1926-05-04

FIRST READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 95, to incorporate the Red Lake and Northwestern Railway Company. -Mr. Heenan.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I wish to ask whether the petition presented by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) with respect to the return of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) has been examined; I should like to draw attention to the fact that the matters to which it refers are before the courts under the Controverted Elections Act. This being the case I desire to raise a point of order as to whether the petition can properly be received.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am informed by the
Clerk of the House that the report of the examiner of petitions in reference to this matter is in to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then, Mr
Speaker, I would raise the point of order to which I have already alluded, namely, whether under the existing circumstances the petition can properly be received by the House. In raising the point of order, I have no desire to express any view one way or the other with respect to the matters referred to in the petition, but I simply draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that when resort has been had to a similar proceeding in the past, the House has more than once declined to receive a petition relating exclusively to a matter before the court and pertaining to the Controverted Elections Act.


Mr. BENNETT:: We might as well have
the petition read.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend in presenting the petition to the House indicated very clearly the nature of it. The statement of the hon. member for West Calgary was as follows:
Hon. R. B. Bennett (West Calgary):	Mr. Speaker,
I desire to present the petition of James Arthur Collins, of Chisholm, in the province of Alberta, lumberman, praying that the House of Commons of Canada may determine and declare that Donald Macbeth Kennedy was not duly elected and returned at the election held on the 29th day of October, 1925, and that the said return was and is void, and that it may be declared that the petitioner was duly elected at the said election and is entitled to be returned as the member elected to represent the electoral district of Peace River in the House of Commons of Canada.
The remarks of my hon. friend indicate clearly that the petition relates to a controverted election, one which he and the House know is before the courts at the present time.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that there are four acts under which methods are provided
306G
Peace River Election

by law for correcting election wrongdoing or punishing offenders in connection with such wrong doing; first, the Dominion Election Act; second, the Controverted Elections Act; third, the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act, and fourth the House of Commons Act. The purpose of the enactment of the Controverted Elections Act was to remove from the jurisdiction of parliament to the courts matters relating to the election of members. I would in that connection point out the difference between a matter relating to the election of a member and a matter relating to the qualification of a member on grounds other than those pertaining to his election. Under the House of Commons Act, the House reserves to itself full power to deal with any matter referring to a member's right to sit in the House other than the right as affected by the elections; matters arising out of an election, parliament has, in its wisdom, expressly removed from the arena of decision or discussion here to the courts, having recognized long ago that it is difficult if not impossible for a question of the kind, which may give rise to so much party feeling and partisan discussion, to be satisfactorily dealt with by the House.
May I remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that the Controverted Elections Act was passed in 1873. The statute will be found to-day as chapter 7 of the Revised Statutes of 1906. At the^time of the enactment it was referred to as an act to make better provision for the trial of controverted elections of members of the House of Commons and respecting matters connected therewith." Section 91 of the act reads:
AIJ elections shall be subject to tihe provisions of this act, and shall not be questioned otherwise than m accordance herewith.
Mr. Speaker said: "I cannot find any rule or precedent to guide me in coming to a conclusion on this question. I think it would be well for the House to consider this matter, and lay down a rule with respect to similar petitions in the future. I am of the opinion that it is an election petition. Looking over the late English Journals, I cannot find any cases of petitions of this nature having been ruled out. After considering all the circumstances, I think that the petition ought not to be received.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was Mr. Speaker Anglin.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Hon. T. A. Anglin was Speaker of the House at the time. I would draw Your Honour's attention to these words:
Looking over the late English Journals, I cannot find any cases of petitions of this nature having been ruled out.
It will be inferred, I think, from that language that no petitions of that character had been presented to the House of Commons in England, the House having recognized the desirability of following the method, which indeed we in Canada copied from the British legislation, of having all matters of the kind dealt with by the courts. I would further direct special attention to the ruling of his honour the Speaker in these words:
After considering all the circumstances, I think that the petition ought not to be received.
The petition was one relating to the election of an hon. member of this House and m that particular was similar, if not indeed in many respects identical, to the one which we are discussing at the moment.
May I now cite another case in point On January 17, 1S81, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Mr. Laurier, moved in the House of Commons:
This would appear to make clear the intention of the Controverted Elections Act to remove from the House of Commons questions with respect to election of members otherwise than in accordance with the act's provisions.
The act as I have just stated was passei m IS/3. In 1874 a case in point came befori the House. It is reported in the Journals o the House of Commons for 1874, April 20 at page 82. I shall read from the Journals
A motion being made and seconded, that th petition of Horatio Le Boutailier, of Gasp6 Basin province of Quebec, presented on Thursday last praying that the return for the last election for th. electoral district of Gaspe be completed and amended as a matter of privilege, by substituting the nami of the petitioner for that of Louis George Harper be now received :
And objection being taken to the reception of this petition on the ground that the subject is one which cou d only come under the cognizance of the courts or law as provided by statute:

That the petition of Edmund Ritter, and others, o-f Sorel, representing that there has been a failure of justice in the matter of the trial of the election petition, complaining of an undue return for the electoral division of Richelieu; and praying to be allowed to make proof before the House, be now read.
Ti he motion was agreed to on February 3, and the petition read. The words first quoted will be found in Hansard of 1881, Vol. 1, page 485. A debate followed as to whether the petition should be received by the House, and on February 14, Mr. Speaker J. G. Blan-chet decided that the petition could not be iecei\ed by the House. The discussion will be found in Hansard of 1881, Volume 2, page 961 and Mr. Speaker's ruling will be found m the Journals of the House of that year at page 199. Mr. Speaker Blanchet went very carefully and fully into the subject under review and I should like to read to Your' Honour the ruling which was given by Mr. MAY 4, 1926
Peace River Election
Speaker at that time. In the Hansard debates at page 823 under "Controverted Election of Richelieu" the following appears:
Mr. Laurier moved that the first order of the day be the resumption of the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Laurier, for the reception of the petition of Edmund Ritter and others, complaining of a certain failure of justice in connection with the controverted election of Richelieu.
I refer to that particular introduction to draw attention to the fact that the matter under consideration at the time was whether the petition could be received or not, which is the only point that I am raising just now. As I have already said, I have nothing to say about the merits or the representations of the petitioner. Mr. Speaker's ruling will be found on page 961 as follows:
Mr. Speaker said: After having given a most careful consideration to the petition of Edmund Ritter, and others of Sorel, representing that there has been a failure of justice in the matter of the trial of the election petition complaining of an undue return for the electoral division of Richelieu, and praying to be allowed to make proof before this House of the allegation therein made, I am of opinion that the same cannot be properly received, for reasons which I now propose to state.
I shall not quote all the reasons, but I shall give the House the pertinent parts. He continued:
Now the only question that this House has to consider is, whether this petition is not in effect a petition, questioning the return of a member, which, as it has been admitted on both sides, cannot be properly received by the House, in view of the fact that it has divested itself of its right of trying such matters by referring them to the jurisdiction of an independent judicial tribunal. In handing over this power to the courts, the House still reserved to itself the right of taking notice of any legal disabilities affecting its members, and issuing writs in the room of members judged to be incapable of sitting but the petition now under consideration, both in its terms and scope, is a petition questioning the return of a member, and not within the purview of this House. By the act 37 Victoria, chapter 10, the House of Commons divested itself of its original jurisdiction for the trial of all matters growing out of the election and return of members having the right to sit therein, including the withdrawal and abatement of any election petition in consequence of alleged corrupt agreement between the parties concerned. That power now belongs to the courts of justice, which try all election cases in conformity with the statutes in that behalf provided. The 63rd section of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, 1874, expressly provides that all elections held after the passing of the said act shall be subject to the provisions thereof, and shall not be questioned otherwise than in accordance therewith, showing clearly that the determination of the judicial body to whom that power has been delegated is final to all intents and purposes. Now the petition in question declares in express terms that the sitting member "has no right to the seat he. occupies"; and were the prayer of the petitioners granted, the logical result would be the virtual resumption by the House of the jurisdiction which it has in its wisdom handed over to the courts. It asks the House to sit as a court of appeal upon a judgment rendered by a court of justice, though such judgment
ought to be final 'according to the law. If the petition should be received it would then be competent for any member to move that it be referred to a committee; and if such a motion were agreed to, the various allegations in the petition would constitute the order of reference by which the committee would be governed in its proceedings. In this way a door would be opened to the indiscriminate reception of petitions attacking generally the return oi members, though not governed by any of those formalities necessary even in those times when the House possessed full jurisdiction over controverted elections.
To grant the prayer of the petition, would be to violate the general principle which lies at the basis of all the legislation adopted by the English parliament since 1868, and by the Canadian parliament since 1873, that the courts should alone adjudicate on matters on controverted elections.
In conclusion Mr. Speaker said:
In view, then, of the fact that the petition is in conflict with the letter and spirit of the law which governs the House in such cases, and does in effect question the right of an hon. member to his seat; I have to decide that the objection raised by the hon. member for Bagot is well taken, that the petition cannot be received.
The petition which my hon. friend presented the other day is, I submit, both in its terms and scope a petition questioning the return of a member and as such identical in its essential features with the one which Mr. Speaker Blanchet refused to allow to be received at the time to which I have just referred.
On April 28, 1887, the papers relating to the election in the electoral district of Queen's, NB., having been brought up, an hon. member Mr. Skinner, moved that on the facts recited in his resolution a wrong return having been made, the return should be amended by inserting _ another name therein. In reference thereto the Minister of Justice, the Hon. J. S. D. Thompson, said that since the Controverted Elections Act-
-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 tile 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 qualification of persons who have been returned to parliament. . . . 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. . . . has been relegated to the judiciary, and the House has always declined to exercise its functions and its power to interfere.
Sir John Thompson accordingly moved that instead of adopting Mr. Skinner's resolution the House should refer the papers in relation to the election to the committee on Privileges and Elections for report. After a considerable debate this amendment was carried on the same date, April 28. The references in question will be found in Hansard of April 28, 1887, at page 154 et seq. On
Peace River Election

May 6 the committee on Privileges and Elections reported that in its opinion the case should be disposed of under the Controverted Elections Act, since all questions as to the validity of the election of members should be decided by the ordinary legal tribunals and not by the House of Commons.
In that case, there was, I think, doubt as to whether the petition did not go further than simply refer to the matters appertaining immediately to the election of the candidate. For that reason apparently the petition was received by the House and referred to the committee on Privileges and Elections, but the committee took care to draw the attention of the House at once to the fact that the petition was really one which should have been construed as coming under the Controverted Elections Act. It accordingly advised that the House should not entertain the request in any particular.
That brings me to one other case to which I should like to refer. Many hon. members present will recall that in 1913 certain charges were made against the Hon. Mr. Coderre when that gentleman occupied the position of Secretary of State. A motion was made to refer to the committee on Privileges and Elections certain matters relating to the election of the member, and certain facts and circumstances appertaining thereto. The point I desire to make clear in reference to that particular matter is that something more than the mere question of the hon. member's right to his seat in parliament was involved; his right to sit in the House was but one of the matters in question. The opposition of the day took the view that inasmuch as the petition related to matters going considerably beyond the question of the right of the member to his seat in the House, it should be referred to the committee on Privileges and Elections. The matter was debated at length.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Was the petition received?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand the matter was raised on a question of privilege.


Arthur Meighen: But as a matter of fact
the petition was received.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not in
a position to say whether there was or was not a petition, but I am able to quote my right hon. friend's opinion then expressed with reference to petitions of the kind being received by parliament.


Arthur Meighen: I know what it was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I desire to
quote my right hon. friend as he is reported in Hansard on March 17, 1913, at page 6140. He said in the course of his remarks:
Undoubtedly, until tie passing of the Controverted Elections Act in this country in 1874 and the Elections Petitions Act in Great Britain in 1868, both parliaments had jurisdiction through their privileges and elections committees to try all matters connected with the election of their members. These committees were appointed primarily for that purpose, and petitions had to be presented to them and money deposited for security, and tlhe committees tried the cases m the usual way. But since these acts were passed in these two parliaments-and I will ask the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. (member for St. Hyaeinthe to contradict me if I am wrong-there has never been a case where such a charge as that made here has been referred to the Privileges and Elections committee.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Elsewhere the right hon. gentleman is reported as follows: What was the opinion of Sir John Thompson? It was that, since the passing of that act in England m 1868 and since the passing of a parallel act in Canada in 1874. these Houses had divested themselves of all authority to inquire into matters connected with elections, save only the question as to the qualifications of the member selected-as to whether or not that member was a .minor, felon or convict.
The right hon. gentleman then mentions that Sir John Thompson's opinion was approved by the committee on Privileges and Elections, and further on he says:
So far as the public are not affected, and so far as the charges relate to elections, we have divested ourselves of such authority and vested it in the courts; and so we must exclude all such cases fram the jurisdiction of the Privileges and Elections committee.
In the division which took place on the motion I observe that my right hon. friend in opposing its reference, notwithstanding its scope, to the committee on Privileges and Elections, was consistent in the view he took, and was supported at the time by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) who has now presented the petition claiming the Peace River seat for Mr. Collins.
I need not any longer occupy the time of the House by citing authorities. Perhaps, however, I should make this concluding observation. Following the constitutional practice adopted in England there can be no question as to the duty of the House to decline to receive a petition of the nature of that which has been presented. Inasmuch as our practice and our legislation are modelled on the British procedure and acts and has been followed heretofore in accordance therewith we should here seek to maintain the precedents that have been established and which for good and sufficient reasons have been so resolutely upheld in recent years. May I again say that

my purpose in raising this point of order at the moment is not in any way to discuss the merits of the petition, to question the motives of the hon. member who has presented it, nor to inquire at whose instance it has been submitted to the House, but simply to ask that before this House receives the petition or takes any action upon it, there shall be a ruling from Your Honour as to whether or not it may properly do so.


Arthur Meighen: I had no notice until
the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) rose that this was to be a matter of discussion this afternoon. The point apparently taken is that the House has not only divested itself of power to try the merits of elections so far as their conduct is concerned but has also relinquished the right to receive a petition from anyone who may question a return.
I want to thank my right hon. friend for the compliment of including my humble self among the list of high authorities whom he has quoted dating back over a considerable number of years. Did those authorities appertain to the point raised by my right hon. friend the compliment would be greater; but in the main, as was evident from the Prime Minister's own words, they had no reference at all to that point. Let me again emphasize the fact that I have not had an opportunity to review the cases referred to but, as I gathered from the Prime Minister's remarks, he cited four authorities, one in 1874, one in 1881, another in 1887 and the Coderre case in 1913. As respects the first two, and the first two only, did the question as to the right of the House to receive the petition even so much as come up. Whether the state of the law on that occasion was the same as it is to-day may be a matter for dispute. I raise it not now. But I say this, certainly as respects the second-and there was not sufficient data given as respects the first-it was not the same case at all as is being tried here. That was a case where the courts had already dealt with the subject and where the petitioners sought to make the House of Commons a court of appeal from a court of justice.
I come now to the third and the fourth. Those cases are distinctly against the Prime Minister's contention. Those were cases where the petitions were received, and comments of members of the House as to what ought to be done with them, whether by reference to the committee on Privileges and Elections or otherwise as to how the discretion of parliament should be exercised, have no place at all. The fact is the petitions were received, and this House thereby set
Peace River Election
precedents which we are asking the House to follow now. We are not to-day at the stage where we discuss what should be done with the petition after it is received. When we come to that stage I will deal with the authorities quoted by the right hon. Prime Minister from the debates of 1887 and 1913.
I want to emphasize this. A most serious step is to be taken if this petition is not to be received. This is not a petition that questions the conduct of an election at all. If such conduct is to be held in question, then I quite agree we have decided that the courts of justice are the proper tribunals for decision as to the merits. That is what was called in question in the Coderre ease- whether or not Mr. Coderre personally or those acting as his agents had so conducted the contest as to entitle them to the verdict that was given. What is in question in this case is not whether. the hon. member for Peace River conducted his contest honestly or not, not whether the votes cast in his favour or cast against him were rightly or were corruptly so cast. The only question at issue is: Were the votes cast in his favour or were the votes not; was he elected on the votes so cast, whether honestly cast or not? Surely this House has not divested itself of jurisdiction to say whether after the ballot box was closed the facts show that this man was elected or was not.
The men who take charge of the ballots and who declare the verdict are officers of this House, they are the deputy returning officers and the general returning officer for Canada. These men have nothing to do at all with the righteousness or the wrongness of the conduct of the election; but they have everything to do with the rightness of a declaration as to who got the most votes. I repeat, the general returning officer is an officer of this House. Are we to sit here and say that we have not the right even to receive a petition which questions the conduct of an officer amenable to this House, and to this House alone? We do not ask and do not suggest that parliament go behind the closing of the ballot box and say whether or not there was a breach of the law. All we ask to-day is this:	Is the return made by an
officer of this House in accordance with the votes of the electors, however those votes were obtained?
Now the Prime Minister rises at this stage and says to you, Mr. Speaker:	You must
not allow the first step to be taken to enable parliament to become cognizant of the conduct of its own officer; you must not even receive a petition which would bring the
Peace River Election

matter before this House. I repeat, if we are to take that step it is a very serious one. It is a step which puts the officers of this House beyond the jurisdiction of the House itself. I suggest that the right course to pursue is to permit the petition to come to this House for debate, and then if this House decides in the exercise of its well known jurisdiction over its own officer that It should not refer the petition to a committee, very well, let the House so decide. But do not let us establish the precedent of having Mr. Speaker declare that the House has no right even to consider what should be done with a petition affecting the conduct of an officer amenable to the House alone.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
if the House will permit me, I should like to make one word of explanation to my right lion, friend, and particularly to my hon. friend from West Calgary. I had assumed that my right hon. friend was aware that this matter was likely to come up to-day, because the hon. member for West Calgary yesterday was kind enough to inform me that he intended to raise this question at the opening of the- House to-day, and would ask that the petition be referred to the committee on Privileges and Elections.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not to raise this question, but to move that the petition be received and referred to the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is correct; my hon. friend would move when the petition had been received that it be referred to the committee. I was informed that when the report of the Examiner of Petitions was made, unless I took exception the petition would be received in a technical sense and I feared it might be thought I would thereby be precluded after its receipt by the House from raising the point of its being proper for the House to receive it. Had my hon. friend from West Calgary been in his seat before I rose to my feet, I would have told 'him at once of my intension. I had no desire of being discourteous to any hon. member opposite.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, from time
immemorial parliament has always exercised control over its own privileges and over the question of whether its members were properly elected. Down until 1874 that was the practice in Canada, but in that year there was passed by this parliament the Controverted Elections Act, by which parliament divested itself of the right to inquire into the methods by which members were elected to this House. Since that time the uniform practice, no matter
[Mr. Meighen.j
what party was in power, has been to recognize the validity of that act and the wisdom of that practice.
There is only one question, it seems to me, in regard to this point of order-as to whether or not this petition which my hon. friend for West Calgary has sought to present to the House is a matter pertaining to an election which comes within the purview of the Controverted Election Act. If the assertions which he makes relate to matters which under that act have been committed by this parliament to the courts, then he has no right to present this petition and ask parliament to interfere in a question with which for the time being it has nothing to do.
My hon. friend in presenting the petition stated that it was a petition:
Praying that the House of Commons of Canada may determine and declare that Donald Macbeth Kennedy -was not duly elected and returned at the election held on the 29th day of October, 1925, and that the said return was and is void, and that it may be declared that the petitioner was duly elected at the said election and is entitled to be returned as the member eleoted to represent the electoral district of Peace River in .the House of Commons of Canada.
Now I assert beyond all question that the facts alleged and the relief sought are matters that wholly come within the purview of the Controverted Elections Act. They were committed absolutely to the courts in 1874, and no one up to date has seriously questioned this in this House. My right hon, friend the leader of the House in making his abjection to you, Mr. Speaker, cites two cases in which petitions of this character h^ve been presented and ruled out by Mr. Speaker of the day. Reference has been made to what is known as the Ooderre case, which arose in parliament in 1913. This matter did not come to parliament by way of petition, but by way of a question of privilege which was raised1 by the then hon. member for St. Hyacinthe, Mr. Gauthier. He came to parliament, presented certain affidavits and asked parliament to refer the matter to the Privileges and Elections committee. That is, what appears by the record of the day; I remember being in the House at the time. The position taken was that this being a matter which involved questions that could be determined by the courts on election petitions, the House should not deal with the question or refer it to the committee on Privileges and Elections. The then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, took that position, as did the then Minister of Justice, Right Hon. Mr. Doherty. On the other side it was urged' that the matters contained in the affidavits submitted went beyond and were not part of those questions committed

Peace River Election
under the Controverted Elections Act to the courts. It was conceded by almost every hon. gentleman who took part in the argument that if the questions raised on the matter of privilege related solely to those matters which had been committed to the courts, no action could be taken. My right hon. friend took that position; he quoted from Sir John Thompson and asserted with emphasis that at no time had parliament ventured to assert its right to deal with or inquire into matters committed to the courts by that act.
I submit the only thing Your Honour need consider is the point of order. If this petition relates to a question which has been committed to the courts for consideration I submit that under the precedents, as a matter of law and a matter of procedure, Your Honour should rule that the petition be not received. What purpose would be served in receiving it if parliament could not deal with the question in any way? What would be the use of reading a document here in relation to a subject with which we have no power to deal? The precedents which have been cited are, I submit, quite ample to justify such a ruling on the point of order.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I wish to suggest briefly, Mr. Speaker, that the arguments presented by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) clearly indicate that this petition must be received in order that the House may be in a position to decide as to whether or not its contents are such as to exclude it from the jurisdiction of this House, and to place it under the jurisdiction of the courts. We have not yet seen the petition; hon. members have not had an opportunity to read it; we do not know its contents, except by some general words of description which were used when notice of the petition was presented. I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is necessary for Your Honour to decide that this petition may be received in order that the House may be fully cognizant of its contents, and be in a position to decide as to whether it is within the sole jurisdiction of the courts or whether it contains allegations solely with respect to the conduct of an officer of the House, who is always responsible to, and whose conduct must be passed upon by, the House. If an error has been made in addition or in any other way Your Honour must decide whether we have jurisdiction to rectify that error. In an ordinary case I am prepared to accept the word of the right hon. Prime Minister as to the contents of a petition, but he has not read this petition
and does not know its contents except by mere hearsay. I might accept the word of the Minister of National Defence but he has not read the petition; he has no more right to read it beforehand than have we on this side of the House. We have had no opportunity to read it and therefore, until it is received, the objection raised by the Prime Minister is premature and I suggest cannot be decided in his favour without depriving this House of the opportunity of knowing the contents of the petition. We must decide whether this matter should be referred to the committee on Privileges and Elections for their consideration.
Hon. R B. BENNETT (West Calgary): I do not know that I can add very much to what has already been said, Mjr, Speaker. The question before the House is a point of order. It questions the right of a citizen of Canada to petition parliament; whether or not a free citizen of this Dominion has a right to petition parliament. That, shortly put, is the question that must be considered. It is said that this free citizen may not petition parliament because there is pending in the courts of the country a suit or action under the Controverted Elections Act.
Let us first of all examine the petition itself ; I propose to read it. The petition which it is said this parliament may not receive is as follows:
To the Honourable the Members of the House of Commons
In Parliament Assembled
The petition of the undersigned, James Arthur Collins of Chisholm, in the province of Alberta, lumberman-
Humbly Sheweth:
1.	That an election was held on the 29th day of October, A.D. 1925, for the electoral district of Peace River, to elect a member to represent the said electoral district in the House of Commons of Canada.
2.	That the candidates at the said election were: Donald Macbeth Kennedy, William Archibald Rae and your petitioner, James Arthur Collins.
3.	That Edward Henry Sheppard was the returning officer at said election, and on the 26th day of November, A.D. 1925, declared the said Donald Macbeth Kennedy duly elected to represent the said electoral
[DOT] district in the fifteenth parliament of Canada.
4.	That pursuant to the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, in that behalf, a recount of the votes cast at the said election was held from the first until the eighteenth days of December, 1925, at the city of Edmonton, By His Honour Judge Mahaffy, and at the conclusion of said recount the said judge certified that 3986 votes had been cast in favour of Donald Macbeth Kennedy; 3944 votes had been cast in favour of William Archibald Rae and 3969 votes had been cast in favour of your petitioner, James Arthur Collins, and directed that the said Donald Macbeth Kennedy be declared elected to represent the said electoral district in the fifteenth parliament of Canada, by a majority of seventeen votes over your petitioner.
Peace River Election

