1928-03-29

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. -Mr. Cahill.
Second and third reports of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hay.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. c. R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell), that the second report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River) moved:: That the interim and final reports respectively of the Hon. Mr. Justice Clarke, commissioner appointed to inquire into the alleged existence of corrupt or illegal practices in the election held in the electoral district of Athabaska, in the province of Alberta, on the 29th of October, 1925, which reports were laid on the table of the house on December 15, 1926, be referred to the select standing committee on privileges and elections.
He said:	It may be proper at this stage
that I should survey briefly the incidents that have led up to this motion. On March 18, 1926, as the result of a petition from electors in the district of Athabaska, this house passed a motion approving the appointment of a commissioner to conduct an investigation into the alleged fraud, corruption, perjury, forgery, ballot-stuffing and other misdemeanours that took place during that election. The Hon. Mr. Justice Clarke, a reputable and well known member of the bench, was appointed
179S	COMMONS
Athabaska Election-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
on July 10, 1926, to undertake the investigation. Mr. Justice Clarke submitted two reports, an interim and a final. The interim report included statements or allegations that corrupt and illegal practices had extensively prevailed, and specifically designated a large number of polls, twelve or more, where stuffing of ballot boxes and the forging of returns and other documents had occurred. The report, however, contained no specific recommendation to the government; it simply presented the finding. This and the final report have never been considered by parliament nor acted upon.
Surely it is the duty of members of this house to protect the rights and privileges of the people of this country during elections. It certainly is not our duty to evade our responsibility in preventing, so far as we can, a recurrence of the sort of thing that prevailed so extensively in Athabaska. I have no hesitation in declaring to you, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion the very existence of democracy itself and the continuance of responsible government in this country will depend entirely upon our determination to stamp out, at its very inception, any attempt at practices of this nature in elections in Canada.
The purpose of this motion is to have these two reports referred to the committee on privileges and elections in order that after a thorough examination of them provision may be made, either by amendments to the Election Act, by amendments to the criminal code, or by amendments in any other direction that may prevent a recurrence of disgusting performances of the kind that took place in Athabaska.
A motion similar to this passed the house on February 15 of last year, but I regret to say the committee never met. I inquired of the clerk of committees recently and found that, from the moment the committee was appointed on February 15 to the end of the session, they -could not secure a quorum. Meetings of the committee were called on March 2, 3, and 8 of last year, and about twelve or thirteen members attended; at that time, however, a quorum of the committee consisted of fifteen. At the request of the members who attended, the chairman introduced a motion into this house on March 8 asking that the quorum be reduced. At first that motion stood over at the request of the then leader of the opposition for further consideration, and no action was taken by the chairman. On March 29, some twenty-one

days later, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Kellner) moved tha-t the quorum be reduced, and although the Minister of Justice objected briefly the motion was adopted. I regret to say that although the quorum was reduced to nine members, still the committee could not hold a meeting.
I am n-ot going to impute motives; I am not going to suggest that this was a deliberately engineered business in order to prevent a discussion of this matter. Frankly, I cannot find it within me to believe that any hon. members of this house or of the government, would consent -for one moment to any such action. Therefore I can only reassure myself by assuming that the reason was the occupation of the members in other committees which were then sitting.
Additional reasons for asking the house to pass the motion will be realized readily when I say that by the report of Mr. Justice Clarke it was found that the returning officer himself could neither write nor read. Think of it, Mr. Speaker; the returning officer for an electoral district of this country unable to write or read. In some cases the registrars refused to send out the voters' lists, and the candidate who contested that constituency from our group had less than 100 of the 235 lists on polling day. Ballots were cast by men who had been long dead; in one case a ballot was cast in the name of a man who had been dead for twelve years, while in another -case a ballot was cast in the name of a man who had been dead three years. Many people voted who had never resided in the district, and in other cases people voted who had resided in the district some several years before, but who had left from three to seven yearn prior to the date of the election. At least three polls were held in a forest reserve, where people were neither living nor permitted to live under the laws of this country. Very briefly,' that is a recitation of some of the reasons why I feel satisfied that this house will pass this motion, in justice to itself and to the people of this country.
On February 15 of last year a fairly representative d-eJbate too-k place on a similar motion, and at that time the Minister of Justice used these words:
I am in favour of the motion, and I may also say that if, as a result of this being referred to the committee on privileges and elections, gQiug way may bs found to prevent electoral corruption as it seems to have prevailed in that election, I and those who sit with me on this side of the house will be only too glad to associate with my hon. friend in that respect.

