a commission known as the Gutelius-Lynch Staunton Commission. My hon. friend asserted, -without referring to the findings of that commission, but using a phrase which has done great service in the headlines of the Conservative press in this country, and which has been worked to death on Can-servative platforms all over the Dominion, -that the finding of that commission was that " there was $40,000,000 of graft money in connection with the construction of the National Transcontinental railway."' Now I wish to give that statement made by my

hon. friend-made in good faith I have no doubt, and without having looked alt the report of the commission-the most emphatic and unqualified denial. No such finding was made by that commission, because no such finding could have been made, and no such report was made by that commission. What did the report of that commission say? It said:
We find that without including money which was unnecessarily expended in building the railway east of the St. Lawrence River, $40,000,000 was needlessly expended in the building of this road.
And then the commissioners go on to say what they mean by "needlessly expended." They say that the permanent work should not have been permanent, but temporary work, that trestles should have been put in instead of fills and bridges, and that the road, instead of being constructed on a four-tenths grade in one direction and a six-tenths in the other, should have had velocity grades; in other words, that the character of the road should have been cheapened,, -and ftha't if this cheapening process had been carried out from start to finish the cost of the road would have been $40,000,000 less. That is the finding of that commission, and not that $40,000,000 of graft was obtained in the construction of the road. I mention these things because from my limited experience in Parliament I find it is a mistake to let such statements go unchallenged. It is an injustice to new members who may not know the facts, and who, if the state-[DOT] merits are left unchallenged, will believe them and give them circulation throughout the country. That is the reason why I have gone to the trouble of quoting chapter and verse for my hon. friend from Springfield, who I know desires to be fair in this as in all other matters of public criticism.
Coming to the Bill itself, I submit that it is open to the same objections as were urged againt two measures introduced into this House a little earlier in the session, one of the them by the Minister of Railways and Canals. I refer to the measure by which he proposed to withdraw from Parliament control over a certain annual expenditure. Hon. gentlemen will recall that opposition to that measure was so marked and so general in this House that the minister wisely withdrew his Bill. I submit that the Bill we are now discussing, Bill No. 87, is open to the very same objections. This Bill, if passed, will deprive Parliament of the control of the expenditure made in connection with the Canadian Northern Railway system, and I am
sure that that has only to be pointed out to hon. members, and particularly to those who have already criticised the Canadian Northern Railway management and who know something of the manner in which the management carry on their transactions, to secure their approval of a proposal that this Bill should be so amended as to make it apply to the- expenditure for one year only; so that the Government and the company will have to come before Parliament each year and submit a statement of what the expenditure has been and is to be and secure approval for that which has been spent and authority for that which is to be expended in the current or the coming year. If we do not do that, if we pass this Bill in its present blanket shape, this Parliament will, with its eyes open, have divested itself of all control of these expenditures. Parliament, I am certain, does not intend to do that. It is quite possible that in the rush of work this session, and owing to the continuous strain upon members, due to the long sittings, that feature of the Bill may not have presented itself to them.
I am trying to draw attention to it now. My submission is that both the first section and the preamble should be entirely re-cast so as to make this Bill apply only to the expenditure of the current fiscal year. The Government can come back to Parliament next session, give us a statement of the amount which has been expended and secure authority, which Parliament will willingly give, for the expenditure that has to be made in the next fiscal year. I want also to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that, in addition to remodelling section 1 and the preamble of the Bill, there ought to be a further section added, making it the last section, containing a schedule of the securities maturing in the year. Members of the committee will recall that when making his statement in the House on Friday May 10, the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean) gave a list of the securities'maturing this year. My proposal is that the list of securities maturing this year should form the schedule to this Bill so that the House will know that it is authorizing this Government to arrange or. postpone the payment of indebtedness -amounting to $67,370,607, and no more, on account of the Canadian Northern railway system during the current fiscal year. The House, knowing that, will proceed with this legislation with confidence and certainty. It is my firm conviction that that is what hon. gentlemen on both