5.	That on the 2nd day of January, the said Donald Macbeth Kennedy was gazetted as the member returned for the electoral district of Peace River to serve in the House of Commons of Canada, and he has taken his seat in such House of Commons.
Before I read the next paragraph I desire to point out that this petition makes known to this House the fact that proceedings are pending under the Controverted Elections Act, and gives the character of those proceedings.
6.	That on or about the 26th day of February, A.D. 1926, proceedings under the Controverted Elections Act were taken by one John B. Page against the said Donald Macbeth Kennedy, but no such proceedings have been taken by your petitioner, or by anyone on his behalf.
7.	That at the said election, the said electoral district of Peace River was subdivided into 298 polling divisions, No. 4 of such divisions being known as Brule Manes poll.
8.	That the final recount by His Honour Judge Mahaffy, as aforesaid, showed that at Brule Mines poll, being poll No. 4 as aforesaid, twelve votes were cast in favour of Donald Macbeth Kennedy and 127 votes in favour of William Archibald Rae and twenty-one votes in favour of your petitioner.
9.	That at least 111 electors voted for your petitioner at Brule Mines poll, No. 4, aforesaid, but through the action of the deputy returning officer, one Peter A. Robb, and other persons, to your petitioner unknown, ballots were fraudulently manipulated to produce the result mentioned in the next preceding paragraph of this petition.
10.	That on or about the 18th day of January, 1926, the said Peter A. Roibb, deputy returning officer, aforesaid, was charged before the Honourable Chief Justice Simmons of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta.
"For that he, the said Peter A. Robb on or about the 29th day of October, A.D. 1925, at polling division No. 4, at Brule Mines in the province of Alberta, at an election held under and by virtue of the Dominion Elections Act for the election of a person to serve in the House of Commons of Canada in and for the electoral district of Peace River, in the province aforesaid did fraudulently destroy a number of ballot papers used by voters at the time and place aforesaid.
And also for that he, the said Peter A. Robb, on or about the 29th day of October, A.D. 1925, at polling division No. 4, at Brule Mines, aforesaid, at an election held under and by virtue of the Dominion Elections Act for the election of a person to serve in the House of Commons of Canada in, and for the electoral district of Peace River, did fraudulently put into the ballot box used in connection with the said poll papers other than the ballot papers which he, the said Peter A. Robb, was authorized by law to put in the said ballot box.
And also for that he, the said Peter A. Robb, on or about the 26th day of October, A.D. 1925, at polling division No. 4, at Brule Mines in the province of Alberta at an election under and by virtue of the Dominion Elections Act for the election of a person to serve dn the House of Commons of Canada in and for the electoral district of Peace River in the province of Alberta and being a deputy returning officer at said polling division, No. 4, did fraudulently put otherwise than as authorized by the said Dominion Elections Act, his initials on the back of papers purporting to be, or capable of being used as ballot papers for the said election," to which said charges, .the said Peter A. Robb pleaded "Not guilty."
[Mr. Cahan.l
11.	That the trial of the said Peter A. Robb commenced at Edmonton, Alberta, on Monday the 29th day of March, 1926, before the Honourable Mr. Justice Walsh of -the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta and a jury, and at the conclusion of the said trial cm the first day of April, 1926, the said Peter A. Robb, was found guilty by the said jury on all the three charges aforesaid (as amended at the said trial) and was sentenced by the Honourable Mr. Justice Walsh to imprisonment for five years in the penitentiary at Prince Albert with hard labour, for each of the said offences, such sentences to run concurrently. A certified copy of the proceedings at the said trial accompanies this petition.
12.	That at the election held on the 29th day of October, 1925. in the said electoral district of Peace River aforesaid, more ballots were cast for your petitioner than for either the said Donald Macbeth Kennedy or William Archibald Rae.
That, Sir, is a relevant allegation in this petition, that at that election more ballots were cast for James Arthur Collins than for any other candidate.
Wherefore your petitioner prays that the House of Commons of Canada may determine and declare that the said Donald Macbeth Kennedy was not duly elected and returned at the said election, held on the 29th day of October, 1925, and that his said return was and is void, and that it may be declared that your petitioner was duly elected at the said election and is entitled to be returned as the member elected to represent the electoral district of Peace River in the House of Commons of Canada.
And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, that petition was presented to this House by a member of the House of Commons of Canada and was referred to the clerk who deals with such petitions. That clerk has reported this petition back to this House. The Prime Minister of this country now asserts that this House of Commons of Canada should not receive that petition. In due course that petition would, on motion by one of the members of this House, have been referred to the committee on Privileges and Elections. That would have been the motion, to refer this petition which alleges that more ballots were cast for a man who is out of this House than were cast for a man who is in it, to the committee on Privileges and Elections. We are now met with the point of order that this House should not consider such petition. Four precedents have been referred to. Two of them are the expressions of opinion by the Speaker, but I venture to say, Sir, that if you will be good enough to traverse the whole debate that took place in the Coderre case in 1912-1913, you will find there a careful analysis of all the authorities, and it will be observed that my friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) was then very strong in the opinion which he now condemns.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish):: Not at
all.

Peace River Election


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to accept
my hon. friend's statement as to his state of mind, but the evidence of his state of mind is indicated by the vote. It is a very regrettable fact that a matter of this kind should become the subject of acrimonious discussion in this House at this time. I, Sir, venture to think that nothing can be worse for the dignity of this parliament, nothing can reflect more on our sense of fairness or of justice, nothing can better reflect the [DOT] state of mind of men who are no longer ready to award justice to their fellows and be impartial in their consideration of public questions, than to say we are unwilling to refer this petition to the committee set up by parliament to consider these matters.
The crux of our case, and I do commend it to my friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), is found in the language which was used by my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) a few moments ago: Parliament has not been asked, and is not being asked, to enter into a discussion nor an inquiry with respect to matters other than one:	Were
4 p.m. more votes cast for Collins in that election than for Kennedy?
If there were, will any man dare to assert that the man who received the minority of the votes should retain the seat? No one has yet said that a receiver of stolen goods should be better than the man who owned the goods; no one has ever suggested that.
Let us see what they said in England. Two great law officers of the crown, one the late Lord Coleridge, the other the late Earl of Selborne, one Lord Chief Justice and the other Lord Chancellor, had occasion to deal with these matters, and in dealing with the jurisdiction of parliament as affected by the enactment of legislation respecting elections, they saw fit to direct attention to questions upon which the jurisdiction of parliament must be maintained as distinguished from the jurisdiction that had been parted with by virtue of the statute. If you will turn, Sir, to the debate that took place in the House of Commons in 1912-1913, you will find the quotation there from those observations, in the speech that was made upon that occasion by the now right hon. leader of the opposition. You will find the citations at the top of column 6142, in volume III of the debates of that session.


Hewitt Bostock: Column 6142?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, my lord.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is true that titles
have been dispensed with in this country, but one cannot do more respect to the 14011-195



BEVISED

[Stage Direction]
Speaker than to address him as one would address a judge in a court of last resort, and I am sure he will discharge his duties with the same eminent impartiality as would be shown by a judge in a court of last resort dealing with a matter of this kind.
Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend who has
just spoken discharges his duties with such eminent impartiality that I am sure he will be with me. My right hon. leader at the bottom of the page to which I have referred, was dealing with this matter and discussing the question of the jurisdiction of parliament as distinct from that of the courts. Now that parliament has divested itself of some of its jurisdiction in the matter need not be discussed. The question is, to what extent has parliament divested itself of this jurisdiction? If parliament still retains its power over its own officials, as was pointed out by Sir Louis Davies, then this petition must be in order. What is the complaint here? The complaint is against an official of this House, a deputy returning officer, who fraudulently, in violation of his obligations, in dereliction of his duty, saw fit in the opinion of six of his countrymen to manipulate ballots so fraudulently as to steal the election from Collins.


Mr. CANNON:: That is one of the allegations of the petition, but what is the real conclusion of the petition? That is the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The conclusion of the petition is that the seat should be given to the man who had the most votes. It is amusing that my friend the Solicitor General should ask what the conclusion of the petition is. The conclusion is that the committee on Privileges and Elections may hear and determine whether or not the facts alleged in the petition are true. If it be true that 111 men, who went into the witness box at Edmonton and swore they had voted for Collins, have been deprived of their franchise, because only 127 ballots came out of the ballot box marked for Mr. Rae, and Mr. Kennedy was thereby given a seat which he had no more right to than a stranger on the street, then what is the conclusion? The conclusion is that parliament should inquire as to whether or not these officials discharged their duty, and if they did not, this parliament should see why they did not so discharge their duty, and should give the seat to the man who had the most votes. These are the words of the two



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Peace River Election
[Stage Direction]
law officers of the crown Lord Selbome and Lord Coleridge:
It is true we have divested ourselves of our jurisdiction over all election matters, but it does not follow that we have not the right to say that our writs shall be obeyed. The writ issued by this House calls upon the people of a certain county to elect a certain qualified representative, and we still reserve authority and jurisdiction to inquire as to whether or not they have returned duly qualified men.
This House still has the authority to inquire as to whether or not Peter Robb, deputy returning officer, appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer, an officer of this House-and the House will recognize the jurisdiction which we vested in him-discharged his duty or whether or not he became a party to the opening of the ballot boxes, taking out ballots and marking them for another man, sealing up the ballot boxes and counting those ballots so marked, so as to deprive the successful candidate of a seat in this House. That is the question which has to be met and it has to be considered. This House still has jurisdiction-to do what? To see that its writ is obeyed, the writ of election that was issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, the servant of this parliament, to the eiectors of Peace River, and if it is proven to the satisfaction of a committee of the House that the deputy returning officer or one of his officials saw fit, in dereliction of his duty, in fraud upon the people of Alberta, to deprive them of their right as citizens, to whom do they look but this House? Whom are they to look to but to this House, or to a committee of this House, which reports back these facts, and gives the seat to the man who is entitled to it but who has been illegally deprived of it.
Let me go a step further. I will not content myself with quoting the language of so eminent an authority as Lord Selborne or Lord Coleridge I will go further and quote the authority of the late chief justice of this Dominion, who in 1900, in dealing with the West Huron election case, had occasion to deal with this very matter. Sir Louis Davies put the case on the strongest ground on which it could be put. He said:
It is true we have divested ourselves of the jurisdiction over election matters-
These were the words:
But we have retained jurisdiction over own officers- our returning officers and deputy returning officers, and over none others.
These were the words of Sir Louis Davies in 1900. What did Sir Wilfrid Laurier say in the debate of 1913? What was his declaration as to what the position was? He agreed with the observations made by Mr. Doherty,

then Minister of Justice, now Right Hon. Mr. Doherty, who for two hours or more reviewed all the authorities and placed the matter before the House in every detail. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then leader of the opposition, dealt with the matter you will observe that he was very careful to say that this parliament had not divested itself of all its jurisdiction, but had retained jurisdiction over its own officers, over its own deputy returning officers.
This petition is here, Sir, from a citizen of this Dominion, in order that this house of parliament may refer it to the committee on Privileges and Elections. For what purpose? To see whether or not our officers, our servants, the men to whom we delegated certain rights, to ascertain whether the electors of Peace River desired to elect number one, number two or number three to sit in this House, had been guilty of fraud or otherwise. If they had taken out the ballot boxes, extracted ballots therefrom and substituted other ballots, then this tribunal of parliament should deal with the matter. If it can be proven not before the courts of the country, not by a trial, but by the production of the men who so testified before the court, that although they, to the number of 111, had voted for Collins and that notwithstanding when the ballots were taken out of the box only 27 were found to be marked for Collins, do you mean to tell me, Sir, that the free people of this country are not entitled to petition parliament and to ask that this great wrong shall be undone? Why, Sir, the very mention of it to the people of this country, the very idea that a man may retain a seat in this parliament when an election petition cannot be tried while parliament is sitting, that the receiver of stolen goods can flaunt his crime before the people and say, " I am going to be tried some time two or three months hence, but in the meantime I am going to enjoy the fruits of my wrongdoing."-the very idea, I say, is enough to shock the sensibilities of all who venerate the principles of right and justice and who believe in representative institutions. In this case no one charges Mr. Kennedy with wrongdoing, and no one alleges that he had anything to do with it, and he had not, except in this one respect that having received the stolen goods, he is holding on to them. That is all. I am amazed, Sir, that there can be in the mind of honest men the thought that you would permit this House to deny to the man who has been wronged the right to come to this'tribunal, the highest court in the land to present his case. It is unthinkable. I could not believe my ears when I heard the Prime Minister rise in his

Peace River Election
place and raise the point of order. I thought, Sir, it would be time enough to raise such a point when it went to the committee on Privileges and Elections, and I suggest to my right hon. friend that on reconsideration he should let the matter go to that committee, just as Sir John Thompson, when presenting his argument in the Queens election case in 1887 said, " That is my view of the law ". He was one of the most eminent lawyers who ever sat in this House. He presented his case and said, " This matter can go to the committee on Privileges and Elections." When it came back the committee reported that in their judgment they had no jurisdiction.
Now, I do ask my hon. friend the Solicitor-General, before he argues the matter, to pause and think where this will lead him. I ask my hon. friends opposite to pause and think what would be their attitude if they were in the same position as the hon. member for Peace River. I have here the authority of a Lord Chancellor, of a Lord Chief Justice, of one of the greatest and most eminent jurists this country ever knew, Sir John Thompson, and the authority of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the great leader of the Liberal party. I give you these authorities and I give you the authority of the Chief Justice of Canada before it is too late. Oh, Sir, I implore you to remember what this means. This is by all odds the most serious and important matter that parliament has to consider, because it must be known to every member of the House that when the Speaker decides that he has no jurisdiction, that this petition is out of order, an appeal will be taken to the House and the House will be divided sharply on party lines in a matter which hon. members should consider as judges. You ask them as partisans to decide whether Mr. Kennedy should retain the seat which Mr. Collins won. I put it to you, Sir, and I ask you if that is your conception, or the conception of hon. members of the proper function of the House of Commons. It may well be, if this goes to the committee on Privileges and Elections that a majority may conclude that it should not be considered by parliament, but should be referred to the courts, but at the moment you are asked to say that this parliament shall not receive the petition of the injured man. Surely that cannot be the law. Have I made myself clear? The distinction I submit is very narrow but it is very apparent. A petition that deals with matters that have to be considered by courts and a petition that asserts that officers of this House have not done their duty are entirely different. It is perfectly clear from the petition that has been read that the al-14011-1951
legation is founded upon a breach of his duty by one who is now in penitentiary, who is now reposing quietly and calmly incarcerated in that prison because he has deprived some ninety people of their votes, III having voted for a candidate and only twenty-seven votes coming out of the ballot box.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Is my hon. friend correct? Is the man not out on bail?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Robb?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.
Mr. B'ENNETT:	I am not so advised.


Charles A. Stewart: For a retrial.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was advised that he
was in penitentiary, but my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, who resides in Edmonton, knows better than I.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: The case has been taken to appeal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not suggested that
he has been granted pardon, is it? I am bound to say that politics in western Canada sometimes are corrupt. I am now asking the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), recently first minister of Saskatchewan, to carry his mind back to 1906 and 1907 and I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to recall the Prince Albert case of 1906. I have before me the Journals of Saskatchewan for 1907.


Mr. DUNNING:: What has this to do with the point of order before the House?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assure my hon. friend
if he will only wait one moment that it will indicate that the legislature of Saskatchewan unanimously decided to put into his seat Mr. Donaldson who had been deprived of that seat by the robbing of ballot boxes by his opponent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Unanimously?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. A spirit of fairness was shown that I trust will now be indicated by hon. gentlemen opposite. May I now venture to recite the facts? Mark you, Sir, again this was a deputy returning officer, an officer of the legislature. Mr. Donaldson petitioned the legislature to retain his seat. A Mr. Tyer-man was returned by a majority vote and it was alleged that at one of the polling divisions there had been interference with the ballots by the deputy returning officer. According' to the Journals of the Saskatchewan legislature for 1907 Mr. Haultain presented a petition reciting the facts which are set out at pages
Peace River Election

82 and 83. The petition was referred without question, without debate, to the committee on Privileges and Elections. The matter was greatly argued, counsel presenting the case, and inasmuch as it was decided the case is different from this-


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not very different. It indicates that what happened in 1907 was a prelude to what happened in 1925, because in that election when the ballots came out of the box there were 318 cast in favour of Donaldson and 260 in favour of Tyerman whereas 411 were returned as having been cast in favour of Tyerman. In other words the same sort of thing happened in northern Saskatchewan in 1907 as happened in northern Alberta in 1925. They had transferred their operations a little further west. Let me go a step further. The matter was much debated and the deputy returning officer was prosecuted. He pleaded guilty and he was sentenced to imprisonment. Then proceeds the further matter, the review of the authorities, and at page 85 Mr. Haultain, now Chief Justice Haultain, and Mr. Lamont, now Mr. Justice Lamont of the Court of Appeal, reviewed the authorities in these words:
The committee have looked into the practice and procedure, as well as the law applicable to the hearing of election petitions presented to parliament and have found that during the early period of parliamentary history in England the power of trying election petitions was repeatedly exercised' by the House of Commons in England but it was found that on nearly every question of the kind which came before the Commons the decisions were arrived at by strictly party vote, and that so fully was it recognized as being a party question that on one occasion the ministry went o-ut of office because it had failed to carry the vote of the House in the disposition of a controverted election petition, and in order to prevent so notorious a perversion of justice, the House consented to submit the exercise of this 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.
The principle of the Grenville Act-
That is the English act of 1868 passed by Disraeli in his short term of office as Prime Minister.
The principle of the Grenville Act, and of others which were passed at different times since the year 1770, was the selection by lot of committees for the trial of election petitions. Partiality and incompetence were very generally complained of in the constitution of committees appointed in this manner, and in the year 1839 an act was passed establishing a new system upon a different basis increasing the responsibility of the individual members and leaving but little to the operation of chance.
I should withdraw my observation as to Mr. Disraeli's act. It was passed in 1868. The Grenville act was prior to 1867.

This principle was maintained with partial alteration of the means by which it was carried on till 1868, when the jurisdiction of the House in the trial of controverted elections was transferred by statute to the courts of law. As a result of the act of 1868 doubts were expressed whether these provisions would not supersede the jurisdiction of the House in determining questions affecting seats of its own members not arising out of controverted elections, but it was decided that the act applied to the questioning of returns by election petitions only, and that under the procedure in force before that act when returns were questioned by petition the matter was determined by the tribunal, and before such tribunal was established the House uniformly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction.
In places where acts providing for the trial by courts of controverted election petitions are in force the legislature has on more than one occasion refused to deal with the question of the right to the seat as between two contending parties, and have limited the jurisdiction of the House to questions such as the personal disqualification of a person returned as member, but the supreme court of the Northwest Territories having no jurisdiction to hear and determine questions relating to controverted elections there would appear to be no doubt but that the legislature has what is called "constitutional jurisdiction" and has a right, and in fact is bound to hear and determine through its properly constituted committee petitions asking for the voidance of an election and claims to seats.
The commitee is of the opinion that they should deal with the matter in dispute upon proper principles of law and for that reason have asked counsel appearing for and against the petition to cite cases which might be of assistance to the committee and the House in determining the question arising in the petition and out of the facts proved, and the committee have also endeavoured by every means to find precedents which would be of similar assistance.
No case has been cited or has been found by your committee similar in all respects to the case disclosed by the facts above set out. Cases have been cited wherein the courts have in exercising the jurisdiction delegated to them by parliament voided elections but have refused the claims of petitioners to seats and have directed new elections, but these are cases in which certain electors who had the right to vote were disfranchised by reason of the acts and conduct of deputy returning officers in placing marks upon ballots which had the effect of making it possible to identify the voters, and thereby under the law making the votes ineffective. The principle which the courts have applied to such cases is that there being no real electing at all, they could not give the seat to the petitioning candidate for the reason that the persons who were entitled and had the right to vote had not had an opportunity of expressing their will in regard to the election.
In the present case, however, there would appear to your committee to have been a valid election at which the will of the duly qualified electorate was expressed, the result of such expression of will being that Mr. Donaldson obtained the majority of the votes polled at the election, which majority could not, as appears from the facts above recited, be affected by permitting the duly qualified electorate of polls Nos. 24, 25 and 26 (if any) to vote.
The committee are therefore of the opinion that on the ifacts and in view of the principle of law already stated, the petitioner Samuel J. Donaldson is entitled to be returned as the member elected to represent the electoral division of Prince Albert in the legislative assembly of Saskatchewan.
Ordered, That the report be now concurred in.