Athabaska Election-Mr. Spencer
The then leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) said:
If this be so, what is the reason? Has the government taken no action in the matter? Has the government quietly taken the position that having referred the matter to the local Attorney General their duty is at an end?
The hon. gentleman was dealing at that time with the question of the punishment of those who had offended against the electoral and criminal laws in respect of that election. Speaking on behalf of the Conservative party, the hon. member accepted the motion. The Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), who took part in the discussion, said:
A question has been brought before the house by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), and I have no doubt that every member of this house, no matter to which party he may belong, is of the one opinion, and that is that every man who has been implicated in electoral frauds should be prosecuted without mercy, and that justice should prevail.
Further, he went on to say:
In conclusion, when these two reports are laid before the committee on privileges and elections, I believe that every member sitting on that committee will be moved by one common spirit, and that is to try and devise means of preventing any such things happening in the future as were proved to have happened in that constituency in the election of 1925.
The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), now leader of the opposition, said:
The first matter that should be considered is: What recommendation can the committee make with respect to amending the election laws of this country so as to prevent a repetition of those conditions? The second is also a matter of some importance as it touches the position of the civil servants of this country. Shall a civil servant who has been convicted of a crime or who admits the commission of a crime and has secured immunity by reason of his confession, continue in office?
The reference of the hon. member was to a statement which was made in this house that the government had allowed to continue in office postmasters, land agents and other civil servants who had been found guilty by Mr. Justice Clarke of the most wilful forms of deliberate ballot stuffing, forgery, perjury and fraud in that election. That was the position taken by the hon. member for west Calgary (Mr. Bennett), who went on to say:
Shall the public service acts of this country not be amended so as to provide that by reason of any confession of that character he shall at once vacate his position?
The Prime Minister interjected the remark " surely ", The hon. member for West Calgary then continued:
This house should use its every effort to stop that sort of thing because, if we do not prevent
it, our very democratic institutions are destroyed and responsible government has indeed become valueless in this country. That is the reason that the motion made this afternoon by the hon. member meets with my approval
I have nothing further to say, Mr. Speaker, except that I feel satisfied that the members of this house will come to the same decision with the same unanimity of opinion, to see that the matter is cleaned up as far as it can be cleaned up by a committee of this house.
I feel that they will be as unanimous this year as was the case last year, and I will leave the matter to the house.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I
wish to say a few words in support of the motion which has been made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). I do so very willingly, because the election in Athabaska took place in the fair province of Alberta, of which I am very proud to be one of the representatives. Since such things have happened in Athabaska and also in Peace River, outsiders might think that the elections in Alberta are conducted on a very questionable basis, but I want to say to this house that I do not know of any province in this wide Dominion where elections are usually conducted more cleanly than in that province. The districts of Athabaska and Peace River happen to be outlying districts, and certain practices entered into those elections which I hope will be Checked. It is with the hope of cleaning up conditions in the future that we now ask that this report of Mr. Justice Clarke be sent to the committee on privileges and elections.
I am glad to support this motion, because I think a great wrong was done to an hon. gentleman who now sits in this house, who was a member from 1921 to 1925, who did excellent work for this country and for his constituency, and who was prevented by questionable practices from coming back to parliament in 1925. It has been shown very clearly indeed, through the investigation which took place, that had this gentleman been accorded anything like fair treatment, he would have received a big majority in the election of 1925, and would have been returned again. Instead of that someone else took his place. It was well known at the time that conditions in Athabaska were in a very bad state, and that things had occurred of such a character as to cause any self-respecting citizen to blush at the very thought of them. I should like to point out that the hon. member who did come down in 1925 happened to sit on the government side, and there was no demand for an investigation from hon. gentlemen supporting the govern-
1800	COMMONS
Athabaska Election-Mr. Spencer
ment. I am fully convinced, however, that had that member been sitting in any other part of the house, the government would have speedily caused an investigation to be held. Under the circumstances it became the duty of hon. members sitting on this side to support the recommendations and petitions forwarded to Ottawa asking that an investigation be made. With these petitions before the house an investigation was in due course ordered and it took place, first of all under Mr. Justice Beck, and later on under Mr. Justice Clarke. In the course of that investigation revelations of a most amazing characater were made, amongst them incidents like the following:	Many witnesses,
including deputy returning officers, fled the country rather than face justice. Vote plugging became quite general. Cheques were paid on forged endorsations. Some cheques were made out to fictitious officials. A certain poll clerk was appointed who could neither read nor write; and as the hon. member who preceded me said, even the returning officer was in the same extraordinary position. Switching and substitution of ballots was practised. Fictitious polls were held in districts where there were no settlers. Ballot boxes were freely plugged, and so on ad infinitum. In the election of 1926 the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner) came back to parliament with a large majority owing to the fact that the investigation had taken place in the meantime. So that there is not the slightest doubt but that the hon. member to whom I refer would not have been kept away previously had there been fair dealing in the constituency of Athabaska.
As the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) said, a motion was adopted referring the report of Mr. Justice Clarke to the committee on privileges and elections. The report was referred to that committee but a quorum could not be obtained at any of the meetings, so that it was not considered. I for one am not going to make any charges with respect to those members who did not turn up at the meetings of that committee. I take it for granted that every hon. member here wants to wipe out the disgrace of the reprehensible doings which took place in Athabaska in 1925. I do not suppose there is a single hon. member who is satisfied to permit that blemish on our reputation to remain. I can only say, like my hon. friend who preceded me, that there must have been so many committees sitting at the time that a quorum could not be obtained by the committee on privilege and elections. I therefore earnestly hope that not only will the
fMr. Spencer.]
house vote in favour of the committee on privileges and elections considering this report, but that the members who form that committee will make a point of seeing that a quorum is obtained, that the report is duly considered, and such action taken as will wipe out this disgraceful episode in the political life of Canada.