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman has asked what rate of interest the Canadian Northern is paying on its short term loans.
I am informed that it is paying five and

six per cent on those loans that will be retired shortly. The hon. member also asked what rate will be paid on the loans that are renewed. He can see that it will be impossible for me to give that information because it may be several months before some of the loans are taken up and renewed. As to what the total cost of the Canadian Northern has been to the people of Canada I would refer him to the Prime Minister's speech as reported at page 2070 of Hansard, in which he stated that the total cost would be $438,264,367.67, that is if par were paid for the outstanding securities. On the same page of Hansard will be found a list of the total liabilities, as follows:
Funded Debt	$285,795,420	61
Equipment, Trust obligations . .	13,526,000 00
Demand and short term loans
secured by collateral	 58,056,961	11
Due to other companies on construction account, secured.. ..	30,502,392 04
Current liabilities	
19,408,495	79Accrued interest ..	
4,730,069	93
Reserves for taxes and insurance 1,245,038 19
Total	$413,2.64,377 67
The Prime Minister after giving the' foregoing figures stated:
I add to that total the amount of the five per cent income charge convertible debenture stock, $25,000,000, making a total of $438,264,377.67.
That is if we were retiring all those liabilities and paying par for them.
The hon. member also asked what would be the policy of the Government after the new directors are installed in office. The Prime Minister also went into that matter yesterday, and I could not add to anything that he has already said. I hope that the hon. gentleman will find that the Prime Minister answered his questions fully in the statement of yesterday.


George Brecken Nicholson: It appears to me that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Murphy) who proposed the amendment . must be losing sight of the fact that the Canadian Northern is the property of the people, upon whom all of the outstanding securities of the Canadian Northern are a direct obligation. The Finance Minister will not be renewing obligations for a private railway company when he renews, either this year or next year, any obligations that are outstanding or maturing, chargeable against the Canadian Northern Railway property, and I submit this question: Will the Canadian people or the Parliament of Canada be acting "wisely in tying the hands of the Finance Minister? If the opportunity arises during the present fiscal year of renewing any part of the outstanding obligations of the Canadian Northern Railway system on the basis of an interest charge similar to what they have been carrying for the past ten years, will he be wise in renewing them or will he be not? Let me put it this way: I assume, and I believe that every hon. member in this House will assume, that many of the obligations maturing this year are held by parties who hold obligations that will be maturing next year. Now, if the opportunity is presented to the Finance Minister during the present year of renewing both sets of obligations on the old terms, will he not be wise in availing himself of that privilege? If we tie the hands of the Finance Minister and say to him that he can only renew the obligations that are maturing up to 31st March, 1919, we are placing him in a position that will not make it possible for him to take advantage of the fact that you can without question extend the time of a large block of securities much more readily than you can a small block of securities. If the Minister of Finance can, during the present fiscal year, extend the time on every single dollar of outstanding securities that the Canadian Northern have for a period of ten or fifteen years, he would be doing good business to seize the advantage and do it, because we know these securities were sold at a price and at a rate of interest that could not possibly be obtained if we went into the markets of the world and endeavoured to sell new securities to-day. So that I say that the House will be acting very wisely if it does not tie the hands of the Finance Minister in any degree in extending the time on any part of these securities, if it is possible for him to do it.


Mr. NESBITT:: I would like to endorse what the hon. gentleman who has just spoken has said. I think it would be very foolish for us, now that we have assumed a big undertaking of this kind, to tie tne hands of the Finance Minister from year to year. It would be very unwise for him not to try and renew the indebtedness which is falling due in the future as well as that which is falling due this year. No man doing a large business who had an indebtedness of that kind falling due would want to wait until the indebtedness was due before he tried to renew the same, any more than any firm, or any corporation, that had a large discount at tiie bank would want to wait until the discounts were due, or until the hills matured, before it tried to renew them. I hope my hon. friend

from Russell (Mr. Murphy) will see the matter in that light and withdraw his amendment.