Peace River Election
On motion of Mr. Lamont, seconded by Mr. Haul-tain,
Ordered, That the Clerk of the Executive Council be summoned by Mr. Speaker to attend the bar of the House and amend his certificate relating to the return of the member elected to represent the electoral division, of Prince Albert at the election held on the 13th December, 1905, by inserting the name of Samuel James Donaldson in lieu of the name of Peter David Tyerman.
And so the legislature of Saskatchewan, having inquired into the facts through a committee, unanimously decided that the action I have taken should be taken and that Mr. Donaldson should be given the seat, Mr. Tyerman having already filled one term in the legislature. It will be observed that it is of first-rate importance that an opportunity should be afforded in a case of this kind for counsel to appear to present the precedents, to examine the authorities, and to make such legal arguments as the facts and necessities of the case warrant. If therefore this petition is now decided to be out of order, it follows that no opportunity will be afforded for any committee to examine into this matter and determine wherein the jurisdiction of parliament ends and the jurisdiction of the courts begins.
I do not for a moment allege that it may not be determined by that committee ultimately that the petition is one that should not be considered; but I do assert emphatically that we should be doing violence to every notion we have of justice and of fair play, to every precedent that has come to us down through the centuries in relation to the jurisdiction of parliament over its own officers, if we decided that the petition of a free citizen of this Dominion to this parliament, citing certain facts which affect a seat that he believes to have been improperly deprived him through the fraudulent conduct of the officers of the House, should not be inquired into by a parliamentary committee. That and that only is our case.


Finlay MacDonald: Does
the hon. member assert that the matters that are alleged in this petition do not come within the purview of the petition which will be dealt with by the judges of Alberta under the Controverted Elections Act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that the case under that act may proceed and never touch the point at all.	[DOT]


Finlay MacDonald: That will be the petitioner's fault.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) is the defendant in an action in the courts under the Controverted Elections Act in which Mr. Collins, the aggrieved person, is not the plaintiff.


Finlay MacDonald: He may appear under the law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he is not in charge
of the proceedings, and the question might be decided without this point being touched upon. I am sure that in the heart of every member of this House there is a sense of justice, and justice requires that the petition shall be received. Mr. Collins claims that he should have the seat which is now occupied by Mr. Kennedy; that Mr. Kennedy should resign it and, if he so desires, endeavour to regain it by proceedings under the Controverted Elections Act. The justice of the case demands that at that bar our Chief Electoral Officer dhould stand and that, because of the fraudulent conduct of an officer of this House, the return should be amended by inserting the name of Collins in place of that of Kennedy.
We are all weak and are inclined to be influenced by our personal feelings and our political views. But when it comes down to a case of real, essential justice, observe what was done in Saskatchewan. There you find the attorney general, a Liberal, moving, and the leader of an opposition small in numbers seconding, a report to have the clerk of the executive council brought to the bar of the legislature, strike out the name of Mr. Tyerman and substitute therefore the name of Mr. Donaldson, the circumstances having warranted this. That was justice. I do not say that this House is prepared to take a similiar course, but I do urge, Mr. Speaker, that we do not lightly dispose of a matter that so vitally affects the honour of this assembly. If this petition is rejected, think what a premium we put upon dishonesty. It would mean that in every election held in Canada, if you could only get enough dishonest deputy returning officers to manipulate ballots so as to return for the moment a required number of members, you would deprive parliament of its authority and frustrate the will of the people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is not the hon. member entirely ignoring the fact that parliament has provided that the courts of the country shall take into consideration all these matters to which he is referring? Has not the court tlhe right, after it has heard all sides of the case, to inform Mr. Speaker of the matters which it thinks ought to come before the House? The intention is not to deprive the House of Commons of the right of remedying any wrong; it is to prevent the kind of discussion we are having now, before the matter is settled by the proper tribunal.
Peace River Election


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad my right
hon. friend has said that, for it is one argument why the matter should be referred to the committee. I am sure the Prime Minister will realize the seriousness of it. Let me give a concrete illustration. Suppose as the result of an election we had a House of 240 members, 125 supporting the government and 115 in opposition. That would leave the government with a majority of ten. The House is called and it is ascertained that, say, fifteen members owe their seats entirely to the manipulation of ballots. A petition comes before parliament. What happens then? The courts cannot touch it while the House is in session, and nothing will be done in the meantime. What will that lead to? Why, Mr. Speaker, it simply puts a premium upon dishonesty and it means that you have invited every deputy returning officer in Canada to become a crook. Not only that, but you have put the stamp of approval of the House of Commons on such conduct. Let us carefully weigh the matter before we decide it.
Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish) Why should we have the Controverted Elections Act at all?


Richard Bedford Bennett: To deal with the conduct of elections.


Finlay MacDonald: And of returning officers as well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As Sir Wilfrid Laurier
said in his speech in 1913, this parliament has never divested itself of the authority to inquire into the right of a member to sit in the House.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon
friend is arguing that because parliament is in session and the case cannot be heard, therefore Mr. Collins is being deprived of a privilege that rightfully belongs to him. Will that privilege be denied him when the time comes for the trial? So far as the deputy returning officer in question is concerned, he has been convicted and has therefore paid his penalty. But how is Mr. Collins deprived of his privilege, seeing that the case must come before the courts?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry I have not
made clear to the Minister of the Interior the gravity of the matter.


Charles A. Stewart: I quite appreciate the seriousness of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The fact of Mr. Collins having been deprived of his seat in the House is only incidental. But the fact that a gentleman should sit in parliament without,

as it is alleged, a mandate from the people of the constituency which he purports to represent, is something that affects not only that particular constituency but every constituency in the country.


Charles A. Stewart: At several
of the other polls allegations were made which, 'while it is true they were not proven, were so nearly established that they would indicate that Mr. Collins had support which perhaps should have gone elsewhere.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am surprised that my
hon. friend-


Charles A. Stewart: That happened at McLellan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You can never count
upon what juries may do, and if the jury chose to acquit Mr. Griggs, one of the deputy returning officers-


Charles A. Stewart: I was not
thinking of Mr. Griggs; I was thinking of the poll at McLellan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the case of Mr. Griggs a jury of his countrymen thought that he had not violated the law. But here we have a case the effect of which is to deprive the people of Peace River of representation according to their will and, what is more, to undermine the authority of parliament. What becomes of representative government if parliament refuses to accept this petition?


Lucien Cannon: What about 1917?


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that was a question in which parliament had enacted legislation as to who should vote. That is not the question now before us. In this instance-and I do ask my hon. friends to consider it seriously -let us make it personal with respect to this House.


Lucien Cannon: The incident of 1917 was so serious that it was tragic.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am perfectly willing to engage in a discussion with my hon. friend with respect to that, but it is not relevant to this point of order; what he is referring to was a question of the franchise. After listening to the account of the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Doucet) of the purposes that legislation served in Quebec during the last election, I say it was indeed tragic.


Mr. JACOBS:: The party to which it belongs is now paying the penalty, in the same way as Robb is.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Might I ask hon. members to deal with the point of order?

Peace River Election


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am always delighted to endeavour to answer any questions that may be asked, and my hon. friend so seldom asks any that I should like to answer this one. He says Mr. Robb is paying the penalty. It is true. But the country is being deprived of the services of Mr. Collins, who obtained a majority of the votes cast. That is an entirely different matter.


Finlay MacDonald: If my
hon. friend would permit me-supposing his contention is right that parliament should receive this petition, and that upon its reception it was referred to the committee on Privileges and Elections, which decided that the statements contained therein were correct. You would also have the trial of the petition proceeding in the courts, and if it was there decided that Mr. Collins was not entitled to the seat, we would have the anomalous condition of parliament deciding one way and the court the other. Parliament therefore should not divest the court of its jurisdiction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am the
more surprised at the minister making an observation of that character because he must know that the trial of the petition could not proceed in that event for Mr. Kennedy would no longer be the sitting member. I assume if Mr. Collins is returned a protest might then be lodged against him, and it might, proceed. But let us take this very House, let us deal with actualities. What happened? On the first vote taken in this House this session there was a majority of three. Mr. Speaker, just think what this means.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One opponent of the government was absent. Had he been present the majority would have been two.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He had not taken his
seat.


Finlay MacDonald: That is not a point of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is, for it illustrates
the effects of this. Had Mr. Collins been in his seat, as the electors of Peace River decided by a majority of seventy or eighty he should, the result of that first division would have been a tie. Now, are we here to-day to ask the Speaker of this House to decide that a petition that directs the.attention of parliament to malfeasance in office of its own officials shall not be heard?


Finlay MacDonald: What
has that to do with the point of order?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point of order is
that this petition cannot be heard, although a Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England and the Chief Justice of Canada, have all expressed the opinion that parliament has complete jurisdiction over its own officials. That is the point that we must not get away from. We must all keep in mind this one essential thing, that when the officials of this House violate their duty and fail to discharge the obligation placed upon them, this House can call them to account at that bar. If we fail, if we put a premium on rascality, we have dishonoured our finest traditions, we have made this House a participant in that which has deprived one of our citizens of the highest rights he can enjoy under the constitution, and we have decided that fraudulent manipulation of ballots, which may change the personnel of the government and thus change the policies of the countiy, are to meet with the approval of this House. Until I see that done, Sir, I cannot believe it possible for it to happen.


Hon. G. H. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to wander quite so far away from the point of order as the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Bennett). I may be obliged, however,-and I crave your indulgence if I should do so-to stray from the straight and narrow path in order to answer some of the arguments adduced by my hon. friend. I was not surprised to hear him say that there is a sense of justice in the heart of every man. There are exceptions to confirm all rules, and I am sorry to see that the hon. member himself is to-:day the exception. A sense of justice in the heart of every manl And still he stands in his place in this House and accuses one of his fellow members of keeping and retaining stolen goods-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Georges Henri Boivin: -when he well knows that his fellow member, owing to the provisions of section 8 of the House of Commons Act, could not resign his seat if he so desired.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is clear he could not resign, but it is equally clear that he should not participate in the deliberations of this House.


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend has an afterthought and presents the argument used in the House by his right hon. leader a few days ago. He contends-I do not pretend
Peace River Election

that he is right-that an hon. member can occupy his seat in this House, that he is even obliged to be here but that he has no right to exercise his prerogatives as a member of parliament. That is almost as erroneous as the other argument used by my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: If my hon. friend will permit me-under what obligation is a man to sit in this House who knows he did not get the majority of votes?


Georges Henri Boivin: My right hon. friend says that someone knows that the hon. member for Peace River did not get the majority of votes?


Arthur Meighen: He knows it himself.


Georges Henri Boivin: And my right hon. friend pretends he knows it too?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly; we all know it.


Georges Henri Boivin: We all know it?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


Georges Henri Boivin: Who said so?


Arthur Meighen: The judge and the jury.


Georges Henri Boivin: The judge and the jury decided according to the evidence of certain men that a certain number of votes which should have been given to Mr. Collins in that election had been counted for Mr. Ray. The judge and the jury did not decide that-


Arthur Meighen: It was decided by our officers.


Georges Henri Boivin: Still that is not what the judge and jury decided.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: The judge and jury were not called upon to decide whether the hon. member was or was not elected.


Arthur Meighen: That is what they decided. The judge and jury-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: The judge and jury had to decide that in order to decide the case presented to them.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it because the judge and jury decided something they were not called upon to decide that we are to ask a fellow member to resign? That is something the judge and jury had no right to deal with.


Arthur Meighen: They had the right.
JMr. Foivin]


Georges Henri Boivin: Will my right hon. friend tell me under what law Mr. Kennedy can resign his seat to-day?


Arthur Meighen: I do not say anything of the kind. I say he is under no obligation to sit as the hon. member said he was.


Georges Henri Boivin: Under no obligation to sit?


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member is doubly obligated. He took his oath of office to do his duty as a member of the House of Commons, and the law says he must do that duty and cannot resign.
Even if the argument so ably built up by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) were true in every respect, he has proven almost instinctively, clever advocate that he is, that he is not making his argument in the right place. In addressing the Speaker of the House of Commons as "My Lord," he has shown that he well knows that the argument should be made before a court of justice.


Hewitt Bostock: I assure the House I am not a lord.


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend revealed
himself as a very able parliamentarian. He realizes, I think, after hearing the arguments pro and con that you, Mr. Speaker, will undoubtedly disallow the petition and decide that it cannot be received by the House.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure my hon
friend will not object if I draw attention to rule 69:
If anything shall come in question .touching the return or election of any member, he is to withdraw during the time the matter is in debate; and all members returned upon double returns are to withdraw until their returns are determined.
That is an answer to the question brought up a moment ago, as to what a member should do.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does my hon. friend contend that if the hon. member whose election is under debate at present withdrew from the chamber it would alter his argument or mine? Would it alter the decision of Mr. Speaker on the point of order? If not, why does my hon. friend cite the rule?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because it was suggested
that there was no provision under which he could retire from the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for St.
Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) claimed that one of the reasons why' the petition

Peace River Election
should be allowed was that the House of Commons did not know the contents of that petition. The hon. member for West Calgary has remedied that; in case the petition should not be received he has proceeded in advance to read the petition into Hansard and to deliver the address that would have been delivered on the motion to refer it to the committee. He has attained his object, and I hope will no longer dispute the point of order. He claims that the House of Commons, through the committee on Privileges and Elections, should be called upon to decide this question. In that case, what becomes of the authority of our courts; what becomes of the Controverted Elections Act; and why was that act enacted by this parliament? It was enacted for the precise purpose of removing from the heat and passion of party politics and partisan warfare just such questions as the hon. member desires to have decided to-day.
Before the year 1770 controverted elections in Great Britain were tried and determined by the whole House of Commons as party questions, in which the strength of contending factions might be tested. May, in his tenth edition, states very clearly:
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. The principle of the Grenville Act and of others which were passed at different times since 1770, was the selection by lot of committees for the trial of election petitions. Partiality and incompetence were, however, generally complained of in the constitution of committees appointed in this manner; and in 1839, an act was passed establishing a new system, upon different principles, increasing the responsibility of individual members, and leaving but little to the operation of chance.
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	The House has no
cognizance of these proceedings until their termination: when the judges certify their determinations, in writing, to the Speaker, which is final to all intents and purposes.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Will he tell me when parliament surrendered the right to review the conduct of its own officers?


Georges Henri Boivin: Parliament never surrendered the right to review the conduct of its own officers, but the petition before parliament to-day is not a request to review the conduct of an officer. It is a request for Mr. Kennedy to vacate his seat and give it to Mr. Collins.


Arthur Meighen: Because of the conduct
of an officer of this House.


Georges Henri Boivin: Because of the conduct of
an officer of this House, which conduct will be taken into consideration at the trial of the controverted election.


Arthur Meighen: Maybe.


Georges Henri Boivin: It must be, if anyone
desires to adduce the evidence before the court. It is provided in section 61 of the Controverted Elections Act:
The trial judges may, at the same time, make a special report to the Speaker as to any matters arising in the course of the trial, an account of which ought, in their judgment, to be submitted to the House of Commons.


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. member permit me to put the question again? Even assuming the court has jurisdiction over the conduct of this officer, when did parliament surrender the right to review the conduct of the same officer?


Georges Henri Boivin: Parliament did not surrender the right to review the conduct of its officers, and if the petition presented was a' petition to review the conduct of an officer of the House, it would be in order and would possibly be received and considered.


Arthur Meighen: That is just what it is.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is all very well for my right hon. friend to argue that it is, but the conclusions of the petition show that it is not. The conclusions are to the effect that one hon. member be asked to vacate his seat in order that his opponent may take it. In one particular polling subdivision of that constituency some irregularities were revealed. There were some subdivisions where no polls were opened, and other subdivisions where there were other irregularities. Does my right hon. friend say that it would be fair to judge the merits of that election by what took place in one particular polling subdivision?


Arthur Meighen: I say nothing of the
sort, but I am asking my hon. friend, if parliament has the right to review the conduct of its own officers, has it not the right to correct a wrong resulting from that misconduct?


Georges Henri Boivin: It certainly has the right to correct a wrong which may have resulted from that misconduct.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear. *


Georges Henri Boivin: I am glad my hon. friends applaud. Parliament has the right to correct that wrong, but it must be brought to the attention of parliament in the manner provided by law.
Peace River Election


Arthur Meighen: May I ask when parliament surrendered the right to correct that wrong sooner?


Georges Henri Boivin: To correct the wrong sooner than it is legally ascertained?


Arthur Meighen: To correct the wrong
earlier than the report of the court.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does my right hon. friend attempt to argue; does he want this House to decide, or does he want you, Mr. Speaker, to decide by your ruling that it is possible to have two trials of the same case going on at the same time, one in the courts legally constituted by this parliament, and the other in a committee constituted by this parliament?


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit me? If this is to be tried by a committee, it is tried during this session. Will he explain to me how tlhe other trial can take place during this session?


Georges Henri Boivin: I shall not attempt to explain to my right hon. friend what he already knows.


Arthur Meighen: He cannot.


Georges Henri Boivin: My right hon. friend knows very well that the other trial will not proceed during the session. He also knows very well that if this matter was referred to the committee on Privileges and Elections, the hearing would1 be dragged out there for political purposes. Witnesses would 'be brought here from northern Alberta and the whole trial would be repeated before the committee of parliament, and the inquiry would not be over until the dying days of the session.


Arthur Meighen: When did the government decide on that conduct before the committee?


Georges Henri Boivin: Will the right hon. gentleman repeat his question?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman says that the trial will be dragged out. There is no reason certainly why we should drag it out. When did the government decide to adopt these tactics before the committee?


Georges Henri Boivin: If there is no reason for my right hon. friend and his supporters to drag it out, there is no political reason for the government supporters to do so. We do not ask to, have it brought here. Why did they?


Arthur Meighen: To correct a wrong.


Georges Henri Boivin: To correct a wrong which
my right hon. friend himself admits cannot be corrected until it is too late, until the end of the session. fMr. Boivin.]


Arthur Meighen: It can if the government will do their duty.


Georges Henri Boivin: And further, it would be to
correct a wrong which is yet imaginary. If has not yet been proven!-a wrong must be proven in the court before the hon. member for Peace River can be asked to resign.


Arthur Meighen: Where do you find that?


Georges Henri Boivin: The law is clear that a wrong must be established before he can be asked to resign. Even if he so desired, he could not resign now.


Arthur Meighen: Give us a chance to
prove it.


Georges Henri Boivin: The leader of the opposition wants parliament, with all its power and might, to take a member and expel him from the House, to decide that he has no right to occupy a seat here, when as a matter of fact the hon. member could not resign if he so desired. That is the position in which the right hon. gentleman attempts to place parliament.


Arthur Meighen: That is nonsense.


Georges Henri Boivin: In 1913 the right hon. leader of the opposition, speaking in this House, said that this House has divested itself of all authority to inquire into matters connected with elections save only those questions relating to the qualifications of the members elected. Every other- matter concerning elections, the House had divested itself of its right and authority to inquire into.


Arthur Meighen: That is right, but will
the hon. gentleman permit me?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. gentlemen are very, very timid about their cause. They think it can best be defended by noise. This matter is not an attempt to inquire into an election. It is to inquire into an election return.


Georges Henri Boivin: If my right hon. friend
desires to propound the argument that he wants to unseat a member without inquiring into his_ election, he is welcome to such an argument. He admits it is an attempt to unseat a member, and yet he says it is not an inquiry into an election. How he can combine the two with that spirit of justice that is to be found in the heart of every man, is something which surpasses my humble understanding.
I do not want to argue further, Mr. Speaker. The point of order, which, after all, is really the only matter before Your Honour at the present time, was clearly raised and explained

Peace River Election
by my right hon. leader early this afternoon. There are two precedents, in respect to which the law has mot been changed, despite what the leader of the opposition may say. Two questions, absolutely identical, have been decided by two of your illustrious predecessors, Sir, and I am sure that this parliament, with its customs, rules and usages based upon precedent, will not reverse those precedents today.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: May I ask a
question, merely for information? What is the date of the petition which has been lodged in the courts, and by whom has it been presented?


Georges Henri Boivin: According to the information that I received when the hon. member for W'est Calgary read the petition, it was lodged in the courts on the 26th day of February, which I think was quite within the time limit provided in the Controverted Elections Act,


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who was the
petitioner?


Georges Henri Boivin: I have no knowledge of
his name.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Page.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He was a
Liberal, was he not?


Georges Henri Boivin: I think he was. When
Liberals attempt to contest an election they always proceed in the regular way. They do not attempt to bring before parliament things which should go before the courts, and it would not be a great surprise to us if it was discovered that the petitioner was a Liberal. But in any event, if
5 p.m. my hon. friend desires to insinuate that he may not proceed with his petition after the session has ended, let me remind him that any other person, including Mr. Collins himself or any of his friends, can intervene and take up the action and continue it before the courts. The trial should be held before the court and not before parliament. If this petition is received, it will mean that every time an election is contested, every time the right of a member to his seat is brought into question, it can be done by petition to parliament. It will mean that every time a returning officer or a deputy returning officer makes a mistake, it can be brought here for consideration.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: A mistake?


Georges Henri Boivin: Mistakes are sometimes
made inadvertently, and sometimes maliciously, and it is pretty hard for us to say, until the courts have decided and given judgment, whether mistakes were made maliciously or not. I know of elections that have been lost because the deputy returning officer neglected to initial the ballots. Nobody could say that it was done maliciously, or that it was done for the purpose of robbing any member of his seat.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the hon.
member contend it is a mistake when the man is convicted and sent to the penitentiary for his offence?


Georges Henri Boivin: That sentence has been appealed from. The man is entitled to be called innocent until-


Arthur Meighen: What is the ground of
the appeal? The wildest technicality ever known.


Samuel William Jacobs: The ground was that he
was not satisfied with the verdict.


Georges Henri Boivin: My right hon. friend contends that this parliament should substitute itself for the courts, and that in all cases election petitions should come here-


Arthur Meighen: I do not ask that at
all; never suggested it.


Georges Henri Boivin: Owing to an irregularity in this election-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No irregularity at alla crime.


Georges Henri Boivin: Owing to a criminal
irregularity, if you like-


Arthur Meighen: By our officer.


Georges Henri Boivin: By our officer?


Arthur Meighen: An officer of parliament.


Georges Henri Boivin: The officer of my right
hon. friend as well as of myself.