Mr. IRVINE:: Who composed the committee?


Henry Elvins Spencer: The Clerk can tell you
that. May I say that if a robbery occurs in the community, the police are not satisfied until the thieves are arrested and punished. But this is a case where the worst kind of robbery was committed, the robbery of their franchise from hundreds and hundreds of people, and yet very little has been done up to the present time to correct the situation and punish the offenders.
I wish to say also that certain civil servants, occupying minor positions it is true, were found guilty in the investigation which took place, but are still holding their positions under the government. I point out also that during the last twelve months some three or four hundred postmasters and mail carriers have been dismissed for alleged political partisanship. But none of these parties have been found guilty of criminal conduct, at least that is my information, for which they could be punished under the law. In the present case individuals were proven guilty before the court of conduct of the most disgraceful character, and yet some of them are stilll retained in the service of the country. It is not fair to the great rank and file of civil servants who are doing splendid work for Canada, that guilty parties should be retained in their positions just as if nothing had happened.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Would the
hon. gentleman tell us to what department these guilty parties belong?


Henry Elvins Spencer: They are connected with certain post offices in Athabaska.


Charles A. Stewart: Not the
one at Lac la Biche, for the official there was dismissed.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The one at Frog Lake.


Mr. STEW  ART@Edmonton: That was
Bowtell, but he is out of the country.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I believe Mrs. Bowtell
is in the post office.

Athabaska Election-Mr. Geary


Charles A. Stewart: But she
was not implicated in wrongdoing.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
news to me. I know there were some twelve or fifteen officials who were dismissed promptly.


Henry Elvins Spencer: As to the charge against
Mrs. Bowtell, I will leave the hon. member for Athabaska to give full particulars.