Charles Murphy: 
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 
Mr. CAHILL:: In view of the fact that we are not able to get the information asked for repeatedly as to where this money is going, are we to assume that the deal is so shady that the information will not be furnished?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What information is it the hon. gentleman wants?


Frank S. Cahill: Where the money is going. We are told it is going to the Canadian Northern, but we .are also told that the Canadian Northern is the Dominion of Canada.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Any money that is paid will be paid to those to whom it i-owing.


Frank S. Cahill: Who are the owners of the debenture stock? Why can we not find where this money is going?
Mr. A. K. MA'OLEAN: Does my hon. friend mean to say we should tell him who are the holders of bonds that are maturing during the present year?


Frank S. Cahill: And last year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is that what my hon. friend wants? There is .maturing in July or August of this year certain notes whidh were purchased by the brokerage firm of W. A. Read & Co., New York, to the amount of several millions of dollars. These notes have probably been sold all over the United States. Does my hon. friend mean to say that we shall submit to the House the names of the holders of these notes? The request is not fair, and it is impossible for us to get that information, even if we wanted it.
Mr. OAHI'LL: In the statement last year there is an item of $12,500,000 payable to the Canadian Northern railway. But as the Canadian Northern railway belongs, we are told, to Canada, we are taking the money from one pocket and putting it into the other. Who did the Canadian. Northern pay it to? Where can we get that information?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I gave all that information to the House, and the Prime Minister gave it much more fully yesterday. It is impossible to do anything more.


Frank S. Cahill: There is nothing further in that information than that it w.as paid to the Canadian Northern?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
does not seem to understand the difference

between paying money and not paying it at all. This is a Bill enabling us not to pay but to postpone obligations due to various 'banking firms, the names of which the hon. gentleman has. It is not to pay a dollar to the Canadian Northern Railway or any subsidiary railway, but to enable us to postpone and renew obligations of the company to various banking firms of the world. I do not know that anything more can be done except to repeat that over and over again to the hon. gentleman.


Frank S. Cahill: You are not asking for any money in this Bil?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We are asking power to renew securities that are maturing this and when necessary to guarantee the securities renewed.


Frank S. Cahill: What am I to understand by retiring the debenture stock of $12,000,000? What is the meaning of that? Are you renewing that too?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We hope to renew everything that is maturing this year. Surely the hon. gentleman would not say it was not good business to pay in full any of the securities maturing during the present year if we can renew them upon favourable terms, and during the war period?


Frank S. Cahill: Did the Prime Minister
not tell us yesterday that we would retire $12,000,000 of debenture stock?


Arthur Meighen: That is another matter altogether. That is payment of the $25,000,000 which Parliament advanced last year. We showed where that money went. That has nothing to do with this Bill.


Frank S. Cahill: Why not? Whom did the Canadian Northern pay the money to? There is also an item here of $12,000,000 to pay on debenture stock this year. To whom is that to be paid?
'Section 2 carried on division.
Bill reported.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER:: When shall the Bill be read the third time?
'Some hon. MEMBERS: Now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Next sitting of the
House.
IMr. MURPHY:	I object to the third
reading of the Bill now. The leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) desires to make a statement regarding it.


Arthur Meighen: Next sitting of the House.



WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 83, to amend the Special War Revenue Act,
1915-the Minister of Finance-Mr. Boiyin in the Chair.
On section 5, 19B, subsection 1-tax on articles in schedule:
Mr. McMASTER:: Is this tax to be paid when the goods are completed and put into stock, or when they are sold to the retailer?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is payable when the goods are sold.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is that clearly stated in the Bill?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The words used are " manufactured and sold ".


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 5, 19B, subsection 2-automobiles and jewellery in stock on 30th April liable to tax:
Jacques Bureau: This subsection says':
There shall be levied, collected and paid upon automobiles and jewellery imported into Canada.
I understand, when an automobile is imported into Canada, this duty will be paid.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: If it is imported for sale?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: The subsection says for
sale or manufacture. I understand when an automobile is imported into Canada it is generally manufactured. It is all set up except the wheels which are tied on the side. When the automobile is taken out of the car, the only thing to be done is to put the wheels on. Does the word " manufacture " apply to the word " automobiles " or just to the word "jewelry "?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It applies to
both.