Arthur Meighen: But appointed by the
government.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am glad to hear him say that only for that reason this petition must be received. But if all other officers made mistakes, would all the petitions have to be received here? If, for instance, a political party desired to exercise partisanship to the highest degree in a house where the government majority would be forty or fifty over the party on the other side, and if all petitions came to the House instead of being heard by the legally constituted tribunals of the land, would it not be possible for a partisan majority to oblige almost all of the members in the minority to vacate their seats? That certainly would happen. It sometimes did happen many years ago, and that is why parliament in its wisdom de-
Peace River Election

cided that these questions should not be dealt with here, but should be decided by judicial and independent tribunals. If those legally constituted courts find any irregularity or any criminal act on the part of any officer, it is the duty of the judge hearing the matter to report to Mr. Speaker, who reads the report to the House at the opening of the next session. Then is the time for parliament to judge the act of that officer. The petition before you, Sir, is worded in plain English. It is a request that the hon. member for Peace River leave his seat and give it to his defeated opponent in his last election. Before he is asked to do that, we should not look at what took place in one particular polling subdivision, but the court legally empowered to do so should consider what took place in every polling subdivision, and when that has been determined it will be time for parliament to decide wbat punishment should be meted out to any guilty officer and consider any amendment that should be made to the election act. There is one amendment which never should be made. That is an amendment which would take out of the hands of an impartial judge or tribunal and refer to party politicians all matters connected with the election of members to this House.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: May I be permitted to say a word
on the point of order? I will endeavour to discuss the point raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) without wandering as far afield as the hon. Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) has done in the remarks he has addressed to the House.
The question in a way is a simple but very interesting one. It is at the same time a most important question and involves the right of a British subject to petition this parliament, a right whioh is laid down by all constitutional writers as an inherent right in our citizenship. A British subject has lodged a petition before this parliament, and the question is whether or not his petition should be received. That, I understand, Mr. Speaker, is the sole question raised this afternoon by the Prime Minister. I am not going to discuss the merits of the case as presented by my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), but will content myself briefly and solely with a discussion of the right of Mr. Collins to lay a petition on the table of this House and have it received by the House. If our constitutional rights are to be brushed aside with the indifference which has been displayed this afternoon by hon. members opposite, I think the time has come when 
we should lay down some definite rule upon the matter. That the right exists there can be no question. A citizen of this country desires to exercise that right; the question is should parliament refuse him that right.
The Prime Minister has cited certain precedents to the House. In the two earlier precedents, that of 1874 and of 1881, it would appear that the Speakers of those days ruled that the petition should not be received. These were early cases, but I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the earlier decisions have been superseded by what took place in this House in connection with the Queen's election case, I think, in 1887 or 1888, followed by another decision, in the year 1900 known as the West Huron election case. I am leaving out for the moment the Coderre case, because I understand that no petition was presented in that case. I take my information on that point from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald). Let us turn to the two more recent cases in which petitions were presented and received, notably the Queen's case in 1887 and the West Huron case in 1900. If in the earlier cases the petitions were not received by the House should we be bound by them in the face of what was done in the two more recent cases? Surely the earlier cases have been overruled and superseded, and the law and custom of this parliament at this moment has been settled by the course adopted in both the Queen's and Huron cases, where the petitions were received by this House.
I do not say anything as to the ultimate fate of the petition. I say nothing whatever as to what may or may not be done, or what may be the fate of any motion which may be made hereafter in respect of this petition. But what is our duty at the present moment? I can only repeat what has been said by the hon. member for West Calgary in support of the precedents Which have been cited. These precedents were supported by parliament. Objection was taken in the Queen's election case that the petition should not be received. The Minister of Justice of that day was inclined to think there was great force in the argument, but he informed the House that, having regard to the whole situation, he believed the petition should be received. It was received and was referred to tlhe committee on Privileges and Elections. Is there any reason, Mr. Speaker, for departing from that decision in the present instance?
Then in the West Huron case in 1900 the petition was likewise received by the House. Subsequently it was thrown out or turned down, but it had been received by the House.

Peace River Election
Is there a reason for departing from the established practice of the House on these two occasions? These are the two most recent cases. This petition does deal both directly and indirectly with an officer of this House; there can be no question of that. I am not referring to the prayer of the petition, in which the petitioner claims the seat, but I am referring to the allegations which are made on the face of the petition, the statements of fact that appear upon it. Nothing is more clear than the fact that the conduct of an officer of this House is very gravely brought into question, and I do not think anyone would argue for a moment that this House has not the sole supervision and control of its own officers. That gives us jurisdiction and the right to receive the petition, on the ground, if on no other, that the conduct of one of the officers of this House is impugned. Rule 80 is a very definite rule on that point and reads:
If it shall appear that any person hath Ibeen elected and returned a member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by bribery, or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost seventy against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such bribery or other corrupt practices.
What is the first clause of the rule? It provides that if it shall appear that any person has been connected with bribery or other corrupt practice this House <hall speedily inquire into the matter. We have the right to inquire in regard to our own officers; we have the right to discipline, to punish our own officers. Notwithstanding that the courts of the land have punished an officer of this House for a criminal offence, we still have the right to summon him to the bar of the House or before the committee and to deal with him as we see fit. Rule 80 is in our rule book expressly to deal with a case such as that which is now before Your Honour.
I submit that on the point of order there is little to be urged in support of it and much that can be urged against it. I am not going to attempt any discussion of the merits or demerits of the question in connection with the election contest in Peace River. I know nothing of the facts save what I have read in the newspapers or heard from the language of the petition. The petitioner has made it appear, in the spirit of rule 80, that a certain condition existed during that contest rendering it the duty of this parliament to make an inquiry. I submit that on the question of order Your Honour should have no hesitation in deciding that the last two precedents, the cases of Queen's and Huron, are now the established practice of this House and should be followed in tms instance.
If the petition is received the next step is of course a motion. I do not know what might be said on the motion, whether it should be referred to a committee or not. The argument will no doubt take place upon that motion; but surely we are not going to deny a British subject the right which is inherent in his citizenship, namely, that of lodging a petition before this parliament and of having that petition received. That is all we ask.


Lucien Cannon: Mt. Speaker, as the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has just said, the question which is now before the House is not that of the merits or demerits of the respective contesting parties before the courts in the Peace River constituency, but simply the point of deciding whether the petition presented by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) should or should not be received.
This afternoon, as in all matters of this nature, we have had abundant evidence of the wisdom of those who in 1874 decided that election matters should be taken away from the competency of parliament. We have listened to veiy learned lawyers on both sides and not to my surprise I have noticed that instinctively political feeling has crept into the arguments which we have heard. What conclusion must we draw, what inference must we arrive at, other than that if Your Honour comes to the conclusion that the petition has anything to do with the election itself, Your Honour should follow the rule laid down by your predecessors and decide that the petition should not be allowed to be received by the House?
Any lawyer conversant with parliamentary law or constitutional precedent must reach the conclusion, first, that parliament decided years ago-and that decision has been confirmed and ratified under many circumstances -not to interfere any longer in matters merely electoral. And why so? Because when parliament decided controverted elections, either when the House was sitting as a whole or when the House delegated its powers to a select committee, parliament ceased to exercise purely legislative powers or functions and exercised judicial powers. There is one great underlying principle of the British constitution, and its greatest safeguard-this the hon. member for West Calgary will not deny -namely, that executive, legislative and judicial powers should not interfere with one another. I say with pride that the judiciary of Canada can be compared favourably with the judiciary of any other country. Why should we, especially in view of the most
Peace River Election

peculiar and special conditions under which this parliament has met, take away from judges, take away from duly constituted and established courts, a question which belongs to a judicial tribunal, a court presided over by a judge, merely for the purpose of having witnesses bring before a committee, evidence which in all probability cannot be judged by the members of that committee without their being biased by political feeling? There is no doubt that parliament has divested itself of the function of judging cases of controverted elections. The only reason for the receiving of this petition would be that advanced by the hon. member for West Calgary, namely, that it deals not with the election itself but with the conduct or behaviour of an officer of this House. If my hon. friend is right in that contention the petition should be received. If Your Honour comes to the conclusion that his contention is not right, the petition should not be received.
What is the petition? The hon. member for West Calgary has read it; he has read not only the allegations which are the basis for the conclusion, but the conclusion itself of the petitioner Collins. The petition, therefore, is divided into two parts which must not be confused. The first part consists of allegations of fraud committed by certain electoral officers. There is no doubt that parliament has absolute authority to deal with those officers. We can deal with them either directly by calling them before a committee or before the House, or indirectly under the provisions of the Elections Act or the Controverted Elections Act, when a report is sent in to Your Honour giving Your Honour the facts and knowledge of any fraud committed by those officers. But that petition does not ask thait any officer in that constituency who might have committed fraud be punished by this House or by the committee. The conclusion of the petition is the essential section, and an examination of it will lead Your Honour to a decision on this point of order. The conclusion is, not that Robb or any other officer should be punished or reprimanded, but that the sitting member be removed and that the petitioner himself be given his seat. The conclusion is, therefore, that we as a House of Commons, either ourselves or through a committee, shall supersede the judicial tribunals of the country in deciding who shall be the member to represent in parliament the constituency of Peace River. I do not think that a single hon. member in this House this afternoon, no matter on which side he sits, will deny that the petition presented by the hon. member for West Calgary, if accepted, would have 
that effect. We are to decide who shall represent Peace River in the House of Commons, according to the petition. Well, in 1874 parliament decided once for all that these matters should no longer be within its competency.
I come now to the last point. Hon. gentlemen opposite ask, why should we not receive the petition? Well, Mr. Speaker, the receipt of the petition would be followed by a motion for its reference to the committee. There is another principle of parliamentary law which cannot be contradicted by any lawyer in this House, and that principle is that the House, under the direction of its Speaker, shall take no action and follow no line of procedure without having a practical object in view. We are not here to waste time. We are not here to lose or waste the money of the Canadian people who sent us to parliament. Every resolution thait comes before the House, every petition that is presented for the consideration of parliament, must have a definite object in view. That principle is well established. But what would be the practical object of this petition even if it were received?


Mr. CHABOT:: Justice.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend from Ottawa says, justice. I am also of his opinion, and I will show before I get through how justice coincides with my contention. What, I ask, would be the practical outcome of the acceptance of this petition? The hon. member for West Calgary would move that it be referred to the committee on Privileges and Elections and the House would decide one way or the other. If ithe House decided to refer it to the committee, the committee, unless we ignored all precedents that have been established during the past fifty years, could not possibly decide who (the sitting member should be, because that is a matter for the courts.
In conclusion let me say that this is not a matter of politics; it is a matter purely of law. In the first place I say that the petition should not be received, for its conclusion is a request that this House decide a controverted election; and, secondly, I am opposed to its reception for the reason that even if it were referred to the committee the committee could not take any practical action upon it. Now, as to the justice of the matter. Here we have a fellow member who enjoys the esteem of every hon. gentleman in this House, and as opposed to him there is the petitioner, against whom I have nothing to say but who claims the seat. I understand that there was also a third candidate. Are we then, if we

Peace River Election
have any feeling of justice and fair play, to constitute ourselves a tribunal, setting aside all precedents governing cases of this kind, and decide this matter in the interests of one party or another? The hon. member for West Calgary observed, indeed, that it was important that Collins should be here, because if he were the government might be out. I do not care whether the government remains in power or goes out, but I stand for the principles of fairness and justice, principles which were written into our statute books in 1874 and which have been observed ever since. What was good enough for Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir John Thompson, what was good enough for Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden, is good enough for the smaller men who sit now in the House in their stead.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I have sat this afternoon nearly three hours listening to this debate, which has been largely between lawyers; for apart from the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) no one so far has spoken who was not of the legal profession. As an ordinary member of the House who has had no legal training, but who trusts that he has an appreciable sense of fair play, I wish to add a few words to what has been said.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) in his concluding remarks declared that this was entirely a matter of law. I do not share that view, Mr. Speaker. I contend that it is absolutely a question affecting the honour of parliament and the rights of the people of Canada, in relation to the composition of this House. The action of the Prime Minister in raising the point of order as to whether or not the petition should be received may be briefly summed up. The motion, shorn of all its ornamentation, will in effect allow the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) to retain his seat in the House of Commons.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want to take exception to the remarks of the hon. gentleman. I did feel that when he rose it would be impossible for him to proceed without making insinuations which he had no right to make.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Hewitt Bostock: I must ask hon. members to keep silence. I cannot hear what the Prime Minister is saying.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I resent strongly the attempt of the hon. member to misrepresent my motives in raising the point of order. I object to the interpretation he places upon the motion. I have a duty as leader of the government to help to see that the laws which parliament has enacted for specific purposes shall be carried out.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am discussing a point of order. I say it is my duty to see that the laws which have been enacted to maintain the independence of members of parliament shall be respected, and my purpose in raising the point of order this afternoon is to see that nothing shall be done which may tend to impair the independence and the freedom of speech or action of members of parliament.


Robert James Manion: I hardly see the necessity for the heated remarks of the Prime Minister. Let me say at once that I did not intend to cast any reflection whatever upon him, though I see he did not hesitate to reflect upon myself. I did not seek to imply at all that: there was any base motive underlying his: procedure this afternoon. The point I am trying to make is that the logical conclusion of his motion will be to enable the hon. member for Peace River to retain the seat which he now holds and to which, as some of us contend, he is not entitled. That is the sum and substance of what I was saying. I did not intend at all to reflect in any way upon the Prime Minister. As a matter of fact, if I cared to do so, I might point out many instances in which he has reflected on me. I have no hesitation in meeting the Prime Minister here or elsewhere. However, I wish to deal with this matter now from the standpoint of an ordinary member of the House, and I will not be deflected from that by the heated and unnecessary remarks of the Prime Minister.
I was pointing out tlhe actual effect of the action of the Prime Minister in trying to keep this petition from the House on a point of order. In regard to points of order I have heard the Prime Minister himself and my good friends to my left composing the Progressive party-of which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) is a member-many times in this House submit this argument: In the name of fair play and fair dealing we should not pay too much attention to points of order, ibut should direct ourselves to the practical issues before parliament. Practically the whole afternoon we have heard argument
Peace River Election

as to the absolute necessity of living up to the rules of the House. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in giving your ruling-and that is the point I am dealing with for the moment-you will be governed not only by the precedents of the past, but I have no doubt that you . will also be governed by your long parliamentary experience and your respect for the honour and high standing of this House. I believe it is not always the duty of a Speaker -if I may say so-to give a ruling which adheres strictly to precedents, especially after a debate such as this; he should also consider what is fair and just. In this case I submit there is such an opportunity for the Speaker to show his high-mindedness by not allowing himself to be controlled absolutely by precedents one way or the other.
The Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) pointed out that this was not a question for parliament to decide at all, but for the courts. I repeat, Sir, that to my mind this is a question for parliament to decide. It surely is one of the duties of members of this House to decide as to the character of those who ^hall sit here to legislate, and if it is their opinion that some member is illegally sitting in the House, then it seems to me it is their duty to say so. The hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) a few moments ago stated that this petition was for the purpose of unseating Mr. Kennedy and seating Mr. Collins, but that is only if the committee to which this petition would properly be referred so decided1.
The reason, Sir, why I have taken part in this debate is not because I felt I could add anything to the legal argument regarding the point of order, but because last evening after the House rose I happened to be reading a book published many years ago which dealt with a case so much like the one now before us that I thought it was worth while quoting from the volume, and I shall do so with all the greatest pleasure because my good friend' the Solicitor General has often been in the habit of citing Charles James Fox. Fox, you will remember, was a brilliant Whig, and in the election of 1784 he ran for the constituency of Middlesex. It was a two-seated constituency and there were three candidates. The bailiff, who acted as returning officer and who was a political partisan, took the attitude of refusing to make a return of the election of Fox to the House. The younger Pitt was the then prime minister of England and he supported the bailiff, contending that the bailiff was correct and need not make a return in this case. One of Fox's friends moved a motion, which I shall not read, to the effect that the bailiff must be forced to bring in the return of that election which he had so far failed' to do. Fox had

run for another seat and was a member of the House although not for the county of Middlesex. The motion was debated, and the words of Fox are So apropos to the question now before us that I propose to read them for the benefit of hon. members. Addressing the House, Fox turned to Mr. Pitt and uttered this warning:
To the right hon. gentleman over against me I will beg leave to offer a little advice.
Perhaps I might offer this advice to the Prime Minister at the present time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my
hon. friend will take his own.


Robert James Manion: I am sure the right hon.
gentleman will never take my advice, and I am just as sure I will never take his.
If he condemns this measure, let him not stoop to be the instrument of its success. Let him well weigh the consequences of what he is about, and look to the future effect of it upon the nation at large.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: The Prime Minister says,
"hear, hear." He is going to take the advice after all. I sincerely hope he sees the importance of dealing with it from the national standpoint as Fox advised.
Let him 'take care that when they see all the powers of his administration employed to overwhelm an individual, men's eyes may not open sooner than they would if he conducted himself within some bounds of decent discretion, and not thus openly violate the sacred principles of the Constitution. A moderate use of his power might the longer keep people from reflecting upon the extraordinary means by which he acquired it. But if the right hon. gentleman neglects his duty, I shall not forget mine. Though he may exert all the influence of his situation to harass and persecute, he shall find that we are incapable of unbecoming submissions. There is a principle of resistance in mankind which will not brook such injuries, and a good cause and a good heart will animate men to struggle in proportion to the size of their wrongs and the grossness of (their oppressors. If the House rejects this motion and establishes .the fatal precedent that follows that rejection, I confess I shall begin to think there is little to be expected from such a House of Commons.


Mr. NEILL:: May I ask, did the House
accept the advice of Mr. Fox?


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is too
impatient. The motion being put was rejected by the House of Commons by 195 to 117.


Alan Webster Neill: And the advice?


Robert James Manion: And the advice. But I
would counsel my hon. friend not to laugh too soon, because a few days later Pitt, on the same question being brought up again, moved as an amendment that the House should adjourn, and was defeated by 162 to 124. Fox was thereupon seated for the county of Middlesex.

Peace River Election
Now, the point I wish to make is that one hundred and forty-two years ago-in 1784- the members of the British House of Commons of that time took the high-minded stand which I particularly commend to hon. members of this House, for they voted against their leader because they felt an injustice had been done to Box, and they also felt that they should have something to say in deciding whether he should be accepted as the member for the county of. Middlesex. I believe to-day it is the duty of this House of Commons to take a similar stand, and -if I may respectfully suggest so-I believe it is the duty of the Speaker of this House to rule on the same exalted plane in this regard, so that this House of Commons shall live up to the high traditions that the British House of Commons established one hundred and forty-two years ago.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker. I trust the House will excuse me for the presumption of intruding into a debate which is usually reserved only for the legal lights, but I will be very brief, and as we have wasted so much time already it will not matter if we waste a little more. I say "wasted" advisedly, because the greater part of this afternoon has been consumed, not in debating a point of order, not in hon. members addressing themselves to argument to guide you in your decision, Sir-that was done in twenty minutes; nearly all the argument was devoted to emotional appeals to this House, and possibly beyond this House to the country, but principally to the ordinary lay members, to influence them, in case your decision should be appealed from, not to decide strictly on the rights of the question at all but to regard it from a sentimental and sympathetic point of view.
If the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) will allow me to make a suggestion for his future guidance and for the benefit of those at this end of the chamber, I noticed that while speaking of the legal aspect of the question he expressed himself to hon. gentlemen opposite in a tone quite inaudible to those at any distance from him, but when he came to the sentimental appeal, we could all hear him. I would suggest that we are not so unintelligent as to not be able to understand an argument founded on law, as well as an appeal of a sentimental character.
A great deal has been said about the- I could almost use the word-iniquity of a member sitting in this House, who may possibly be found at some future time not to be entitled to his seat. I think it is generally admitted that the hon. member 14011-196
could not resign now if he wanted to; that is the law, enacted by this parliament. The procedure or law which prevents his resignation is not a mere technicality to be taken advantage of by the hon. member; it is a deliberate enactment, that a member whose seat is being contested cannot resign. The inference, I suggest, is that it was thought more important in the interests of any particular district that it should have representation in the House, even by a member afterwards found not to be entitled to the seat. At any rate that is a suggestion which appeals to me as a reason for the enactment which prevents a man from resigning while his seat is in dispute.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) said that this House should regul-late or have control of who should sit in it, with which statement I differ. In support of his contention he went back to 1784 for a precedent with which he asks you, Mr. Speaker, to comply, in marked contrast to his remarks of a few moments earlier when he asked you to cast precedents behind and decide in favour of the views he put forward.


Robert James Manion: The Speaker did not decide at all on that occasion; the House of Commons decided, It was not a precedent for the Speaker.


Alan Webster Neill: What was the purpose of
parliament in passing the Corrupt Practices Act and similar legislation? Was it not that we might be removed from any temptation to tyrannize by a political majority over the minority? It -was felt that it was unbecoming, unwise, and not calculated to be in the best interests of our institutions that we should have an opportunity of deciding who shall be a member of the House, owing to the obvious temptations of political partisanship. Therefore, as one hon. member said, we divested ourselves of the right to deal with those questions and put them entirely in the hands of the courts.
I recall a precedent; I do not go back 184 years for it, but it is within my own recollection. There was an election in British Columbia in 1898, and the House met early in 1899. They did not have party lines in those days, so I am not attacking the sincerity or integrity of any party in this House, but it was a close House, such as we have here. A couple of votes might have defeated the government, and there were two members against whose election petitions had been presented. There were some irregularities, the exact details of which I cannot at the moment recall. The House took up the ques-

Peace River Election

tion of the right of these members to occupy their seats; the question was referred to a committee and the government brought in what was called an enabling bill, declaring that these two members were legally elected, thus validating whatever irregularities had occurred. I well recall the opposition of the day, whose legal spokesman was the late Justice Eberts. I was young and innocent in those days, believing everything I heard in parliament, and I was particularly impressed with the language he used in regard to this enabling bill. The opposition fought it tooth and nail; "Nailing hon. members into their seats by the corrupt government majority" was one of the mildest epithets applied. I remember the late Justice Eberts, standing with the bill in his hand, beginning his remarks with the words, "Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand one of the most, if not the most, corrupt pieces of legislation ever presented to this or any other legislature in the civilized world." That was the attitude taken by the opposition, and they talked for days and weeks about the impropriety and unbecoming action of the government. They said, "'W hy not leave it to the courts, where a fair and just decision would be made?" Other precedents were pointed to where men had sat in the House, although later unseated, and there was nothing to prevent that course being followed in this case. That was the attitude taken at that time, whatever its faults of logic or whatever partisanship may have been involved. I have always since been convinced that it is highly desirable that no political party should be enabled to exercise control which would certainly be partisan in the matter of who should or should not occupy seats in this House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I had not intended to speak on this point of order, Mr. Speaker, but there are one or two things which I think have not been made quite clear.	I am going to address my
remarks first to the very peculiar circumstances in which we find ourselves, and how these circumstances arose, with the idea of seeing that we quite appreciate the situation.
Let us clear away a little brushwood first.
I do not think there is very much doubt as to the crimes committed. It is quite true, as the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) has pointed out, in making a strong argument in favour of Mr. Kennedy, that there is an appeal pending. But the minister did not go on to tell us that that appeal was taken on an absolute technicality; that no answer whatever is attempted to the charge that ballots had been switched, and 
that the facts are exactly as represented in the petition. I understand that there is no dispute as to that; so far I have heard of none in this debate. We can apparently take it for granted, therefore, that the facts are as represented, and that the crimes were committed as alleged in the petition.
Then let us move a little further. Is it a good thing that cognizance should be taken of these crimes; is it a good thing that the wrong should be righted? I suppose if we ask that question we put ourselves at once in the position of answering it; and the answer is in the affirmative. Here is an admitted case so far as the facts are concerned. I know nothing of what is going on or of what has gone on except what I have learned this afternoon. I asked my hon. friend the Minister of Customs on what date the petition which is making all the trouble here, this petition which is preventing Mr. Kennedy from doing the proper thing, this petition which is tying his hands and leaving him still with the stolen goods, was filed, and I have learned that it was filed on the 26th of February. I take it that my hon. friend's information is correct. I also learned that the petition was filed, not by Mr. Collins claiming his seat, not by any Conservative, not by anybody who was desirous of showing up these wrongs and having them remedied, but by the very party on whose behalf these crimes were committed. It is a petition launched in the Liberal interests. It is a petition brought by those who were the beneficiaries of the frauds committed and of the crimes that have been proven-the Liberal party. Why does the Liberal party take this stand?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my hon. friend? I do not think he wishes to misrepresent my attitude. I have already stated to the House that the only motive I have had in asking the Speaker's ruling on this matter is that not only as leader of the government, but as leader of the House, I have a certain obligation placed upon me in regard to matters that pertain to the orderly method of carrying on business in the House, and to see that the independence and freedom of members of parliament are protected and respected. I have felt that by asking Mr. Speaker to give his ruling on the point in question before we get into a general discussion, which it was the evident intention of the Controverted Elections Act to avoid, I was taking the course that would attain that end with the most dignity and decorum. That is the only reason I have had for bringing the matter up in this way.