Charles A. Stewart: I should
like to have the names. I can teill the hon. member that some twelve or fifteen of them were dismissed' as soon as they were named.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I believe the hon. minister will find that the employee in question cashed cheques and received money that were not intended for her. Referring to the rules of the house, I find on page 234 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, standing order 79, bribery and elections, which reads:
If it shall appear that any member hath been 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 severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such bribery or other corrupt practices.
The note on that reads:
This standing order has nothing to do with the different laws which fully provide for the trial and punishment of corrupt practices at elections, but it reiterates the house's privilege to deal with offences of bribery and corruption after they have been proved before the competent courts. Where there have been special reports concerning bribery or riots at elections, the conduct of returning officers; undue influence and intimidation; the alteration of the poll, the absence, misconduct or perjury of witnesses; defects or uncertainty in the law; the propriety of suspending the writ; or any other exceptional circumstances-the house lias taken such measures as -were required by law or usage or as appeared suitable to the occasion. It has been usual in such cases to order a copy of the judgment delivered by the judge and the minutes of evidence to be laid before the house.
Not only following out that rule, but calling upon what has often been referred to as the highest court of justice, namely, this house, I think it is within our power to pass the report to the committee on privileges and elections and to have the matter thoroughly threshed out.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, the story of the Athabaska election of 1925 is amazing; it is almost incredible in its details of corrupt practices. We are all accustomed to the story of elections being conducted more or less crookedly, with some
buying and selling of votes, some infractions of the Dominion Elections Act, and that sort of thing; with that I do not for the moment propose to deal. There are those in every party who do that sort of thing and I am not saying at the moment that the party to which I belong is any better or any worse than any other. My purpose in addressing the house at this moment is not to deal with that phase of the subject. These matters, peccadilloes, if you like to call them, minor bits of corruption, can be dtealt with under the existing machinery. But the questions that arise from a consideration of the report of the commissioner, Mr. Justice Clarke, are far wider than that.
Briefly, there are two matters which I think we should touch upon. One of them which has already been dealt with by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), is the question of retaining civil servants in the government employ when they have been reported on as having been guilty of corrupt practices during an election, no matter whether they have been by the judge granted immunity or not. The Minister of the Interior seems to believe that there was no such case in connection with this election.


Charles A. Stewart: If there
was, I am not aware of it. I know that in every case that came to my notice the employee *was promptly dismissed.


George Reginald Geary: If he does become aware
of such a case I am sure he will exercise the proper function and have that man or woman got rid of.	There is, however, a
larger question than that which arises and that is the question of the organization and control of the machinery which has to do with the conduct of elections generally in this country. I cannot forbear from quoting just a line here and there from the report of Mr. Justice Clarke which deals not with the ordinary things that we hear of in elections, such as the buying and selling of votes, or impersonation which I am sure the officers of the law do their best on all occasions to stamp out, but with the larger question of the organization and control of the machinery in connection with elections. He says in regard to Reita lake poll:
I find that what purports to be the voters' list for this poll and to be signed by Thomas J. Cardinal as registrar, and returned with the election papers, contains 73 names, and that not more than ten persons were entitled to vote in this division.
He says further:
I find that the poll book is a forgery as no votes were polled.
1S02