Jacques Bureau: If the automobile is imported into Canada, it cannot be for manufacture unless the parts are to be manufactured.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The word "imported " comes first. The word " manufacture " should be "manufactured". I move that the word " manufactured " be



substituted, for the word " manufacture " in line 42 on page 3 of the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Andrew Ross McMaster: I have to renew the
objection which I made to the resolution concerning automobiles when the .Acting Minister of Finance brought down hie Budget. I take the liberty of again pointing out to him that the word " automobile " is a very broad term* and could properly be applied to such widely separated vehicles as tractors or heavy trucks and the most expensive and luxurious touring care or limousines. From replies made to me by the minister when I was endeavouring to criticise the Budget speech, I understood that the word "automobile" was practically restricted to pleasure cars. If that be so, it should be so stated in the Bill. The term is so wide that there is bound to be misapprehension and confusion unless it is more closely defined.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Was my hon. friend's attention drawn to the schedule to this Bill? The word "automobile" is there defined:
Automobiles adapted or adaptable for passenger use.
It was intended that the tax should apply only to such classes of automobiles.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am afraid that definition, although it helps a great deal, does not altogether clear away the difficulty. I am afraid it will suggest to people's minds that automobiles adapted or adaptable for passenger use are automobiles for the carrying of passengers who pay money for that privilege. Let us take Ford cars with an interchangeable rear part which are used as express cars, but which can be used as pleasure cars. Would such cars be exempted?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No. They would not be liable to the tax.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The schedule says: "adapted or adaptable for passenger use."


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Passenger automobiles are sometimes used for delivery purposes by the removal of the body from the truck. That class of automobiles would be subject to the tax.


John Allister Currie: Is it the intention to give people who have a stock of those cars an opportunity to dispose of them before the tax is collected, or has the manufacturer to pay the tax as soon as a car is manufactured? An excise tax is generally payable

only when the article is sold. The article is supposed to be in bond1 until it is sold to the consumer. I was called up by long distance telephone to find out in regard to this matter.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The tax will be paid only when the car is sold.


John Allister Currie: That is to say, the numbers of the cars that have been imported and stored in the warehouses can be handed in to the department and the tax paid as they are sold to the buyers.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is, if they were imported before 30th April, and in stock at that time, the tax will be paid only at the time of sale.


John Allister Currie: Wha't about cars manufactured in Canada?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The tax on cars manufactured in Canada is payable at the time of sale.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The duty on automobiles being now 421 per cent if you add this 10 per cent duty on automobiles that are imported, although you do attempt to equalize that by the exercise tax on automobiles* manufactured in this country, you are practically putting the users of automobiles at the mercy of the automobile manufacturers of this country, because our import tax of 521 per cent on automobiles will absolutely reserve the whole market for the Canadian manufacturers. The 10 per cent excise tax will be altogether inadequate to equalize the situation as between the manufacturer and the importer. The minister should carefully consider whether, in imposing this extra 10 per cent import duty, he should not very substantially increase his excise tax on automobiles manufactured in Canada. If he puts the consumers at the mercy of the Canadian manufacturers, he will get a 10 per cent excise tax, but if he shuts out altogether the importation of automobiles he will lose the 421 per cent he is collecting now on cars brought in, and the last state, so far as the treasury is concerned, will be worse than the first.


John Allister Currie: As we are putting a tax on automobiles I think the minister should consider the advisability of fixing the price of gasolene of the price prevailing in the United States. Over there they pay twenty-two cents, compared with our thirty and thirty-five cents per gallon. Would it not be advisable to put a tax of five cents* per gallon of gasolene? That would bring the

price of gasolene in Canada up to about thirty cents and the Government would get five cents a gallon in taxes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not give any consideration to the fixing of the price of the gasolene when considering the imposition of this tax, but I may say that the matter of the price of gasolene has received some attention from the Government, and .it is to receive further attention very shortly. I do not think the difference between the price of gasolene in Canada and the United States is .as great as the hon. gentleman suggests. In the first place he must remember that gasolene is sold in the United 'States by a different measure from ours, and that accounts for a difference of three cents per gallon. Then the question of transportation enters very largely into the cost.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: If gasolene now comes in free, I cannot quite understand the argument of my hon. friend.