Peace River Election


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon.
friend is not following me. I am not referring to ihis point of order to-day at all. I am leading up to the situation here, and I am pointing out that the petition which has been lodged against Mr. Kennedy was, according to the information I gathered from the Minister of Customs, lodged in the liberal interests. I was merely trying to get the House seized of the real situation. I was next going to refer to Mr. Kennedy's importance to the Liberal party.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Under cover of points of order this afternoon we have had a direct attack made upon a member of this House who is placed in the position where he cannot defend himself. I do not think it is fair, and I cannot see that the present speaker is in order in beginning to show how this might affect the Liberal party or how it might affect Mr. Kennedy. It seems to me to be quite outside the point of order with which we originally started.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Hewitt Bostock: At six o'clock a point of
order was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) with reference to some remark made in regard to the member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). I would ask the hon. member for West York to confine his remarks to the point of order, as I do not think the question of the personality of a member of the House of Commons should be considered in the discussion of a question such as the one now before the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I entirely agree with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but so far I have not contravened it. I have made no reference whatever to the personal character of the hon. member. I am, however, referring to the exact situation which Your Honour in the first instance has to deal with, having regard to the point which you are asked to decide and what may happen as a result of the *ruling on that point of order. Parenthetically I would like to point out to my hon. friend who raised the point of order (Mr. Woodsworth) that I am rejoiced to see his change of heart. Earlier during this session precedent was something which was absolutely to be forgotten, not only by the hon. member himself but by the rest of the cohorts to your right, won-196J
Precedent, according to their argument, was something to be overlooked; parliament was all-strong and all-powerful and could do what it liked. Sometimes people change their minds and sometimes they do not.
I was pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that we have at the moment an admitted case of wrongdoing by an officer of this House. In the first instance, to make my point perfectly clear, I am not for one moment saying that, assuming Mr. Kennedy had been guilty of an offence under the Elections act, this House could, in view of the statute as to corrupt practices, take any action. I do not think the House could, and the only point here made -and it has not yet been answered-is that this House has the right to review the action of its officers. We have here an admitted case of a serious offence by an officer of this House. The hon. Minister of Customs and Excise reasons closely; I think he has probably stated the point more effectively for Mr. Kennedy than anybody else could. But with his closeness of reasoning he has admitted two things. He has admitted that this House has the right to review the action of its officers. In the next instance he has admitted it has the right to remedy the wrongs done by its officers. I need not go further than to take the two statements made by the hon. Minister of Customs and Excise. Let me repeat, so that there will be no doubt about it, that in the first instance this House has the right to review the action of its officers, and in the second instance this House has the right to remedy wrong arising from the improper conduct of its officers. The hon. member qualified those two statements 'by saying that their wrongs could not be righted; that the actions of the officer could not be considered until the proper time arrived; that they could not be considered now. Why? Simply because be have a petition pending. Is there any doilbt as to either of those statements or as to the ground upon which the hon. gentleman based his real argument?
Let me refer to one or two more of the hon. gentleman's arguments and I think, Sir, you will agree with me that the real gist of his contention was what I have just stated. He referred in the first instance to the mistake made by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) when he referred to you, Sir, as my Lord, instead of Mr. Speaker. He seemed to regard that as a clear and unmistakable indication that in his heart of hearts the hon. member knew he was making his argument in the wrong place. I do not suppose I need stress the absurdity of that argument, but it seemed to be taken very

Peace River Election
seriously by hon. gentlemen across the way. I do not blame them for taking it seriously; in the absence of all real argument it would do; but I need not to say, Sir, that it is impossible that this petition should be thrown out because of a slip of the tongue.
His second point was that if this petition be received we shall have two trials proceeding at the same time. I think the hon. gentleman himself subsequently abandoned that point. We all know that the trial cannot go on, unfortunately-that is, unfortunately if the hands of this House be tied- while the House is in session. There is therefore nothing in that point.
His third point was that even if the petition were received Collins would not benefit by our receiving it because there would be obstruction in the committee and the like. I wonder whether it occurs to you, Sir, that a threat of improper action on the part of a committee is a reason for refusing the just rights of a petitioner. If it be not, there is nothing in the third point.
His fourth point was that if the House received the petition in this case, petitions to parliament would be in order every time a deputy returning officer was mistaken. This petitioner is not here on the ground of any mistake. My hon. friend stressed the question of mistakes; he sought to point out how mistakes could be easily made, honestly made. I wonder why? It is useless to talk about mistakes in the presence of absolute crime, admitted and proved. Why do I say "admitted"? I say admitted, because as I understand the matter-and I have made the same statement before without contradiction -the appeal relied upon by the Minister of Customs and Excise is taken merely upon a trifling technicality and not upon the merits of the case, not upon the facts that have been proved. Therefore I am well within the mark when I say that the real argument made by the Minister of Customs and Excise is that at the present time this House can do nothing. We must remember that that statement is made after his answer to my right hon. leader that parliament has the right to review the action of its officer and that parliament has the right to remedy wrongs committed by that officer.
I was referring to the question of the time not being ripe for dealing with this matter. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out that the hon. member whose seat is called in question could not take any part in these proceedings. I think he is enjoying them. He was enjoying them this afternoon; he was in the House at the time

the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre interfered in his behalf. He is present now. When I was interrupted I was pointing out what is the vital thing having regard to the one point really made by the Minister of Customs and Excise, namely, that the time is not ripe for action on the part of this House to rectify the wrong. Why not? We have this petition filed on the 26th day of February against the return of .the hon. gentleman. It was filed not by the petitioner or by a supporter of the petitioner, but by the petitioner's political opponent. The petitioner had nothing to do with it. It was filed on behalf of those who were interested in the crimes committed by Robb. We have this anomaly, that the reason why no action can be taken is because the real beneficiaries of Robb's crimes have lodged that petition! I wonder if it is possible for anyone to consider seriously the suggestion that nothing can be done now because the beneficiaries of this man's crimes have lodged a petition? If they are to be kept in charge of the proceedings in this way, it is a sorry day f)or justice.
I am aware of the provisions in the Elections Act as to other interests coming in and taking part in the proceedings. I am also aware how absolutely unworkable those things are. I have had to do with election petitions, and I know it is hard enough to fight election petitions when one has the right of way let alone having to carry on a three-cornered fight with a plaintiff in the position of sticking you in the back whenever he gets the chance.
How far have we got? We have reached the point that a political opponent has become useful to the government; that he has supported the government on every single vote prior to the 26th of February; that he was appointed on February 5 to the Customs inquiry committee on which this government s future depends; that he is being looked after by the government, while at the same time, on paper, supporters of this government are attacking the seat. Why? So that the hands of this House may be stayed, so that effect may be given to the argument made by the Minister of Customs and Excise. We have the right to correct wrongs committed by our servants; we have the right to discipline our officers. But, forsooth, we cannot do so as long as that petition stands. The government will hold the support of the hon. member for the session.
You, Mr. Speaker, are familiar with the election law, just as, I am sure, members of

Peace River Election
the government are. I have not had occasion for some time now to consult the statute, but if, as I fancy, my recollection is correct, it used to be the law at one time at any rate, that any man could foe sworn and put into the box and compelled to say how he had voted. My impression is that this is still the law, and I have no doubt that the government is equally aware of the fact. But they know also that those people who were witnesses in the criminal trial could not be called and compelled to give evidence on an election petition.
Now, what is the situation to-day? Here we have an ostensibly proper Teturn, and if anything is wrong with it how shall we get around the difficulty? On a criminal trial electors can be called and sworn and compelled to give evidence, but this cannot be done in the case of an ordinary election petition. In view of that fact is there any reason why, in a matter in which right and justice are at stake, a petition of this kind should be refused? The argument that we are here attempting to set aside the Controverted Elections Act is without point; it falls entirely by the way No one is suggesting that anything is to be said against the hon. member, apart from the fact that knowing of this fraud, knowing that the seat was stolen from Collins by an officer of the House, he stands pat and exercises his functions as if he were indeed the representative of the electors of the constituency from which he comes, while as a matter of fact his election has been the result of the machinations of this officer. Apart from that knowledge on the hon. member's part, nothing can be said against him. So far as the petition itself is concerned there is nothing in its language in the slightest degree derogatory of the hon. gentleman.
What are the various circumstances that usually attend an action under the Controverted' Elections Act? They are acts on the part of the candidate, the acts of his agents, the purchase of votes, and allegations of that nature. Your Honour is familiar with them all. But not one of these circumstances enters into the question at present under review, the only point at issue being the conduct of an officer of thig House whom we seek to bring before parliament. I shall close by again pointing out what has been said by that hon. gentleman who, T think, has probably looked into the matter as closely as any one of us and who has spoken on behalf of the government. Certainly no hon. gentleman is more interested than he in seeing that in respect of himself he should present the strongest possible case. I refer to the Minister of Customs
(Mr. Boivin). What did he say? This House, he declared, has the right to inquire into the acts of its servants and to redress their wrongs; but it would appear the House cannot exercise that right so long as the other petition is there. Is parliament to be so gagged and stifled?


Mr. HENRY BOURASSSA (Labelle):: May an ordinary member venture to participate in a scientific debate? If I may 'be allowed a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, II should like to state with the utmost candour my humble opinion on this whole question. It seems to me that we must distinguish clearly between, on the one hand, the right of any Canadian citizen to petition parliament upon any question which he believes it is the duty of parliament to consider, and on the other hand the object of that petition. In my opinion the government would have done the right thing in receiving the petition which has now been presented to parliament, just as I think parliament should receive any other petition that might be submitted by a Canadian citizen in respect of any other question. Then, upon ascertaining the object of the petition, it would be for parliament, or some committee of parliament to consider whether the petition was one that might properly be dealt with by the House and adjudicated upon.
With due deference to the decision which you may give, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that until a petition is received by parliament it can be decided whether its object is such as to require consideration. I am not very much versed in the history of precedents and decisions in relation to cases of this kind, but as a Canadian citizen and a British subject I would seriously hesitate before denying to any Canadian the right to petition parliament touching any grievance which. he may think he has, and concerning which he seeks redress.
On the other hand, as regards the qualification of members of the House to sit in parliament, and respecting the circumstances connected with their election to the House of Commons, I think it was a wise decision which was arrived at some fifty years ago, to constitute a regular legal procedure through which anyone who desires to do so may contest the election of any member of parliament and ask that all the circumstances under which he was returned be probed. In this caSe, the simplest procedure would have been to receive the petition and submit it to the committee on Privileges and Elections, and on its being proven there that legal proceedings were being taken to find out whether the election of the member for Peace River is valid or
Peace River Election


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Certainly.


Arthur Meighen: If it is a fact that
witnesses at an election trial cannot be compelled to give evidence as to how they voted, then would it be possible to have the question raised in this petition adjudicated upon at an election trial?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not quite catch
the point made by the right hon. gentleman. As I understand it, parliament thought fit, a good many years ago,-and rightly so, I think-not to divest itself of the right to inquire into the doings of its officials with respect to elections, but to empower tribunals clothed with the necessary authority to look into such questions, to summon witnesses, to hear argument, and1 to decide whether or not wrongful acts have been committed by Subreturning officers or returning officers, or whether either of the candidates has been guilty of bribery or corruption or of any other wrongdoing which would justify those tribunals, acting in the name and under the authority of the parliament of Canada, to determine whether or not Mr. so-and-so is entitled to a seat in the House of Commons or should be excluded therefrom. Rightly or wrongly, parliament has decided, not to divest itself of its authority in these matters, but to delegate that authority to impartial tribunals, instead of leaving it to the will of a partisan majority in the House to decide whether or not a friend or an opponent of the dominant party should sit in the House. This I think, was a wise provision. If we deem it to be contrary to the privileges of parliament, let us repeal or amend that law, but as long as that statute stands as the expression of the will of parliament and the people let us respect it.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a most improper procedure on our part and not calculated to maintain in the minds of the people any respect for our parliamentary institutions, to say: Because we are in a hurry to take a seat from one party and give it to the other, we will take the case out of the hands of the tribunal which is now considering it and ourselves decide whether this man instead of the other man shall take his seat in this House, and so increase or diminish the majority of one party or the other.

Peace River Election
Therefore, so far as the merits of the question are concerned, I could not for one moment entertain the idea of having this petition considered on its merits, and say that the hon. member who was here a moment ago-and who I think should be out of this House while we are discussing his case -should have the question decided in his favour or against him. and that we should establish the right of his constituency to be represented in this House by Mr. Joe or Mr. John or Mt. Dick because of the action of one deputy returning officer out of two hundred, more or less.
On the other hand I do not think we should lay down the principle that any Canadian citizen should be denied access to this House with a petition for the redress of any grievance he may consider he has, whether he is right or wrong. I will admit there is not much logic in that statement, but if we examine the development of parliamentary government we must admit that there are many nonsenses connected with it which we must tolerate and accept as being among the guarantees of the liberty of the subject. Therefore, Sir, I am prepared to vote for the reception of this petition, just as I am prepared to vote for throwing it out of the purview of this parliament, because at present there is a judicial tribunal constituted under the laws of Canada to consider all the circumstances of the election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Hon. gentlemen may
laugh, but I have seen many cases in which both parties were interested, in which the same spirit evinced to-day has shown itself in one way or another. Precedents are in vogue; principles are laid down, but it is certain that either through a judicial tribunal or through this House, any party looks after its own interests. It is just as well to admit that fact frankly as to conceal it hypocritically. But there are a few principles of law and government stronger and more enduring than the small and passing interests of any party or group of men. One of such, to which I have adhered all my life and to which I will always be true, is the principle that any citizen has a right to appeal to the parliament of Canada for the redress of any grievance. I will never go back on that. I have imbibed it in my study of parliamentary institutions, and no concern of friendship or of personal or collective advantage will make me depart from it.
On the other hand, considering the political conditions of our time and country, I think parliament was right in deciding that all
matters connected with electoral contests should be left to the decision of tribunals made up of supposedly impartial judges. When it comes to the merits of the question at issue, therefore, I consider that we have no moral right to decide upon the proper representative for this or any other constituency which may find itself in similar circumstances, because we have charged tribunals in every province of Canada to deal with these matters. These tribunals exercise the authority of parliament, under an act of parliament, which authority was, as a matter of fact, exercised by the old parliaments of Canada and England for many years. When it was found that such abuses of power, of partisanship and of passing majorities were occurring, parliament unanimously decided to leave to impartial tribunals the decision in matters of law as well as in matters of fact connected with the election of members of parliament. Upon these two principles I have acted, thought and fought during the twenty-five years I have been in the active public life of my country, and to them I remain true to-day.
To sum up these somewhat rambling remarks, I stand for the reception of this petition, because I would not deny to any fellow-citizen the right to petition this parliament. On the other hand, since the whole of this question has been debated in this House- quite improperly, I think-I stand for its reference to the proper tribunal instituted by this parliament to deal with all matters of this kind.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: I
have listened most carefully to the speeches in connection with this most important subject, Mr. Speaker, and I must say that in my opinion the debate has shown that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a mistake in the way he brought this subject before the House.


Finlay MacDonald: He did not bring it before the House.


George Halsey Perley: He brought in a motion this afternoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I made no
motion, but merely rose to a point of order to avoid discussion until the proper moment.


George Halsey Perley: The Prime Minister made a mistake in raising this point of order at this time. My reason for that statement is that the speeches have nearly all been on the merits of the case, and it seems to me that the remarks of the Prime Minister should have been made before the committee,
Peace River Election

where they would have been heard and received with proper attention. I agree with the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) in regard to the reception of this petition; it seems to me this petitioner ought not to be refused access to parliament.
What is the point at issue? The point is whether Your Honour shall rule this petition may be received, or that the point of order raised by the Prime Minister is sound. Last fall writs were issued for an election; the chief electoral officer was instructed to carry out an election under the act, and the returning officer for Peace River was appointed. What was he told? He was instructed to return the writs to Ottawa on a certain date, and to state what candidate received the greatest number of votes. In this case the deputy returning officer made a false statement of the result of the voting at his poll. There is no dispute about that; he has been convicted of changing Iballots, and sentenced for the offence. Under these circumstances the writ was never returned to Ottaw'a in accordance with the act; in other words the writ did not properly state who had received the greatest number of votes. To say that this House has no authority over its own servants when misconduct of this kind has occurred is, it seems to me, going much further than anyone Should care to go.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have referred to a case back in 1874 and a later ease, but there *were two still later occasions on which matters of this kind came before the House. I do not know so much about the case in 1887, but I remember very well the Huron case, which came into this House, I think, in the year 1900. It was referred to a committee of the House, and was argued before that committee for weeks before a report was brought into the House. Therefore I claim that Your Honour has a specific precedent for allowing this petition to be received by the House and dealt with afterwards in such way as the House may see fit. In other words, I claim that the Huron precedent of 1900 is a perfect precedent from the point of view of Your Honour in deciding the question before us.
I was very much struck with one of the arguments put forward by my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton), when he stated that under the Controverted Elections Act no power rested in the judge to compel any witness to say how he voted. In other words, the secrecy of the ballot has been guarded as strictly as it was possible to do it in our legislation, and as I understand it, no voter can be compelled in an election trial in the courts to say how he voted. That being

the case, I put it to my hon. friends opposite that there is no way in which a case of this kind can properly be tried under the Controverted Elections Act. If the voters cannot be compelled to say for whom they voted, how is it possible to bring home this scandal in connection with the action of the deputy returning officer in Peace River? What happened there was this. As I understand it, in general terms, the deputy returning officer having the ballot box in his charge and under his authority, opened or got someone else to open it, took out the ballots that were in it, and substituted for them a lot of other ballots marked in a different way. At the criminal trial of the deputy returning officer, certain electors appeared and volunteered the evidence that they had voted in a certain way. They satisfied the judge and jury that this officer had committed a very serious crime, and thereupon the judge sentenced him, and not only sentenced him but made the statement * that Collins was the man who should have been sitting as member. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that on the merits of this case this petition ought to be received and referred to the committee on Privileges and Elections, where all these arguments as to why the case should be sent to the courts instead of being tried by a committee of this House could be submitted in a better way than they can possibly be argued here.
I am not a lawyer, and I am treading on dangerous ground when I deal with matters which lawyers have been discussing all afternoon. But if I am right in my understanding that under the Controverted Elections Act no voter can be forced to say how he voted, I would say that when parliament undertook to divest itself of jurisdiction in ordinary election trials for corruption and improper practices in an election as we understand them, it certainly did not undertake to divest itself of jurisdiction in a matter of this sort, where an officer of this House has committed the crime of changing the ballots and has wrongly declared the result of the poll, knowing that he was telling a falsehood. I do not believe the law passed in 1874 was intended to cover a case of that kind, particularly when this is the only place where a voter can be compelled to say how he voted. I submit to Your Honour, therefore, that as, at the election last fall, the returning officers were instructed to declare to this House the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes, and as this deputy returning officer in Peace River criminally changed the ballots and made a false return from bis own poll, knowing it

Peace River Election
to be false, and as, in consequence, a false return of the result of the election in that constituency came into the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Your Honour should declare that this is a petition which ought to be received by this House, and be dealt with by this House as it thinks proper.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it -is not my intention after the very exhaustive manner in which this subject has been .treated by hon. members on both sides of the House to go at great length into a citation of cases in support of the point of order raised by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King).
May I first of all refer to the fact that a great deaf of the argument adduced by hon. members on the other side of the House was. I think, argument which could .properly .come before the House only after 9 p.m. the petition had been received. The question referred to by my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) as to whether or not it was practically admitted that certain violations of the Elections Act had taken place-the same suggestion raised by my hon. friend who has just sat down (Sir George Perley)-has, I submit, no .place in this argument.
The question that this House is asked to consider now is whether or not under the law as it stands this petition should be presented to the House. If the other question were opened, hon. gentlemen .might very well recall the appeal which has been taken and the fact that a number of the witnesses who gave evidence in support of the charges have since had criminal prosecutions instituted against them, some of them now, I believe, being under arrest. The matter is by no means settled, but I submit that in referring to that I am clearly out of order, and I do so only in reply to what has been said by my hon. friends opposite.
May I also in answer to my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), who referred to the Donaldson case in the province of Saskatchewan, refer to something to which he, quite inadvertently, I have no doubt, did not refer? In reading from the petition in the Saskatchewan case my hon. friend did not read what is to my mind a very important paragraph.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read .it very particularly with respect to the court not having jurisdiction, and said that that differentiated the case. I pointed that out very distinctly.


John Campbell Elliott: I aim referring to clause
(g), which says:
Mr. Donaldson entered a petition in the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories contesting the election of Mr. Tyerman, which petition was outstanding and pending until the twelfth day of December, 1906, when the same was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The province of Saskatchewan was a new province at that time. Then I refer to the succeeding page where the matter is discussed -page S3:
In places where acts providing for the trial by courts of controverted election petitions are in force, the legislature have on more than one occasion refused to deal with the question of the right to the seat as between two contending parties, and have limited the jurisdiction of the House to questions such as the personal disqualification of a person returned as member.	.
It is limited to the personal disqualification of the person returned as a member and not the question whether or not he should have been returned. But the Supreme court of the Northwest Territory having no jurisdiction to hear and determine questions relating to controverted elections, there would be no doubt that the 'legislature has what is called constitutional jurisdiction and has a right, in fact is bound, to hear and determine, through its properly constituted committees, matters in regard to the election of members. The only reason that case was ever allowed to be considered was because at that time no property constituted courts existed in that province to try controverted election petitions. They were supposed, as is stated here, to have what is called "constitutional jurisdiction", on the plea that they, being .provinces or territories, the jurisdiction must be vested somewhere.
Taking that into account, and having in mind the argument of my hon. friend when he cited that? case, may I just refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the conclusion which I submit that inevitably leads to? Jurisdiction to try cases of this kind is placed somewhere in the wisdom of the parliament of Canada. I desire to congratulate hon. members on both sides . of the House on the manner in which this debate has been conducted this afternoon. I suppose no debate of this kind was ever conducted in a more dispassionate, in a more judicial and perhaps more absolutely fair manner than the present debate But you have before you, Sir, a number of hon. gentlemen on one side of the House taking one view, and an equal number on the other side of the House taking exactly the opposite view. Apparently that is what has taken place in this House on various occasions when matters of this kind came before parliament. I appeal, to you, Mr. Speaker, and to every member in
Peace River Election

this House, if that is not the best evidence of the wisdom of those legislators who, back in 1874 or prior to that date, decided that in matters of this kind the man who was certified as being the man elected should take the seat. There is always more or less contest in every election, but whether it was a close election or one in which there was a large majority for one party, the man who was certified to this House by the returning officer, after the recount and all other proceedings had been concluded, as being the man elected, could take his seat, and the question of his right to that seat was not to be inquired into by a possible adverse majority in the House.


George Halsey Perley: Will the hon. gentleman explain why it was that in 1900 the Huron case was referred to the committee on Privilege and Elections and discussed for w'eeks? It was brought up in connection with the election case, although it was years after the 1874 law wa3 passed.


John Campbell Elliott: I am going to refer to the decision, and I am going to read the review made by the right hon. leader of the opposition of the decisions as they stood in this House on the 17th March, 1913. In order to clear the right hon. gentleman's mind as to what actually took place, may I, even at the risk of trespassing on the time of the House, read what my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition said, at page 6142 of Hansard of 1913? After stating what the Minister of Customs and Excise has already read, the right hon. member said:
It was that, since the passing of that act in England in 1888 and since the passing of a parallel act in Canada in 1873 these Houses-
That is the British House of Commons and the Canadian House of Commons-
-had divested themselves of all authority to inquire into matters connected with elections, save only the question as to the qualifications of the members elected as to whether or not that member was a minor, felon or convict. That was the limit of its power; that was the contention of Sir John Thompson, and that con- * tention was quoted with approval by the right hon. leader of the government. Sir John Thompson quoted as authority for his position the opinions of Lord Seibome and Lord Coleridge expressed in 1870 in the British House of Commons, on which occasion those two eminent judicial authorities said:
"It is true we have divested ourselves of our jurisdiction over all election matters, but it does not follow that we have not the right to say that our writs shall be obeyed. The writ issued by this House calls upon the people of a certain county to elect a certain qualified representative, and we still reserve authority and jurisdiction to inquire as to whether or not they have returned duly qualified men."
That was argued by Lord Coleridge and Lord SeJ-oorue.

Then he refers to Sir Louis Davies and he says:
I apprehend that he would not now be adorning a
bench of the Supreme Court of Canada if he had affirmed views of that nature. Sir Louis Davies argued this and this only.
"It is true we have divested ourselves of jurisdiction over election matters, but we have retained jurisdiction over our own officers-our returning officers and deputy returning officers and over none other/*


Richard Bedford Bennett: If parliament has no jurisdiction over the returning officer or deputy returning officer, then it follows that, if proceedings were instituted in the election court collusively by a member's own friends, for the first session the absolute control of this House of Commons would rest with the man who had robbed the ballot boxes.


John Campbell Elliott: I see the point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read that this afternoon.	.


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. member is asking a question now in good faith, but if he had followed closely what I was reading he would not have asked that question, for this reason:	I have stated the argument made
by my right hon. friend that this House had jurisdiction over returning officers and deputy returning officers and over none other. I have used this argument, and I think when my hon. friend from West Calgary considers the matter, he will be satisfied that what the right hon. leader of the opposition contended, and what those who have supported this point of order have contended, is that the House has jurisdiction over its officers-returning officers and deputy returning officers -and none other. If that be right-and it is as clear as the English language will permit even my right hon. friend to put it-then parliament did not have jurisdiction at the time and it has not jurisdiction now over any of those over whom it divested itself of jurisdiction by the Controverted Elections Act. I refer to the candidate.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to question the argument which I presented in 1913; in fact I stand by it, but I want to put a question to my hon. friend based upon this assertion. The matter now raised in the petition is not within the meaning of those words an "election matter" and therefore has never been relegated to the courts. The question is this:	If the courts are forbidden
to compel witnesses to state how they voted, how can the courts try on its merits the question raised in this petition?


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to
answer. I was rather surprised at my right hon. friend asking it when he asked it be-

Peace River Election
fore. Is he serious when he suggests that men who have already gone into the box and sworn a certain way about how they voted, are not going to do so again?


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman say that even if they can go into the box and swear how they voted any candidate should have to depend on their willingness to do so?


John Campbell Elliott: I took my right hon.
friend's words down and the question he asked was: If a witness cannot be compelled to testify in an election trial, how are you going to find out how he voted? My answer to that is this, and I have not any doubt, but I am not giving an opinion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Campbell Elliott: It is perfectly clear that
the Controverted Elections Act was framed to deal with the question which my right hon. friend said in 1913, and I say now this House cannot deal with, namely, the trial of a member of parliament. What my right hon. friend stated then was that the jurisdiction of this House was over returning officers and deputy returning officers and none other. It is as clear as the noonday sun that that must exclude jurisdiction to inquire into the rights of a member to retain his seat. That is a question of election. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, if my right hon. friend has forgotten what he said in 1913 or has changed his views, let me read further on.


Arthur Meighen: I will stand by it.


John Campbell Elliott: (Reading):
Sir Louis Davis argued that at considerable length in this House; he reaffirmed it in 1900 in the West Huron case-
That is the case to which the last speaker referred.
-and in doing so he was careful to say that beyond
these two cases-
That is, the returning officer and the deputy returning officer.
-parliament undoubtedly had no jurisdiction. That was the position of Sir Louis Davies, and that was unanimously followed by hon. gentlemen opposite. That was the argument presented; that was the limitation, and that alone. There was in those days no member of the Liberal party who had the temerity to stand in his place in this House and over that we still had jurisdiction over all election matters.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear. Will the hon. gentleman permit me again? I appreciate a great increase in the authority of my speech of 1913. It did not seem to have much effect then. I want to put the question again.


John Campbell Elliott: I think it had perhaps as much effect as my right hon. friend's speech of to-day will have.


Arthur Meighen: It should have had more.
I want my hon. friend to answer me as a lawyer, aside from any circumstances of this case:	If it is the law that a judge cannot
compel a witness to say how he voted-I use the word "compel" again-how is it possible for a judge to try the merits of such a question as is raised in this petition?


John Campbell Elliott: It certainly is if the witness comes forward voluntarily and gives his answer.


Arthur Meighen: Supposing he does not?


John Campbell Elliott: That is not the point that we are arguing.


Arthur Meighen: But it is essential.


John Campbell Elliott: This parliament was under the disability of not having my right hon. friend in the House when that act was framed, but the men who were in parliament then framed that act with a view to meeting the requirements of the people of this country in connection with trials on election petitions. My right hon. friend need have no fear that it is not the best act that they were able to frame. If it is not complete it should have been amended before now.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member try to answer my question now?


John Campbell Elliott: I am considering only this question and the decisions. I must apologize to the House for speaking at this length, but it is necessary for me not only to convince other members but apparently to convince some members who have changed their views in the last few years.


Hugh Guthrie: What about the point of order whether this petition should be received or not?


John Campbell Elliott: That is the point of order, and the decisions are absolutely clear. I am surprised that lawyers of the calibre of hon. gentlemen on the other side who have argued this afternoon should, in view of those decisions, seriously argue that the petition can be received. If there ever were clear decisions upon the question of receiving or not receiving those petitions, the decisions referred to and quoted by my right hon. friend in 1913 make it as clear as it is possible for the English language to make it.


Hugh Guthrie: There was no decision in that case.
Peace River Election


John Campbell Elliott: But in all the cases in which petitions were considered. My hon. friend forgets, or he has not read this case to know, that all eases in which petitions were refused were cited in that case and cited by my right hon. friend. That is the difficulty. What would be the object of receiving the petition-unless an object which I do not for a moment suggest is what my hon. friends have in mind in opposing this point of order this afternoon-if after you have received it you cannot do anything with it? That is exactly the position my hon. friends would be in if a petition were received and this House has no jurisdiction over it. Why? Will any hon. member say that it would be a good thing for the conduct of elections, for parliamentary practice in Canada, to have the right of any member to sit in this House depend upon and be subject to a trial in which part of the tribunal would be an adverse majority in the House? I say that without meaning in the slightest degree to reflect upon the character of any member of any house of parliament.
That was the reason why parliament divested itself of jurisdiction. It was a good reason >n 1874; it is a good reason to-day, and in spite of all the solemn warnings that have been given this afternoon against making the great mistake of again refusing a petition, I ask in the name of everything that points to good parliamentary procedure: H hat would be the reason for receiving the petition if you could not act upon it and try it out after you had received it? I submit, with great respect to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), that it is useless to receive a petition if after you have it and look intc it you find no further facts than those which you already know, namely that it has been already submitted to a court of justice, and you can only return it and say you cannot act upon it. For that reason I represent most strongly that it would be establishing a most dangerous precedent and going baiek upon the rules of this House if we now departed from the established practice of over fifty years and received this petition. Far from impinging upon the rights of a Canadian petitioner by refusing to receive this petition. Your Honour would in my opinion be taking a dangerous step in admitting it. To receive the petition would be,
I respectfully submit, Sir, a procedure contrary to all the decisions which have been given by your illustrious predecessors through all these years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does my hon. friend not realize that the foundation of the petition is the fact that a court composed of a judge and jury has found a man guilty of having manipulated 111 ballots which were cast for one candidate and counted for another? That verdict, mark you, was given, not by this parliament, but by a duly constituted court.


John Campbell Elliott: Having so high a regard for my hon. friend's legal ability, I am rather surprised that he should refer to what occurred in connection with one poll out of a whole constituency and contend that, because the ballots there had been examined and had revealed the fact that a certain candidate had suffered, we should therefore come to the conclusion that an examination of other polls would not disclose, in favour of the man whose seat is now attacked, advantages that might more than offset the loss of the petitioner. There is the weakness of the hon. gentleman's argument.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not even suggested.


John Campbell Elliott: It is suggested. More than that, it was stated by the hon. member for Peace River in the declaration he made to the House.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member is
under a misapprehension. What the hon. member for Peace River said was that polls were not opened where polls should have been, and that had those polls been opened the result would be thus and so. If my hon. friend will look at the elelction returns as tabled he will observe that in many constituencies polls were not opened where there might have been polls, but no suggestion has been made that there occurred elsewhere proceedings similar to those under review. The House will note further that in doing what 'he did Mr. Robb was acting for the Liberal candidate and not for Collins.


John Campbell Elliott: I am glad the hon. gentleman has brought up that point, as otherwise I might have overlooked it and the comment that naturally suggests itself. The finding to which my hon. friend refers is against , a man named Robb. Now, I ask him again, what possible bearing could that finding in regard to Robb's having done something wrong have upon the right of this House to try the right of the hon. member for Peace River to the seat he holds?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.

Peace River Election


John Campbell Elliott: It is all right for my hon. friends to laugh, but they must not forget that the trial that took place was a trial with regard to a man named Robb who has been convicted1.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: He robbed
Collins of the seat.


John Campbell Elliott: Say that again so that we may all hear it Now the charge is not against Robb, There would be something to be said in favour of my hon. friend's argument if he were asking the House to enter into an inquiry in connection with something which Robb or some other official of the House had done. That, however, is not his case. I listened with care to the petition as he read it and I did not observe, as one might have expected, any reference in it to an investigation into the conduct of officials. There is no suggestion to that effect.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are in the
penitentiary.


John Campbell Elliott: Several of those who voted in certain polling divisions are, I understand, now under arrest or have warrants issued against them.


Arthur Meighen: We are not worrying
about that.


John Campbell Elliott: I suppose not. However, the point is this-and I want to refer to it again so as to make my answer to the hon. gentleman complete. If the petition asked for an investigation into something that Robb or some official of the House had done, then my hon. friend's argument would be right in line with the argument of my right hon. friend. But unfortunately, by the petition he 'has presented, he has put himself absolutely outside of that argument, and my right hon. friend's words again come to my relief. It is true that we have divested ourselves of jurisdiction over election matters, but we have retained jurisdiction over our own returning officers and deputy returning officers. For that reason I submit that hon. gentlemen have confused this petition with one of a different nature: we are not investigating the conduct of any of those officers.


Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: As I read the petition which is now before the House, I understand the point to be that in the recent election in Peace River one Robb, a deputy returning officer, did fraudulently destroy a number of ballot papers used by the voters at the time and place of the election and that he subsequently substituted other ballot papers for those which were
actually cast and deposited in the ballot boxes. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Elliott) has stated that the point before the House for decision is whether or not, under the law as it stands, this petition should be received by the House. I presume the Minister of Labour will agree that inasmuch as, according to the evidence, the deputy returning officer extracted from the box certain ballots which were cast by the electors, destroyed them and substituted other ballots in their place, there is a civil point which should come before some judicial or supreme body such as the House of Commons. I take it that he will agree with me in that respect.


John Campbell Elliott: I would agree with the
hon. member if what the petition asked for were an inquiry into the conduct of the man Who manipulated the ballots in that way. There is, however, no suggestion that the man who is petitioned against did anything of that kind, and that is the difficulty.


John Arthur Clark: I presume my hon. friend
will agree that if the deputy returning officer fraudulently extracted from the ballot boxes ballots which were cast by bona fide electors and destroyed them, there would be a case in relation to which a petition could be taken to a judicial body or to parliament. It is now for us to determine whether that Should be decided by the courts or by this House. Is that a fair statement of the case?


John Campbell Elliott: No, it is not, because my
hon. friend does not seem to be able to get clearly the distinction between a petition that does not ask this House to inquire into the actions of a returning officer as such-


Arthur Meighen: It does.


John Campbell Elliott: My right hon. friend says
it does?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


John Campbell Elliott: Let me ask* my right
hon. friend a question. By this petition is he seeking to have the acts of the returning officer inquired into, and nothing more? If so, he is within his rights.


Arthur Meighen: No. We are asking to
have them inquired into, and if found to be wrong to have the only remedy applied that can be applied.


John Arthur Clark: Possibly we may disagree as to the interpretation of this petition, but I want to get a fair statement of the facts upon which my hon. friend and myself can agree as a basis for discussion. Let us set this petition aside for the moment. The facts as disclosed to
Peace River Election

this House are that ballots cast by bona fide electors and placed in the ballot boxes were extracted by the returning officer, fraudulently destroyed and others substituted therefor. Does that in my hon. friend's opinion constitute a case which can come before the courts or parliament, one or the other?


John Campbell Elliott: A case against whom, may I ask?


John Arthur Clark: Naturally it is a petition to
determine who is elected. Does my hon. friend suggest that it would be impossible to bring before the courts or this House a petition to determine who is elected under such circumstances?


John Campbell Elliott: Absolutely. If my hon.
friend had been following me he would have known that that was my argument exactly. If he presents to this House a petition to inquire into the conduct of that returning officer with a view to punishing him, or for such remedy as this House may see fit to apply, then according to the argument of my right hon. friend in 1913,-and I think it is sound-such inquiry could be made. But if he is presenting to this House a petition to inquire into the actions of a returning officer with a view to taking away a seat from one member and giving it to someone else, of course he is clearly without the jurisdiction.


John Arthur Clark: All I want my hon. friend
to say is this. If these facts are true, that certain ballots cast in Mr. Collins' favour were extracted by the returning officer, fraudulently destroyed and others substituted therefor, is there any remedy open to him for the wrong done him, assuming that a large majority of ballots were honestly cast for him?


John Campbell Elliott: If he appeals to the right tribunal.
Mr. CL^RK:	What tribunal?


John Campbell Elliott: The tribunal that is now being appealed to-the courts.


John Arthur Clark: At iast I have got a plain admission from ,my friend that there is a remedy, that Mr. Collins may petition and ask that the wrong done him should be righted.


John Campbell Elliott: He could petition the
court.


John Arthur Clark: There is a remedy. Now, as the Minister of Labour has said, we must determine whether or not as the law stands such a petition should be submitted to this House or to the courts. I submit that par-

liament has placed that question beyond the jurisdiction of any court in the land, and I
refer the House to the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, Chapter 6, Section 226:
No person who has voted at an election shall, in any legal proceeding questioning the election or return, be required to state for whom he voted.
That section effectively withdrew from the jurisdiction of any court in the land the determining of such a question as is now before this House. In order to determine whether or not a returning officer has extracted ballots from the ballot-box which were bona fide cast for Mr. Collins and substituted others, we must call the witnesses who were summoned before the criminal court

we must call the electors who actually cast the ballots which were destroyed by the returning officer. There is no alternative, and under the statute the court in a civil proceeding has not power either to call or hear such witnesses.


John Campbell Elliott: That is not what it says. There is no power to compel.


John Arthur Clark: I was very much interested to hear my hon. friend the Minister of Labour in answer to my right hon. leader state emphatically that these witnesses have already come before the court and given evidence, and will do so again. Does my hon. friend applaud that?


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


John Arthur Clark: Yes, they went before the criminal court and were compelled to testify in order that the ends of justice might be met. But in a civil proceeding it is quite different; this parliament has put it beyond the power of a court to determine such a question.


Mr. POWER:: Merely as a matter of information, would the hon. gentleman kindly read the section again so that we may see if there is any differentiation between a criminal court and a civil court?


John Arthur Clark: I shall probably have to
read it two or three times in citing various cases, but I will oblige my hon. friend now: No person who has voted at an election shall, in any legal proceeding questioning the election or return, be required to state for whom he voted.


Charles Gavan Power: Does that cover the criminal law also?


John Arthur Clark: It does not cover criminal matters, and I will show my hon. friend why it does not. I refer to a case in the Supreme Court of Canada, known as the Haldimand Election case, which will be found in XV Canada Supreme Court Reports at page 515.

Peace River Election
In the course of his judgment Mr. Justice Strong said:
Another case is charge No. 6 in the notice of appeal, namely, the charge that the deputy returning officer at polling sub-division No. 2 in the township of Oneida, improperly marked ballots received by him at the said election, from electors before depositing the said ballots in the ballot-box, and thereby prevented the said ballots from being counted at the said election, and the ruling of the learned judge, rejecting the evidence on behalf of the petitioner which was tendered by h:m at the trial in support of the said charge.
Nothing could be made of this charge without admitting the evidence of voters to show how thfey voted. This I hold cannot be done. To do so would, in my opinion, be a direct violation of the act which requires secrecy.
Section 7, of the Dominion Elections Act, enacts:
This is the section I just read.
"No person who has voted at an election shall, in any legal proceeding questioning the election or return, be required to state for whom he voted."
It is no answer to this to say that secrecy is imposed for the benefit of the voter and that he can waive it, for I hold secrecy to be imposed as an absolute rule of public policy, and that it cannot be waived. The whole purview of the law is different from the English act and from the Ontario act. I am of opinion, therefore, that the learned judge rightly rejected the evidence though I may not be able to agree with the grounds he put it upon.
The Minister of Labour said that facts such as those appearing in this petition should undoubtedly be heard by some court, some judicial or supreme body; they should be ventilated, investigated and a decision rendered. Under this act there is only one body which can deal with such a question. The House of Commons of Canada has reserved to itself the right to determine such a matter It may seem strange that in the recent criminal trial, which took place in Alberta before Mr. Justice Walsh, evidence of voters stating for whom they voted was admitted. There is a very clear distinction between matters which come under the Controverted Elections Act, civil matters, and criminal matters. On that point I refer Your Honour to the case of Regina versus Saunders, 11 Manitoba reports, 1896, at page 563. Mr. Justice Dubuc held:
In the Haldimand election case, 15 S.C.R. 495, it was held that, under the provisions of section 71 of the act, secrecy of the ballot is an absolute rule of public policy, and it cannot be waived.
The court has to give effect to this statutory enactment; but the provision has a restrictive qualification which must not be overlooked. It says that no person shall be required to state for whom he voted in any legal proceeding questioning the election or return and not in any legal proceeding whatsoever. If this point had been raised in the trial of an election petition,-
And I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as well as my hon. friends opposite, to note particularly these words.
-it would have to be held that the evidence was absolutely inadmissible. But in this case the evidence was
given in a trial on an indictment charging a criminal offence. When the witness Phillips was asked to state for which of the candidates he marked his ballot paper and voted, objection was raised to the question by the counsel for the defence on the ground that such evidence would be inconsistent with the secrecy of the ballot, and contrary to public policy. The learned Chief Justice, before whom the case was tried, allowed the question to be asked and answered, and it does not appear that the witness was unwilling to answer the question. There is nothing in the Dominion Elections Act, or in any other statute, declaring that, in the trial of a criminal offence, such a question cannot be asked and should not be answered.
I think, therefore, that the evidence was properly received, and that the first question submitted to the court should be answered in the affirmative.
Surely it is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that there is no judicial body in existence in this country which can effectively inquire into the matters presented in this petition, nor is there any body other than parliament itself which can effectively give a remedy to the aggrieved party. That matter has clearly been placed beyond the jurisdiction of any court whatever, and there is only one body that can effectively deal with it.


Charles Gavan Power: Is that laid down in the
petition?


John Arthur Clark: Is what laid down?


Charles Gavan Power: That there is no judicial
body which can effectively deal with the situation?


John Arthur Clark: Certainly not. Matters of
law are never alleged in petitions; my hon. friend knows that very well. The whole point involved in this petition is whether or not the returning officer extracted ballots bona fide cast for Collins and substituted others, thereby depriving Collins of his seat in this House. As the Minister of Labour said, there must'surely be some body in existence which can give a remedy for such a state of affairs.
Under the authorities, Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is perfectly clear that only one body can apply the remedy in this case.


Hewitt Bostock: That, I suppose, concludes the debate on the point of order. This question is far too important to be decided this evening, and I ask the House to bear with me for a few days until I have read over the debate and searched through all precedents and statutes cited this afternoon. By Thursday I hope to be in a position to give a ruling


Arthur Meighen: il presume, Mr. Speaker, that in the event of the decision which I anticipate, that the petition be received, there will be no notice required for a motion to commit that petition to the committee. That is, it can be moved without notice?
The Budget-Mr. Rogers


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman must not anticipate my decision.