John Allister Currie: There is no argument in' favour of charging the people of Canada ten cents more for gasolene than the people of Windsor and Detroit are paying. It is true there is w duty on gasolene, but I cannot understand why gasolene can be purchased in the United States at twenty-five cents an imperial gallon at Detroit or Buffalo, and as soon as you cross the river it costs thirty-five cents. This country is not benefited at all by this additional price, and I think it would be advisable for the minister to take into consideration the fixing of a price for gasolene, just as the price is fixed in the United States, making an allowance for the difference between the imperial and the wine measure.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is the price fixed in the United States?


John Allister Currie: It is, because you can buy the wine gallon for twenty to twenty-three cents in the remotest parts of the Southern States. At Chicago, Detroit, Buffalo, and all through that territory it sells for from twenty-three to twenty-five cents, but when you cross the river it is thirty-five cents. I think the Government, when putting a tax on automobiles, which are a luxury, should also take into consideration the fixing of a price for gasolene for these automobiles, because gasolene is very much used by the farmers nowadays both on the farm and in trucking. I think the price of gasolene should be fixed so that Canada will not be imposed upon, and a little tax upon gasolene might probably get the Government more revenue than the tax on automobiles.
134J


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not know where my hon. friend found the price to be twenty-three cents per gallon in the United States and thirty-three cents in Canada. The last time I was over there the bigger gallon sold for thirty cents, a-s compared with thirty-three cents here, and thirty cents there is exactly equal to thirty-six cents here.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I understand that gasolene is cheaper in Toronto at the present time than in Buffalo. It is very difficult to explain the spread in price, tout had I known this question was coming up to-night I would have had some information on the subject which would have helped in the discussion. I may assure my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) that certain representations have been made to the Government in respect to the price of gasolene, and we are proposing to make some inquiries into the matter.


Jacques Bureau: I think the question
raised by my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) is very apropos. He wanted to know whether big motor trucks would be subject to this tax.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That has been explained.


Jacques Bureau: Personally, I do not know of a motor truck that cannot be adapted to passenger service. Let me give an illustration. A truck was imported, something like the ones that are seen in the streets of Ottawa sprinkling water. It wore out, and was sold to a couple of fellows who took off the tank and put on seats, and now the car is being used to transport passengers between two villages. That goes to show that any automobile is adaptable to passenger purposes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was not in that condition when it was imported.


Jacques Bureau: Who is going to decide if it is adaptable for passengers when it is imported? I say there is no truck that is not adaptable for passengers.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think there will be any serious attempt to evade the tax by importing an automobile as a motor truck, and afterwards converting it into a passenger automobile. I do not anticipate there will be any trouble on the part of the officials of the Customs Department in giving a satisfactory ruling in every instance. You can convert possibly almost any motor vehicle into a passenger car, but I would point out that the cost of a motor truck is very much greater than the cost of a passenger automobile.


Mr. DECHENE:: Is the tax applicable only to automobiles brought in for sale or for manufacture?


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: Applicable to
every automobile imported.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: The clause reads, "Automobiles imported into Canada for sale or manufacture."


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is in respect of stock on hand on the thirtieth of April, stock already imported.


Mr. PEDLOW:: I should like to make a suggestion with reference to taxing automobiles, and the object of my suggestion is not only to increase the revenue but by taxation to discourage the purchase of luxuries and unremunerative articles. I would suggest that instead of a flat rate of ten per cent on motor cars a sliding scale be adopted, taxing motor cars costing 31,000 or under say ten per cent, cars costing $2,000 twenty per cent, and on the more luxurious cars and limousines costing $3,000 or over, a tax of thirty per cent of the selling price. I think motor cycles should also be included in this scheme of taxation. They cost anywhere from $300 to $500, and, of course, are pleasure vehicles.
I do not see any reason why motor cycles should be excluded. You would derive an increased revenue from this source. The imposition of a tax on the lines as suggested might discourage the investment of money in luxuries. I would endorse the proposition made by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) that a tax of five cents a gallon should be levied on gasolene when used for pleasure purposes. Gasolene as used for industrial or utility purposes should be exempt, hut when it it used for purely pleasure purposes I do not see any reason why you should not levy a tax on it. In the Old Country they prohibit the use of gasolene entirely for pleasure purposes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would be very difficult to administer a tax on gasolene unless it were made applicable to all uses. Gasolene is used very largely by farmers, particularly in the western provinces, and by fishermen on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. The question of the taxation of gasolene received very considerable attention. I do not know that I should state to the House what considerations influenced me in not including such a tax in this Bill. Possibly it may be imposed next year. The price of gasolene is now very high and possibly it may go higher owing to the fact that the cost of crude oil has advanced

between 200 and 300 per cent. Crude oil, from which gasolene is made, sold before the war for 95 cents a barrel. Three weeks ago it was selling for $3.95. It is believed in the United States that it will go a great deal higher.. The supply of crude oil in the United States to-day will not meet their own wants for fuel purposes. It was that consideration which largely influenced the Government in abandoning the idea of a tax upon gasolene for this year at least. The suggestion about grading the tax on automobiles has merit, of course. However, as long as it is based upon the selling value, the more expensive car will pay more than the cheaper one. The larger proportion of automobiles purchased or manufactured in Canada cost under $1,000. In Canada last year there were manufactured 68,000 automobiles which were sold at a price under $1,000. There were 8,000 sold at a price between $1,000 and $2,000, and 400 only over $2,000. The number of imported automobiles costing over $2,000 was very small indeed. It was for that reason that I thought it better to make the tax applicable to all.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: I see no definition of the word "jewellery" in the Bill. The only paragraph I can find, having reference to the matter, is that in the schedule to part IV, which says:
Articles commonly or commercially known as jewellery, whether real or imitation, for personal use or for adornment of the person.
Will that include medalb given as rewards in schools, convents, colleges and universities? Many of these medals are manufactured in Montreal, and I have received some inquiries as. to what would be included under the word "jewellery." Will religious medals be included? The paragraph reads in such a way that these medals might be classed as "jewellery," because it says, that the tax shall apply when these articles are acquired for personal, use or for adornment of the person. Some of these imedals are worn because they have been bestowed as a reward or a distinction.
iMr. A. K. 1VLACLEAN: I think I may 6afely say that a. medal will hardly come within, the definition, of the word "jewellery."


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The Acting Minister of Finance did not deal with the suggestion to include motor cycles in the articles subject to taxation,. I do not see why they should not be. A motor cycle is as much a pleasure car as any other car, and it should bear taxation as well as the cheaper motor cars.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, it was nor intended to include them.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think they are a great nuisance, and) if they were taxed out of existence it would not ibe a bad idea.
Mr. MoMASTER: I do not wish to importune the minister, but it was a serious argument I advanced which he has not replied to', namely, that when he puts the duty as high as 52J per cent he will in a large measure reduce the revenue to be derived from that source. It may possibly be that that is the object-to stop imports from the United States.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That was one of the objects.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If that is so, well and good, but it will not help the revenue.


Louis Audet Lapointe: The minister has not given answer to my question as to whether medals are included within the term "jewellery."


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I could not speak definitely about that matter, because the department administering the Act will have to frame regulations as to what will come within the definition oif jewellery from time to time. I am only giving my opinion, which is that medals would not be classified as jewellery. I think the Department of Customs would take the definition of medals that is found in the Customs Act, and exclude them from the tax:
Medals, of gold, silver, or copper and other metallic articles, [DOT] actually bestowed' as trophies or prizes and received and accepted as honorary distinctions, and cups or other metallic prizes won in bona fide competition.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: Will this tax apply to watches, including wri6t watches?
(Mr. A. K. MACLEAN: No.