Arthur Meighen: 1 only say in that event we ask to give notice now, that we may not be required to wait longer.


Hewitt Bostock: This will serve as a notice.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 3, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance), that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. R. J Manion.
Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (South Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, as the representative of
an important constituency in the great city of Winnipeg I deem it my duty to say something in this debate with regard to western conditions and western possibilities as well as conditions in general throughout Canada, in view of the fact that we are suffering in all parts of Canada to-day as a result of the lack of responsible government in our country. But what else have we a right to expect when we remember that no country in the civilized world has ever been known to approach anything like sound progressive administration under a compromise government? Who should know better than my right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Mackenzie King) that group government, compromise government, is nothing more than government from hand to mouth, nothing more than government that exists from day to day by way of "pull devil, pull baker?"
I would like to call my right hon. friend the Prime Minister as a living witness to the truth of this statement. During the recent campaign, from all the platforms of this country he made clear at all times that neither group government nor minority government was the kind of government wherewith to achieve great reforms. The Prime Minister went still further and said that neither group government nor minority government was the kind of government to meet Canada's needs to-day. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that every hon. member of this House agrees with that statement made by my right hon. friend upon these various occasions. We must agree because of the very conditions that exist to-day under the direction of my right hon. friend opposite. He must know-and that he does know, it is shown by his own statement-that it is im-

possible for him in the situation in which he finds himself to-day to do anything calculated to advance the best interests of this country. I appeal to my right hon. friend. Canada, the country in which he lives, has been very kind to him in the past, but now he sits in office here as the clog on the wheel. Why will he not do something in return that will be for the advantage of this country, which has done so much for him?
This is no time, Mr. Speaker, to toy, to barter,'to tinker as my right hon. friend is doing in respect of the government of this country. And what has been the effect upon the country? The effect has been to destroy confidence and security in this Dominion. All reasonable Canadians, in my humble judgment, should join in assisting to create that sound public opinion by which alone stability of government can be restored. Party government in the past may have had its difficulties, but we must never overlook the fact that party government has made this Dominion of Canada what it is to-day. In my judgment it is only under that form of government that confidence and security can be restored in this country. Under the administration of my right hon. friend loss of confidence and security has done more than anything else during the past eight or ten years to retard the progress of our Dominion. In proof of that 10 p.m. statement I am going, to give you just a few brief figures which, to my mind, make it abundantly clear that our country is going back, and going back rapidly, under the administration of my right hon. friend. These figures furnish, in my judgment, a very clear index as to conditions in all parts of Canada. I am going to show how much was collected in income tax when my right hon. friend came into power, and then compare that with the amount that is being collected to-day.
In 1921-22, the year my right hon. friend came into power, 18,840 farmers paid in income tax $1,299,104.54. In 1924-1925 only 3,061 farmers in Canada were able to pay income tax to the amount of $162,944.74; in other words, 15,780 farmers who were able to pay income tax when my right hon. friend came into power are not able to pay a dollar of income tax to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Were there
not exemptions made between the two years my hon. friend is comparing?


Robert Rogers: I do not think there were any exemptions made for the farmers except what are now proposed.

The Budget-Mr. Rogers


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There were
exemptions made on account of children, which applied to farmers the same as to every one else.


Robert Rogers: It would not amount to
much. The fact is that there are 15,780 fewer farmers paying income tax to-day than when my right hon. friend1 came into office.


Charles Avery Dunning: Because the exemptions relating to children reached them.


Robert Rogers: Let me give a few more
figures:
Income Tax Returns for fiscal years 1921-22 and 1924-25
	No.	Amount
Agrarians 1921-22.. ..	18,841	$1,299,104 54Agrarians 1924-25.. ..	3,061	162,944 7415,780 Less	$1,136,159 80 LossEmployees 1921-22.. ..	207,263	$17,123,446 91Employees 1924-25.. ..	168,894	13,973,094 8738,369 Less	$3,150,352 04 LossMerchants 1921-22.. ..	23,716	$7,140,101 15Merchants 1924-25.. ..	14,843	2,189,116 628,873 Less	$4,950,984 53 LosaManufacturers 1921-22.	1.629	$2,472,485 40Manufacturers 1924-25.	1,127	467,661 83502 Less	$2,004,823 57 LossCorporations 1921-22..	8,286	$38,863,757 79Corporations 1924-25..	6,236	31,091,274 372,050 Less	$7,772,483 42 Ldss


Mr. RYCKMAN:: into this matter?	: Children	do not enter


Robert Rogers: They do not enter into the corporation tax. These are facts that tell the tale of the condition of our country to-day Not only in respect to the matter of income tax but in respect of everything else we are face to face to-day with domestic problems the like of which we have never before been called upon to meet in Canada, problems that insistently cry for attention and solution, and my right hon. friend is as helpless as a child to do anything to solve them. We have our great problem of taxation, and we have the great problem also of emigration-one of the most serious questions we have to face. We know that we have a stagnant population to-day and we know that this government have utterly failed in their attempt to do anything in the matter of emigration. People are leaving this country in greater numbers than they are coming in. The policy of the present administration is so feeble that it can 14011-197
only be compared with some individual undertaking to suppress a raging forest fire with a syringe.
Then again, Mr. Speaker, we have the great problems of how to handle our grain in order that the producer may get his best price in railway freight rates, and so forth. We have the problem of how to divert our grain so that we can carry it over Canadian rails to Canadian ports. Last but not least, we have the great problem of our inherent right to arrange our fiscal policy along sound lines of confidence and of security. Liberal governments or compromise governments have never yet been able to grapple with these great undertakings. My justification for this statement is to be found in the fact that the Liberal party are unable to show to-day that during the whole life of our Dominion they have one outstanding Dominion-wide measure to their credit. We had a practical illustration the other day of the evil of compromise government. Parliament hill was thronged with thousands of men and women, numbered among the best citizens of our country, who came here to plead with my right hon. friend and with the Minister of Finance for the right to live, to work, and to assist in the upbuilding of this young and promising nation of ours. They were denied that right.
For that reason, Sir, if for none other, I am delighted to join in this debate and to support the amendment of the hon. member, for Fort William (Mr. Manion). I support it because it follows along sound lines of Conservative policy. The policy of the Conservative party is to keep the home fires burning in Canada. The policy of the Conservative party is to keep Canadian capital and Canadian man power working in Canada and not in the United States. The Conservative party believe that the sound development of our home market is one of Canada's greatest national assets; Conservatives do not believe in continental Europe being privileged to dump pauper labour products on our market to the detriment of our own Canadian labour. We do not believe in permitting our American neighbours to the south to dump their surplus misfits and surplus products on our market, to the detriment of the foeA interests of our Canadian labour. Ample protection of the industries of the United States has saved them from that dumping which has blasted Canada's prosperity under the administration of the country's affairs by the party opposite.
So far as the tariff is concerned, an explanation is due to this parliament from the Prime Minister and from the Minister of

The Budget-Mr. Rogers

Finance as to why the promises made in the budget speech of last year have not been kept. Why did' the government not implement its undertaking then made to appoint a tariff commission? The Minister of Finance declared that it was necessary that expert evidence should be available to the government before tariff revision could take place. In that, same speech the minister said he was desirous t>f securing a commission well qualified to advise not only on tariff but on kindred matters as well. Can it be possible, Mr. Speaker, that the commission appointed on April 7 last is intended to serve a double purpose? "Kindred matters" open a wide field of opportunity. The expression may be interpreted to mean a board that is directed to be very sympathetic with the manufacturers when they are making their X-ray examination, and to leave the impression upon the mind of the manufacturer that he was indebted in some personal or other manner to the kindness of the present administration. If the government had any such idea in mind when this board was selected I commend them upon their selection. The chairman, as we all know, is an old tried and trusted politician, recognized for a quarter of a century and more as the guardian of anything and everything that would tend to the benefit of the Liberal party. I am sure the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) is entirely satisfied with the appointment of Mr. McKenzie who, I am sure, he regards as eminently fitted to fill the position of first mate to the chairman of that board.
The Progressive party in the province of Manitoba opened up a wide field for financial operations in the elections of 1921 and 1925. I can quite understand that some explanation will be due from me in respect to this statement. In 1921 a new and novel departure in political finance took place under the Progressive party in the province from which we come, a departure that was marked by the incorporation of a "New National Policy Committee, Limited," a company incorporated under the laws of Manitoba for the purpose of receiving and disbursing money for political purposes. According to the Manitoba Gazette the directors were practically all employees of the Grain Growers' Grain Company. It was a company formed to collect and spend money without falling foul of section 10 of the Dominion Elections Act, which states:
No unincorporated company or association and no incorporated company or association other than one incorporated for political purposes alone shall, directly or indirectly, contribute, loan, advance, pay, or promise or offer to pay any money or its equivalent to, or for, or in aid of, any candidate at an election, or to, or for

or in aid of, any company incorporated for political purposes, or to, or for, or in furtherance of, any political purpose whatever, or for the indemnification or reimbursement of any person for moneys so used.
The press of Winnipeg were very much interested when this notice was given in respect of those companies being formed by the Progressive party. Lawyers were employed to find out the direct meaning of those companies and this is the opinion of one of the most eminent lawyers in that city with respect to section 10 of the Dominion Elections Act. Hon. members must remember -that this section is a child of the Liberal party, brought in and incorporated in that act as far back as 1907:
Section 10 of the Elections Act provides that the only company or association which can legally pay or promise to pay any money, or make any loan or advance, either to a candidate or to a political party is one incorporated for political purposes alone. It would, therefore, follow that under the act a company may be incorporated for political purposes alone and be quite within the law in making payment of money to any canc^ate or political party. The only persons who would be legally entitled to ascertain the source of these moneys would be the shareholders of the company.
Supposing such a company were incorporated to advance the fortunes of some one political party, and that some organization either within or without Canada were anxious of advancing the cause of that party for their own financial or industrial profit, it would be quite possible by paying their contribution to a campaign fund through the incorporated company to conceal the origin of the moneys. The successful candidate of that political party in making return of election expenses would show the receipt of so much money from the incorporated company, but there is nothing m the Elections Act which would force the candidate or his agent to divulge to the Chief Electoral Officer where that money was collected from. The incorporated company would be acting within the letter of the law, and no one opposed to that party politically, and to that company, would have any right to insist on any disclosure of the origin of the campaign funds.
I may surprise the House when I state that even in the constituency of Nelson represented by my hon. friend the Rev. Mr. Bird, a company was incorporated under the laws of Manitoba called the National Progressive Political Association of Nelson Constituency,. Limited, to collect, receive and disburse moneys for political purposes in that constituency. The names of the directors of that company so incorporated were:
Mr. James S. Paten, farmer of Benito;
Mr. Jethro Clarke, farmer of Swan River;
Mr. Robert T. McVetty, agent of Swan River;
Mr. William C. Hunt, farmer of Swan River;
Mr. Thomas C. Silverthorn, farmer of Bowsman.
These were the directors in the constituency of Nelson. Let me return to the hon. member for Brandon, who also was a director of a company and evidently trafficked in campaign funds; for I find that in the election^

The Budget-Mr. Rogers
contested by him in 1921 he was a director of a company incorporated under the laws of Manitoba called the Brandon Federal Progressive Association, Limited. The directors of this company were:
Mr. John Crawford, farmer of Brandon;
Mr. Robert Forke, farmer of Brandon;
Mr. George Gordon, farmer of Brandon;
Mr. Wellington Geddes Rathwell, farmer of Brandon;
Mr. Donald Gordon McKenzie, farmer of Brandon;
Mr. James Harris McKee, farmer of Brandon.
I want the House to know that this Mr. Donald Gordon McKenzie, farmer, of Brandon, by the kindness no doubt of my friend the hon. member for Brandon, occupies a place on the tariff board of this country. These are the names selected to manage political funds for the federal constituency represented by my hon. friend through a company that was formed, according to the notice of incorporation, for the purpose of collecting, receiving and disbursing moneys for political purposes. After the election of my hon. friend for the constituency of Brandon in 1921 this incorporated company was apparently bankrupt and had ceased operating. At all events it discontinued. Howyever, previous to the election of 1925 the Brandon Federal Progressive Association w'as revived and restored to its legal position by order in council No. 43851 with Mr. Donald Gordon McKenzie again to the fore as one of the directors interested in the success of the hon. member (Mr. Forke) whose duty it was to collect, receive and disburse moneys for political purposes.
Mr. WARjD: Is that not a much more honourable means of getting campaign funds than accepting contributions from large corporations in the big cities?


Robert Rogers: Wherein does my hon.friend find any difference between the two methods? Are not the contributions in the province of Manitoba derived from corporations? Mr Donald Gordon McKenzie evidently won the warm approval of my hon. friend from Brandon. I refer to him because his name will be known to all Canada from now on as a member of the board appointed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a few days ago to consider tariff matters. Mr. McKenzie, I say, evidently won the warm applause and approval of the Progressive party for his work in connection with the collecting, receiving and disbursing of public moneys for political purposes in the constituency of Brandon, for he was promoted to a directorship on the United Farmers of Manitoba Political Executive Limited, with headquarters at Winnipeg. This association at Winnipeg was a sort of high muckamuck organization or, in 14011-1971
other words, a sort of wholesale institution for the collecting, receiving and disbursing of moneys for political purposes in the province of Manitoba.


Robert James Manion: A sort of clearing house.


Air. FORKE:: Will the hon. member permit an explanation? The charter was renewed prior to the last election, the same names, I think, being included in it, but Mr. Donald Gordon McKenzie had nothing whatever to do with the election nor had he anything to do with the collection or distribution of funds. He was not connected at all with the election in Brandon.


Robert Rogers: I may tell my hon. friend that I have here the names of the directors, both for the city of Winnipeg and for Brandon.


Mr. BIRD:: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question? Can he tell the House what kind of organization supplied funds for my political opponent?


Robert Rogers: I do not know anything about my hon. friend's political opponent; I had nothing to do with the hon. gentleman's election.


Thomas William Bird: I may tell my hon. friend-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas William Bird: -that he had the blessing of the right hon. gentleman.


Robert Rogers: Now Mr. Donald Gordon McKenzie served with my hon. friend from Brandon in 1921 in his election, and he served again in 1925. He was also made a director of the association at the city of Winnipeg. The directors of this province-wide organization were not the same in 1925 as in 1921. They are to-day: William Robertson Wood, Edward Ellsworth Bayne, Peter Wright, Mabel Elizabeth Finch, Donald Gordon McKenzie^ Colin Hamlin Burnell.


Robert Forke: I must correct the hon. gentleman. That is not the corporation in Brandon; it is the organization for the province of Manitoba.


Robert Rogers: I am speaking of the provincial organization.


Robert Forke: There is nothing wrong in it.


Robert Rogers: I do not suppose it would be possible for you to do anything wrong. Those at any rate are the names, and that is the position which Air. Donald Gordon AlcKenzie occupied in the work of the party represented by my hon. friend. I am not surprised, therefore, that Mr. Donald Gordon AlcKenzie should be the first one whom the
310S
The Budget-Mr. Rogers

hon. gentleman would think of when he had an opportunity to make a recommendation for the position that gentleman now holds. No doubt, he will be eminently fitted to fill that position with entire satisfaction to the member for Brandon and those who are anxious to collect, receive and disburse moneys for political purposes in that province.
Mr. BRiOjWN: Is the hon. member attributing to the gentleman to whom he refers the same campaign tactics which he knows characterize his own workers?


Robert Rogers: I am just giving you the records as I have them. Let me say that I do not believe that the Liberal party, even with all its faults and sins, has ever organized-and I know absolutely that the Conservative party has never yet done so-a company to conceal contributions or anything else. This party does its business in the open. Now that my hon. friend (Mr. Brown) has seen fit to interrupt, perhaps I may give him some of the records in relation to his own constituency. I have them all here. As regards the Lisgar Progressive Asso-jiation Limited, Incorporated, I find that .he directors in 1925 were: A. S. Budd, Iruggist; Angus Currie, retired farmer; Harold McKay, student; John Cruise, farmer; Mathew John Shewfelt, farmer, all of the village of Pilot Mound. These were the . directors whom my hon. friend from Lisgar had to carry out his work.
Now, I hope I have satisfied the House that whatever else may be said of Mr. Donald Gordon McKenzie's qualifications in respect do technical tariff matters, there would appear ic be no doubt as to his qualification in the 'matter or'v political finance. It is very evident that the leader of the Progressive party and those associated with him from the province of Manitoba are not so simple minded, when it comes to receiving and disbursing campaign funds for political purposes, as they would like this House and1 the country to believe.
If they had not found it good political business in 1921 to have all these companies organized and operating for the purpose of collecting, receiving and disbursing moneys for political purposes, why then in 1925 did they go to the great expense of reorganizing these companies with the object of again ' collecting, receiving and disbursing moneys for political purposes in the various constituencies of the province?
That is the record of the financial efforts of my hon. friends the Progressives from the province of Manitoba. I do not suppose that

the Progressives in any other province of Canada are as far advanced in the iniquities of campaign funds as are the Progressives in that province.


Mr. BROWN:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member has referred to section 10 of the Elections Aict. Is section 10 of that act the same as section 10 of the Elections Act as it came from the Liberal party? I say it is not.


Robert Rogers: I have given you the
opinions of lawyers and I am satisfied to rely upon them. Conditions in the western provinces, I may say, have been very much disturbed as the result of the actions of the Progressive party during these two elections, and, I deem it my duty to let this House and the country know the manner in which they have been carrying on their elections in the past.
Now they talk about the tariff and about the seriousness of the taxation placed upon the farmers of western Canada. I want to say to them: Give the farmers in Manitoba and in western Canada generally a market for that which they produce, and they will neither ask for nor accept remedies born of politea! fright such as we had introduced the other day by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. The progress of the farmers of western Canada has been retarded by my friend from Brandon and by my friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) in the matter of their getting what is coming to them in transportation costs. This is a serious matter to the farmers of the west, and it is an equally serious matter to the people of the east, because I want them to understand that they are just as much interested in the condition of western Canada as are those who live there. The people of eastern Canada must never overlook the fact that railways and their workers, manufacturers and their employees, banks and their staffs can only preserve their positions and their property so long as the farmers of western Canada are assured of a fair living wage for that which they produce. The greatest enemies that the farmers of the west have had to contend against in securing that fair living wage are my hon. friend from Brandon and my hon. friend from Regina. They are two of the greatest sinners in this House in retarding the progress of the farmers of western Canada.
Now, in 1900 the government of Manitoba of which I was a member felt that it owed a

The Budget-Mr. Rogers
duty to the farming community of that province. The people were demanding lower transportation costs, and we undertook to meet that demand. After much consideration we decided to acquire the Northern Pacific railway system, which had splendid terminals in the city of Winnipeg and about four hundred miles of railway very well located. The owners were willing to sell the property because at that time the railway was not in very good circumstances. I was honoured by my colleagues in being selected to go to St. Paul to discuss the purchase of the system in order that we might, remedy the conditions complained of by the farmers of Manitoba. I succeeded in my mission and the contract is incorporated in the Dominion statutes. That contract was signed by myself on behalf of the government of Manitoba and by the president of the company on behalf of the Northern Pacific Railway on January 15, 1901.
Seven days later the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway came to Winnipeg by special train and offered the provincial government $7,000,000 for the contract. In this proposal, which I am sure the House will be interested to hear, he said:
The company will lease for nine hundred and ninety-nine years from the government the Northern Pacific lines, includ:ng equipment and terminals, paying theie-for an annual rental of $220,000 for the first ten years, $245,000 for the second ten years, and $300,000 thereafter.
Those were the exact amounts provided for in our contract with the Northern Pacific.
The company will make the following specific reductions in its rates;-
September 1st, 1901 grain and flour 1-1/2 cents per hundred pounds.
September 1st, 1902 grain and flour ' 1/2 cent per hundred pounds.
September 1st, 1903 grain and flour 1/2 cent per hundred pounds,
September 1st, 1904 grain and flour 1/2 cent per hundred pounds,
September 1st, 1905 grain and flour 1/2 cent per hundred pounds,
September 1st, 1906 grain and flour 1/2 cent per hundred pounds,
thus making a reduction within that period of four cents per hundred pounds from all points within the province.
The rate on salt will be reduced forthwith to fifteen cents per hundred pounds from Fort William to Winnipeg, and to all other points in proportion, according to existing tariffs.
The rate on coal Fort William to Winnipeg will be reduced to $2.50, to Portage la Prairie $3 and to Brandon $3.35 per ton of 2,000 pounds.
At that time the Canadian Northern Railway Company had quite a mileage in Manitoba, and the owners offered to take over the Northern Pacific system and give us a reduction of four cents per hundred pounds
on grain and of fifteen per cent on general merchandise from all points in Manitoba to Fort William and from Fort William to all points in Manitoba,


Mr. PARENT:: May I ask my hon. friend if all the documents he is referring to have ever been made public?


Robert Rogers: They are in the Dominion statutes. Now then, we felt that competition was very desirable and we accepted that offer. We entered into a contract with the-Canadian Northern Railway Company under which they agreed that for thirty years they would continue the reduced rates on wheat and general merchandise. The arrangement was that the first year they would reduce the rate on wheat by two cents per hundred pounds and the merchandise rate by fifteen per cent. The Canadian Pacific paid no attention to the altered conditions of affairs.. The Canadian Northern extended their lines very rapidly and with the acquisition of the Northern Pacific system they were able to get into Brandon, Portage la Prairie and various other large shipping centres, with the result that when in the following year the further reduction of two cents per hundred pounds went into effect the Canadian Pacific Railway management came to us and said: Now, you are getting the rate a little too low; we want to come in, but we cannot afford to compete with such a low rate. They said to us, "If you will raise your rate on grain by one cent per hundred pounds we will reduce our rate by three cents per hundred pounds and extend that rate to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta as well."


Charles Avery Dunning: Those provinces were not then in existence.