Louis Audet Lapointe: I think the clause should be amended so that it would be demonstrated beyond all doubt that it does not apply to medals.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think
it is an important matter anyway, because the amount taxable would be very small. I think my hon. friend can afford to let the matter drop.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 3-Tax on tea.
John Howard Sinclair: This subsection
is indefinite. It refers, as far as I can understand it, to tea that was in warehouses on April 30, and does not cover tea that was purchased after that date.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is the excise tax. The other is in the Customs Act.


John Howard Sinclair: Could not the
minister get along without this tax on tea?
It is very unpopular. Tea is a beverage of the poor man and the poor woman, in fact of everybody. The fact of whisky being prohibited makes it all the harder-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should think that would make it easier to pay the tea tax.


John Howard Sinclair: -harder that this heavy tax should be imposed on the only beverage that is left for the people. I think the minister ought to be able to carry cn without this tax on tea. It is one of the taxes that we have not levied in the past, and it appears to me that he ought to give the matter some further consideration. My view would be that this tax should be struck out.
Mr. PEDtLOW: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) in regard to the tax on tea. I think if the minister were to transfer the tax from tea to gasolene he would obtain as much revenue, or more, and would please a lot of people. To change this tax from tea to gasolene might displease some persons, but I am sure the pleasure that the tea-drinkers would derive would more than overcome any displeasure that such a change might cause.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A tax upon anything is unpopular. But, unfortunately, we must have a revenue, and it must be imposed upon things that enter into consumption. The consumption of tea per capita in Canada is about four and a quarter pounds per year, so that after all the tax will not be a very onerous one. I would be very pleased indeed if we did not have to impose it, but I think the people of Canada will accept it in good spirit.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I can quite understand that it is as impossible to tax and be popular as to love and be wise, but when when we are taxing tea let us proceed in accordance with proper principles. I am urging once more-and it is only proper that I should do so-that this excise tax on tea should be ad valorem and not a specific tax. You are taxing at ten cents a pound the thirty-cent tea used by the poor, which means an imposition of 334 per cent, while the tea costing fifty or sixty cents a pound, used by the richer people, is only taxed to the extent of fifteen or twenty per cent. This is not a fair

or a right way to impose taxation. In the second place, I see no reason for departing from the principle introduced in 1897 of a British preference. A British preference should he granted to the tea growers of Ceylon and other parts of the world where the British flag flies. I see no reason for departing from that policy, and I would urge upon the minister even at this eleventh hour to change his tax to an ad valorem one, and to preserve the British preference in regard to tea.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it is absolutely impossible to have an ad valorem tax on tea. In the first place, it would be very difficult to administer such a tax, and in the second place it would yield very little revenue. If you have an ad valorem tax upon tea importations it must be upon the price in the country of production. In India, China, and Ceylon, tea sells at four, five and six cents a pound. It would not be fair to the British exporters of tea to this country. Then I am informed by the officers of the department that almost all the countries of the world regard an ad valorem tax upon tea as being practically impossible. The only countries which have an ad valorem tax are Turkey, China and Egypt. At the present moment the British tax upon tea is a shilling a pound; in France, I think, it is twenty-four cents a pound, and in Italy it is even higher. I think I may safely say that an ad valorem tax on tea would yield very little revenue, and it would practically be impossible of administration. Now, as to a preference to importations from British countries, I repeat what I said a few days ago, that the suggestion is worthy of consideration. At the present moment we are in need of the revenue and we thought it advisable to put this tax in the same category as the tax upon tobaccos and liquors; in regard to which a preference is not given to any of the British countries. However, the matter may receive the consideration of the Government later. I want to point out also that for the present year a preferential rate for the British dominions would not carry any advantage owing to the impossibility of getting shipping to forward tea. The suggestion of my ihon. friend, however, is a very fair one, and I quite agree with him that it is worthy of consideration.


Jacques Bureau: Does not the minister
think that the tax should be 20 per cent ad valorem? The man who buys tea for 25 
cents or 50 cents a pound would then pay 5 and 10 cents. And if he bought tea for $1 a pound, he would pay 20 cents. The minister has referred- to the consumption of tea in France. Tea is not drunk in France, not because it not used, but because coffee is drunk to a greater extent, and the drink of the poor man is not tea, but coffee. So the poor man ie not hit as hard by that tax in France as we are here.	[DOT]


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Tea is the great article in Great Britain, not coffee, and I think Canada is- a tea-consuming country.


Jacques Bureau: Absolutely. Tea ie the
poor man s drink in Canada. Xf we made the tax 20 per cent ad valorem, the tax on fifty-cent tea would be 10 cents and on dollar-tea 20 cents.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is there any dollar-tea?


Jacques Bureau: Yes. I think I have paid as much as $1.50 for tea.


Mr.  A. K. MAJCLEAN@: There is no such thing as importations of tea costing 50 cents. The export prices now from British India are 7.27 cents per pound; Ceylon, 6.56 cents; China, 5-1 cents; Japan 7.10 cents. 'The export prices are just as I have given, and the 50 cent tea sold in Canada is blended by Canadian tea houses.. Of course, blended tea also comes from Great Britain!


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Does the section provide that this tax shall only apply to dealers holding 1,000 pounds of tea- at a time? In a great many cases, especially in the big towns, there are many small dealers holding only a few hundred pounds of tea.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They do not pay.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: But they are charging ten cents to the consumer just th^ same. The consumer is paying at this time of the year in Ottawa 10 cents excise tax which the corner-store dealer pockets. When the departmental inspector goes to the dealer, he will prove that he has not a stock of
1,000	pounds of tea, nevertheless he is charging 10 cents to the consumer just the same. Why is the provision limited to a minimum stock of 1,000 pounds? There is no way of the consumer getting back his money, and' the dealer will usually be sharp enough to get the ten cents. If the consumer is paying the tax, the Government should take means to get it, and not allow the dealer to pocket it. -


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think it is correct that in all places the dealer has

added already the tax to the price of stocks now on hand. If stooke of tea on hand regardless of quantity had to pay the tax, it would cost more to collect the same than we should receive. It might be possible to have collected the tax upon aH stocks on hand in the large cities. But if the Department of 'Customs and Excise were obliged to send their officers all over Canada, through the country districts collecting ten cents a pound on every pound of tea held by merchants, my hon. friend will readily see that that would be a very expensive operation, the net result of which would be that the treasury would be out of pocket. We had to fix a limit and we thought
1,000	pounds about right.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I understand that. But in order to collect the tax at all, your collectors will have to visit every store, to find out what amount of tea is on hand.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Now they do, but hereafter the tax will be paid through the customs.


Mr. TOBIN:: What amount does the minister expect to get from this tax on tea?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: About $3,200,000.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: As many hon. members have said, a heavy tax is being put on tea. But I think coffee should not be neglected.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Oh, we have not forgotten coffee.
On section sub-paragraph (4)-Tax on moving picture films:


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would suggest that
a different basis would be, perhaps fairer on taxes of this kind and not decrease the revenue in any way. Instead of a flat rate of 10 cents, or whatever the rate is, _ a graduated rate on films and moving picture theatre tickets and other theatre tickets might be imposed. For instance, it is hardly fair that expensive tickets costing $1.50 and $2 should only pay a minimum tax of 10 cents each. I think any one who is flush enough to spend $1.50 or $2 on a theatre ticket can well afford to pay 25 or 50 cents in addition. I think that feature should be looked into if it has not been already.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If the war continues very much longer there will be ample time to create further additional taxes, if up to the present time we have overlooked any. Theatre tickets are now
taxed by all the provinces. In some places there is a municipartax as well. I think it is better that we do not enter into conflict with the provinces and municipalities in matters of this kind, at least so long as we can avoid it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean the House .adjourned at 11.59 p.m.
Friday], May 17, 1918.