Robert Rogers: The Northwest Territories
were there; it is the same thing. Your neighbours and friends got the benefit of that rate which went into force on October 7, 1903. Let me say that that rate brought a return of over $200,000,000 to the farmers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta during the period it was in force. That was something for the people of this country, and this is the rate which the hon. member for Brandon and the hon. member for Regina have done everything in their power to destroy. They have temporarily succeeded in their attempt, to the disadvantage of the farmers of western Canada. Not only was that done, but it was done in such a way as to show, in my opinion, not very good judgment on their part.
A committee on transportation costs was appointed by parliament in 1922, with which
The Budget-Mr. Rogers

I will deal a little later. When Manitoba made that contract we had all the power necessary; there was no power this parliament could give to our province which we did not already possess. But we were making contracts with railway corporations, the Northern Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway, which were operating under Dominion charters and which had to get from the parliament of Canada their power to enter into a contract. In view of that, the two companies and the provincial government joined in asking this parliament to give to the railway companies power to make the contract which it was proposed should be made. It was unnecessary for our government to ask for any further power; we didi not require any assistance from this parliament, but joined in a request in the following manner:
That his honour the Lieutenant Governor be requested to forward officially a certified copy of the fallowing act, passed by the Legislative Assembly of the province of Manitoba, on the twentieth day of March, one thousand, nine hundred and one, and intituled, "An act confirming a certain agreement respecting certain railways and respecting freight and passenger rates," to the honourable the Secretary of State for Canada, with the request on behalf of the government of Manitoba, that the government of Canada will introduce into the parliament of Canada at its present session, a similar measure and legislation confirming the identure in the said act referred to, and to enable and require the parties to carry out the same, in order that the true intent and meaning of the parties may be property and fully accomplished.
That is the request we made to this parliament, to give the railway companies the necessary power. Parliament answered that petition by an act assented to on May 23, 1901, of which the preamble is indicated in 'Idle following:
His Majesty, represented by the executive government of the province of Manitoba, of the first part, and the Canadian Northern Railway Company, of the second part, have executed a certain indenture bearing date the eleventh day of February, nineteen hundred and one, and set forth in schedule B ito this act; and whereas the parties to the said indenture of the eleventh day of February, nineteen hundred and one, have, by their petitions, prayed that it be enacted as hereinafter set forth, and it is expedient to grant the prayer of the saad petitions:	Therefore His
Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-
Let the House observe closely that "His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada," enacted what followed. Now let me turn to the Dominion act of 1901, and I have here the legislation brought down. First there is the contract made with the Northern Pacific Railway, signed by your humble servant, and then the contract made with the

Canadian Northern Railway; and under this act parliament went on to say:
1.	Whereas by indenture of lease, dated the fifteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and one, and set forth in schedule A to this act, the lessors named in the said indenture did demise and lease to Her Majesty, represented therein by the executive government of the province of Manitoba, certain lines of railway therein mentioned, upon terms and conditions set forth in the said indenture; and whereas His Majesty, represented by the executive government of the province of Manitoba, of the first part, and the Canadian Northern Railway Company, of the second part, have executed a certain indenture bearing date the eleventh day of February, nineteen hundred and one, and set forth in schedule B to this act; and whereas the parties to the said indenture of the eleventh day of February, nineteen hundred and one, have, by their petitions, prayed that it be enacted as hereinafter set forth, and it is expedient to grant the prayer of the said petitions: therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1.	The Northern Pacific and Manitoba Railway Company, the Winnipeg Transfer Railway Company (Limited), the Portage and Northwestern Railway Company and	the	Waskada	and	Northeastern Railway Company have, and shall be deemed to have had at the time of the execution of the said indenture of the fifteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and one, full power to demise and lease the lines of railway and other premises included in the said indenture on the terms therein contained; and the said indenture	of	lease and	the	assignment thereof
by the said indenture of the eleventh day of February, nineteen hundred and one, are hereby confirmed.
They confirmed both contracts. The act went on to say:
2.	The Canadian Northern Railway Company has, and shall be deemed to have had at the time of the execution of the said indenture of the eleventh day of February, nineteen hundred and one, full power-
(a)	to accept	the	assignment of	the said lease;(b)	to make	the	covenants	and	agreements in the
said indenture contained-
(i)	relating to the said lease and to the payments thereunder and to the terms thereof;
(ii)	relating to the bonds mentioned in clauses 5 and 6 of the said indenture;
(iii)	relating to the rates to be charged or demanded by the said company for the carriage of freight and passengers;
(iv)	relating to the payments to be paid by the said company notwithstanding exemption from taxation;
(c)	and to make the grant contained in clause 20 of the said indenture.
3.	Nothing in thi3 act or in the indentures contained in the schedules hereto, or done in pursuance of this act or of the said indentures, shall-
(a)	divest or limit, temporarily or otherwise, the rights or powers (under existing or future legislation of the parliament of Canada) of the Governor in Council, or of the railway committee of the Privy Council, or of any commission or other authority, respecting any matter or thing, obligation or duty;
(b)	place the government of Canada, directly or indirectly, under any liability, obligation or duty with respect to any bonds, debentures, stocks or securities of any kind, or any interest thereon or any payment, matter or thing in the said indentures provided for or referred to, or in any way arising therefrom;
(c)	authorize the Canadian Northern Railway Company, contrary to the meaning of the Railway Act, to charge or demanded any discriminating rate for the

The Budget-Mr. Rogers
carriage of freight or passengers, or to allow or make any secret or special tolls, rebate, drawbacks or concession, or any higher rates for the carriage of freight or passengers than those heretofore or hereafter fixed, under the authority of existing or future legislation of the parliament of Canada, by the Governor in Council, or by the railway committee of the Privy Council, or by any commission or other authority.
You will note by that last clause that we were prohibited only in the matter of raising rates in Manitoba. The question came up at that time that it might be possible under that contract for Manitoba to raise the rates on that portion of the line running from the boundary of Manitoba to Fort William, a distance of something over 290 miles. This is what Mr. Blair anticipated at that time might be a danger in making that contract. He said:
I do not hesitate to say that I feared, and I fear at this moment, that there may be such a reduction of rates forced by the action of the Manitoba government upon the Canadian Northern Railway as to lead the Canadian Northern, even with the approval, if it were necessary, of the government of Manitoba, to impose higher rates on traffic on portions of their line outside of the province of Manitoba, so as thereby to reduce the loss which will result from operations within that province.
They thought we were going to make a loss on that contract, and that we would raise the rate in 'Ontario to help make up our deficits. That is the reason why the clause which I have just read was placed in the contract, in order that we should not charge any higher rates. My hon. friend from La-belle (Mr. Bourassa)

I saw him in the chamber a few minutes ago-was in the House at that time, and he made a similar reference, as follows:
I understand that the Attorney General of Manitoba indicated that there could be no discriminating rate fixed by the government of Manitoba, because it would be favourable to the whole people of Manitoba ; but the point that I have been making does not refer to the case of discrimination between classes of shippers, but to the case of discrimination between one province and another. In such a case the Manitoba government would fix a rate lower for the people of Manitoba and higher for the people of Ontario and the Northwest Territories-
In view of these statements the clause I have just read was incorporated in that legislation. The hon. member for Labelle later moved the following amendment-he was still anxious to raise the rates in Ontario:
-in favour of or against either (1) any individual or corporation, or (2) the people or shippers of or from any particular place, section, district or province.
This was answered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as follows:
I would say to my hon. friend from Labelle that if this bill were before the railway commission I do not think I would have any serious objection to his amendment; in fact, I would have none at all, because in my judgment it adds nothing to or detracts nothing from the sense of the clause we have before us. The clause now reads as follows:
"Nothing in this act or in this indenture contained in the schedule hereto, or done in pursuance of this
act or of the said indentures shall	authorize
the Canadian Northern Railway Company to charge or demand any higher rates-"
Mr. Blair followed and said:
I desire to say only one word. The hon. member for Labelle has attributed to me statements and purposes which I did not make or entertain when this bill was under consideration before the railway committee. I did not suggest the inclusion of that section in this bill in any way, sliape or form; it did not emanate from me. The gentlemen who were promoting	this	bill	introduced	a special clause	for
the purpose of affording some assurance to, I presume, some persons on the committee who had doubts as to whether the action of parliament in passing this bill would in some degree impair its power and authority in the premises, that it would have no such effect.
All that I suggested in the committee was that inasmuch as the object of the amendment which had emanated	from	the	promoters	of the bill, and	bywhich it was proposed to say that nothing in the act should interfere with the power o>f the railway committee	in respect	to rates;	that is to say, thatthe rates	could	not	be made	any higher than	the
rates fixed by the Governor in Council under the Railway Act, and that inasmuch as the clause only referred to the question of the raising of rates, I thought it would be reasonable to also add a clause having reference to discrimination, or to the making of secret rebates or other arrangements which are clearly declared against by the provisions of the Railway Act.
Mr. Sifton, then Minister of tlhe Interior, dealt with the matter in the following language:
As I understand the argument which is advanced by the hon. member for Labelle, it is to the effect that the saving clause in section 3 of the act which provides that the power oif the parliament of Canada and the Dominion government shall remain unimpaired in regard to this bill, takes away the power of the local authority to reduce rates.
Mr. Bourassa:	I did not say that this clause took
away from the Manitoba government the power to reduce rates.
Sir Clifford Sifton:	My hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa)
has made the argument, that because of .the supposed change in the contract, Manitoba has been beaten out of the control of rates for which she bargained. That was Inis argument, and if that was not his argument, it was not anything. There is nothing in it; it is wholly and entirely foundationless.
Mr. Blair later went on to say:
If a company agrees-I do not care if they only agree with a city; I do not Care if they only agree with individuals-if they agree with an individual to make the rate so much, and it becomes a matter of public knowledge that these rates are lower than should obtain, then the commission will be justified in saying:	You are bound by these rates, because
you have yourselves declared that you will be prepared to carry traffic at these rates, and you cannot complain if we fix them.
Now I want to deal with the security held by the province of Manitoba in respect to this contract. First of all let me point out that when the province of Manitoba made
The Budget-Mr. Rogers

that contract they secured from the railway corporation a mortgage as complete as any mortgage could possibly be made as security for the contract into which we then entered. I should like to quote to the House a clause of the Manitoba statute which was confirmed by the parliament of Canada in respect to this matter. Section 6 of the Manitoba Act provides:
In case the Canadian Northern Railway Company, its successors and assigns, makes default in abiding by or carrying out any of the terms of the said indenture set out in the schedule to this act, or any of the terms of the said indenture of lease, or of the mortgage referred to in clause five of said indenture, the .Court of King's Bench for Manitoba shall have and is hereby vested with full power and jurisdiction, at the instance of -the Attorney General of the province on behalf of the government, to decree specific performance and observance of the said terms and every of them and to enforce said decree.
That clause in the act passed by Manitoba was confirmed by the parliament of Canada. Now let me quote from the act passed by the parliament of Canada with respect to the provisions of the mortgage to which I have just referred. I would like the House to take note of this particular clause in the Dominion Act which provides:
T. hat wherever in this indenture the government or the company is mentioned or referred to, such mention or reference shall extend to, include and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the government or the company *as the case may be.
Here is a clause that binds the successors of the Canadian Northern railway; it makes clear that the National railways, to the extent that the company is named, are responsible for the fulfilment of that mortgage. That clause is still in force and effect.
Now further on in this act it is made clear that:
In consideration of the guarantee of the said boods and the ass'gnment of said lease and option, the company hereby agrees that up to the 30th day of June. A.D. 1930, the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall from time to time fix the rates to be charged or demanded bv the company for the carriage of all freight from all points on the company's lines in Manitoba to Port Arthur, and from Port Arthur to all points on the company's lines in Manitoba, and from all points on the company's lines in Manitoba to all other points on said lines in Manitoba. Provided always that before any rates are so fixed, the company shall be heard and their interests taken into consideration.
Clause 9 reads:
The company hereby consents to the passing of such legislation by the legislature of Manitoba as may be necessary to confer upon the Court of King's Bench for Manitoba full jurisdiction at the instance of the Attorney General of the province on behalf of the government, to decree specific performance and observance by the company of each and every of the terms of this agreement and of the said lease and option, and the company hereby consents .to and submits to the jurisdiction of the said court in that behalf.

That clause is full and complete. I hold in my hand a copy of the mortgage as held by the province of Manitoba. It was made on the 30th September, 1901, signed by the Canadian Northern Railway Company, the Canadian National Trust Company, and the Manitoba government. The names which appear on this mortgage are:
Frederick Niohohs, President; J. M. Smith, Secretary; R. P. Roblin, Railway Commissioner; National Trust Company, Limited; E. R. Wood, Vice-President, and W. T. White, Manager.
I will read the clauses that are of interest to this House and to the country. First, clause 22:
The terms of tihe several mortgages and the agreement below mentioned are hereby made subject to the terms of this mortgage and of said indenture of 11th February, 1901, with respect to the rights and positions of the government and the company as between each other, and wherever inconsistent the terms of this mortgage and of said indenture shall as between the government and the company prevail; but wherever not inconsistent the terms of said mortgages and agreement and ithe rights and positions of the government and the company thereunder shall continue in force.
Paragraph (g) of clause 21 reads as follows:
The government shall be entitle*! to take proceedings by way of injunction to prevent the infringement of any of the terms or provisions of this mortgage and in the event of the company ifailing to fully and completely perform all such terms and provisions, the government shall be entitled to enforce such performance.
Then we have another important provision, clause 28 of the mortgage, which reads:
In consideration of the guarantee of the said bonds and the assignment of said lease and option the company hereby agrees that up to the thirtieth day of June, A.D. 1930, the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall from time to time fix the rates to be charged or demanded by the company for the carriage of all freight from all points on the company's lines in Manitoba to Port Arthur and from Port Arthur to all points on the company's lines in Manitoba, and from all points on the company's lines in Manitoba to all other points on said lines in Manitoba. Provided always that before any rates are so fixed the company shall be heard and their interests taken into consideration. The company agrees that it will not at any time after the said rates have been so fixed charge or demand for the carriage of freight between the .points aforesaid greater rates than those so fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. And the said company covenants to carry the freight at rates not higher than those so fixed and not ito dispute the rates when so fixed, and it is agreed that no appeal or application for leave to appeal shall be made or permitted from any decision of the Court of King's Bench for Manitoba upon any question 'howsoever arising in any action or proceeding brought by the Attorney General of the province on behalf of the gov eminent for the performance, observance or enforcement. of the company's covenants in this paragraph contained either to the King in Council or to the Supreme Court of Canada or to any other court outside of Manitoba and that any application foT leave to appeal or any proceeding in appeal contrary to the provisions of this clause shal be deemed to be made or taken against good faith.

The Budget-Mr. Rogers
That is why we have had trouble in connection with this contract: the present government of Manitoba took the course they did against the good faith of the security they hold in their own treasury to provide for the fulfilment of this contract. Every time the lawyers representing the government of Manitoba came down here to argue the question of Manitoba's contract, they were coming here in bad faith, having regard to the contract and to the mortgage held by Manitoba, under which it can decree specific performance any time. Why the Norris government or the government of the Progressive party of the province did not present Manitoba's case as it should have been presented under the contract as made is matter for them to answer, and not for me.
I wish to point out that when the Railway Act was going through this parliament the Attorney General of our province came down to see to it that nothing should be provided in that act that would be detrimental or injurious to the fulfilment of our contract. A special clause was therefore introduced as follows:
Unless otherwise expressly provided in this act, where the provisions of this act and of any special act, passed by the parliament of Canada relate to the same subject matter, the provisions of the special act shall be taken to over-ride the provisions of this act in so far as is necessary to give effect to such special act.
In determining the meaning of this paragraph the first question is, what is meant by the words "special act"? The expression is among those defined in the interpretation section 2	(w), and the definition is as
follows:
(2) (w) The expression "special act" means any act under which the company has authority to construct or operate a railway, or which is enacted with special reference to such railway, and includes all such acts.
The next chapter in our difficulty was when the appointment was made in 1922, under the government of the right hon. member who leads the present administration, of a committee on transportation costs, and it was the set purpose of Liberals, both here and in the western provinces, to try to find some form by which and through which they could discredit or destroy Manitoba's railway contract. That commission was appointed, and I remember that my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) was on it. I am sure it would be difficult for him or anybody else to understand the exact conditions without knowing something about the contract arrangement. When that committee first assembled Mr. Hudson, Mr. Crerar, and Mr. Forke, the present member for Brandon, were members of it, and it will be sufficient for me to say at the moment that they did everything in their power to destroy the contract before that committee. They were asked by their fellow members of the committee to have the contract incorporated as part of their proceedings, but they failed to appear. They brought down schedules of rates covering the railways of western Canada for years previously and during that period of time they entirely overlooked Manitoba's rates and gave the Crowsnest pass rate credit, if you please, for reductions made by the Manitoba government under their contract.
The hon. member for Regina was the leading sinner in this task of trying to destroy our railway rates for the benefit of the corporations and to the detriment of the people even of his own province. The rates given to Saskatchewan, or to the Northwest Territories as it was at that time, brought his province a large return. Before this committee was appointed the Minister of Railways, speaking at Regina-and I have a copy of his speech in my hand-made the following statement, speaking of the Crowsnest pass agreement:
An examination of the freight rates on grain particularly will reveal that fact-that while the agreement covered nmin line and branches as they existed in 1897 it did set the basis for the whole of the west with respect to the commodities covered by the agreement.
My hon. friend was Minister of Railways in Saskatchewan when he made that speech and he ought to have known something about rates, but evidently he did not, because the Manitoba rate contract was in force from October 7. 1903 until 1918. Not one pound of freight of any kind or description was carried during that time over any line in the prairie provinces save and excepting under rates different from Crowsnest pass rates. For twenty-five years or more they were carried under rates fixed by the Manitoba government, and the province which my hon. friend represented so long secured great advantages as a result of those rates.


Robert James Manion: Were they lower rates?


Robert Rogers: Lower by two cents a hundred pounds at every station in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Therefore Manitoba has just cause to complain of unfair treatment such as this in respect of her rate contract. The day is not far distant when Manitoba will find relief, because within the next few months we are going to have a new government in that province with Mr. Fawcett Taylor as Premier and leader of the Conservative party. When that day comes we
The Budget-Mr. Rogers

shall see to it that the amount of Manitoba's mortgage, covering all Canadian Northern lines between Fort William and the western boundary of our province, and now forming part of the National railway system, is collected, and the Minister of Railways will be forced to provide a sum far beyond $100,000,000 to liquidate liabilities under that mortgage. I want him to understand that, because Manitoba will expect him to be ready to liquidate that mortgage when they follow out the procedure set out in the agreement and mortgage.


Charles Avery Dunning: $100,000,000?


Robert Rogers: It will take a good deal
more than that and we will collect every cent of it, because it is coming to us. Let my hon. friend not make any mistake about that. Some people say we have no power to fix our rates lower than the maximum rates fixed by the railway commission or by the government. From the day we made our contract in 1901 down to the present day the railway companies have every day and every hour followed our rate contract in its form, and they are to-day as it suits them from time to time, making rates lower than the maximum rate. The Progressive party, for example, get a half rate for all the delegates they bring in, and for their wives and families, when they hold their conventions at Winnipeg. I have before me an advertisement which the railways published only yesterday offering rates below the maximum rate. Our contract was based upon the same arrangement, and it stands good today. The only honourable mention of Manitoba's rate came when the report of that committee was presented to the House and the Hon. Mr. Maclean, now Judge Maclean, who was then chairman of that committee, brought out the point that the rates applied in Manitoba had its effect upon freight rates upon grain throughout the. whole of the prairie country and the rates in effect during all the period of time I have cited, were rates resulting from the Manitoba contract.
I wish to bring out this other point. The liability of the province of Manitoba in respect of its guarantee is in no way altered or changed by the ownership of the common stock of the company. The company retains its corporate identity, it can be sued in the courts and it has all the responsibilities of a private company. Manitoba has a mortgage which is as binding as any mortgage that ever existed. The parliament of Great Britain for centuries has been the guardian of sacred contracts and their covenants. The parliament of Canada during its existence at all times and 
under all conditions preserved and maintained sacred contracts and their covenants, save and until a compromise government led by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister undertook in 1922 to attempt Prussian methods against that contract, a contract which, I repeat, neither his government nor the railway commission had any more right to interfere with than the Civil Service Commission at Ottawa. If the government of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister had any such power, then it would have to be understood that in future no contracts entered into in good faith by two contracting parties who give each other mutual considerations shall have any force or effect.
This contract was first interfered with in 1919 under subsection 5 of section 325. Sir Robert Borden, knowing as he did the force and effect of this contract-because he was in parliament when the contract was made in 1901-made this statement when introducing that clause. I want the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) to listen carefully to this:
We thought it desirable that that clause should continue in operation only for three years and that in the meantime the question of compensation to the province, or city or municipality ought to be taken into consideration.
That is the question which my hon. friend will have to take into consideration. He will have to consider in the very near future providing some part of the $100,000,000 to compensate the province of Manitoba in this matter.
' Mr. DUNNING: Why did not Sir Robert's government deal with it in that manner?
' Mr. ROGERS: They dealt with it for three years but there was a change of government. Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like very much to continue, for there is a good deal that I want to discuss, but as the hour is late I shall not detain the House much longer. I was anxious to explain to the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) how little he knew about railway freight rates when he attempted to discuss them. However, I will reserve that pleasure for a later day when I shall endeavour to enlighten the hon. member on the subject and if possible to enlarge his knowledge of freight rates. I will point out to him that any rate in respect to which Saskatoon has derived any benefit was the Manitoba rate and not the Crowsnest or any other.
I regret that I have had to consider as hurriedly as I have done the various points I have touched upon, but inasmuch as I was anxious to get through I have had to omit a good deal of what I intended to say. At some later day I shall deal more fully with certain

Interim Supply Bill
questions for the information of the Minister of Railways who, I hope, will consider providing something of that 8100,000,000, pending the return to power of the Conservative government in Manitoba.
On motion of Mr. McIntosh the debate was adjourned.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Before we adjourn, Mr. Speaker, I should like with the unanimous consent of the House to move that we go into committee of Supply to put through an interim supply bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no objection if it is clearly understood that the position will be as it was before. It might be contended, of course, that if we once moved into committee of Ways and Means the present debate would end. If it is fully understood that such will not be the effect of the present motion, or that the fact of the House going into committee at this stage will not be made use of as an argument for interference with the budget debate, I offer no objection.


James Alexander Robb: That is understood. The
Senate is now in session and I am anxious to have the bill put through.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will one-twelfth of the amount be provided to meet the request made by my hon. friend (Mr. Rogers)?


Charles Avery Dunning: The item is not in the
estimates.


James Alexander Robb: I want this interim supply
put through for the public service before the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) grabs it all.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Duff in the chair.


James Alexander Robb: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $15,934,291.06 being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1927, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1927.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is understood, again, that the resolution is agreed to on the terms already stipulated: nothing is consented to, no rights are waived and the present procedure may not be used for the purpose of authorizing any new expenditures.


James Alexander Robb: Quite so.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Robb moved that the House go into committee of Ways and Means.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The motion is subject to precisely the same conditions.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is only for the purpose of putting through interim supply and does not affect the debate on the budget?


James Alexander Robb: That is the understanding.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Duff in the chair.


James Alexander Robb: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1927, the sum of $15,934,291.06 be granted out ol the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: On the same
terms?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 96, for granting to His Majesty a certain sum of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1927.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This motion is agreed to on the terms and conditions already indicated?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Robb, the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Wednesday, May 5, 1926