Athabaska Election-Mr. Geary
Still there was a large majority given in favour of the candidate, Cross, who was declared elected. He says in regard to Bates poll:
The voters' list for this poll certified by Peter Peterson as registrar contains two hundred names. Less than ten voters resided in the polling division, which is a reserve.
In regard to Cushing poll, this is what he says:
No voters' list for this poll can be found.
But an election was carried on and a large majority returned in favour of Mr. Cross, the successful candidate. In regard to this poll he states further:
The poll book indicates that there were 194 names on the voters' list but there appear to have been only four qualified voters in the polling division.
He also states:
In fact no poll was held and no person voted.
In regard to Prairie Lake poll, he says:
There are no qualified voters in this polling division but a voters' list was prepared containing 59 names.
Mr. Cross again got the great majority of these. In regard to Parenteau poll, he says:
The voters list for this poll was manufactured at Harry Bowtell's house and signed as registered by Mrs. Rose A Preece, a sister of Mrs. Harry Bowtell.
_ It never went through the proper proceedings for its initiation and completion. So, as one goes through the list, one finds that all these matters have to do not with the ordinary political corruption as one understands it in reference to an election, but with the organization and preparation by government officials of the preliminaries for an election. There was a stamp which must never leave the registrar's hands, but the registrar was a hundred miles away from where the stamp was. The registrar was at Lac la Biche and the ballots were printed in Edmonton, more than one hundred miles distant. The stamp was sent to Edmonton where somebody used it to stamp the ballots. The commissioner says in regard to Margu poll:
Harris prepared a voters' list the night before the election from the names furnished by Lawler and that constituted the list for this division. It contained 35 names.
At Lac la Biche poll the same thing happened, and so with the others. I will not go through the list, but my point in reciting what the house has already heard is that those are matters which have to do with the functions of the chief electoral officers in
[Mr. Geary.1
getting ready for the holding of an election and preparing the machinery for holding it. The hon. member who now sits for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner) was robbed of his seat. He stayed at home during that winter and there came down in his place a man who sat here and voted as a representative of the people of this country whereas he really represented nobody at all. The constituency of Athabaska was not represented during the session of 1926. As the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has said, you rob this country of the very essence of responsible government if you allow people to sit on the benches of parliament who do not represent anybody but who, by something that has been allowed to be done perhaps through a fault in the act, are sitting here in fact.
Last year this report was before the government; it was laid on the table of the house. If I remember rightly it came to the Solicitor General on the 19th October and, as was his duty, he sent it forward to the Secretary of State with an intimation that the provincial attorney general be communicated with, with a view to punishing those found guilty. He added at the bottom of his communication in effect:	Make haste in the matter because
my letter being dated the 19th instant, the period of one year allowed by the statute for the prosecution of these offences will expire in ten days. That had to go through the hands of the Secretary of State and out to the government of Alberta, to be acted on within ten days. The delay was not the fault of the Solicitor General; I have no doubt he dealt with the matter as expeditiously as possible; but the government could not have rested with the conviction that it was doing its full duty in forwarding within ten days of the expiration of the time for prosecution of these offences a communication to the attorney general requesting him to . take action. If I make complaint at all of the government in reference to this matter it is this, that it had before it all this material, that it had before it the motion my hon. friend from Bow River has cited which was passed last year referring the matter to the privileges and elections committee, that it had before it the fact that the committee had not met and discussed the matter referred to them, and still, so far as I can learn, the government has not thought it its duty to take the place, so to speak, of the committee, to take into consideration all the facts brought out in the report of Mr. Justice Clarke, and to bring down to this house some initial action of its own in regard to the matter.

Athabaska Election-Mr. Lapointe
If we cannot in some way or other do better in the matter of the control and operation of elections than we did in Athabaska, then the lookout is pretty poor for any one of us, particularly if you do not happen to be a candidate of a government that is in power, with some opportunity to get close to the election machinery, if any one would do such a thing. We have no right to assume that a similar election may not be carried on when this house next goes to the country, and it may be done in, say, ten or twenty constituencies instead of just one. Now is the time, with this instance before us, to take action to prevent the recurrence of practices of this kind. It is not enough merely to punish those who are caught at their evil work, although that is very well, and the more stiffly we punish those who are guilty, the better for all of us and the better for the country. Let them learn once for all that practices of that kind will not be tolerated, and that swift and sure punishment will follow anything of that sort. But these examples lose their effect if they are allowed to sink too far into the past, and the farther away we get from the election and the dimmer the memory of the evil practices in the Athabaska election, the less effect any action taken in regard to it will have. Let us have action taken now. It has been long enough coming, and let us act while the memory of these things is still fresh in the minds particularly of my hon. friends from Alberta. Let us see to it, having this example before us, that some means are devised to bring the election act into harmony with the desire of everybody, that this sort of thing shall not be tolerated any longer in this country.
I entirely agree with the motion, Mr. Speaker. I support it and trust that the government will take so much interest in the committee on privileges and elections that they will with their powers, so to speak, of whip and spur and whatever else they may have in the way of organization or control of committees, not neglect, to see that this matter receive consideration and be properly dealt with, and a report brought in early enough to enable the house to take action upon it during this session.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I may say immediately, Mr. Speaker, that I have no objection to the motion of my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland), and that we on this side of the house will certainly support the reference of this report to the privileges and elections committee, and if as a result of the work of that committee any amendments may be suggested 56103-115
that will have for their effect the improvement of our electoral law, and that will make it more difficult for people who are liable to commit illegal practices at elections to do so, we shall be only too pleased to support any amendments which might be proposed in that regard.
With regard to this particular case, I think it is well that I should state what has actually happened. By chapter 51 of the revised statutes of Canada, parliament adopted an address asking the governor in council to appoint a commissioner to inquire into the existence of any corrupt or illegal practices which might have taken place in that election. Mr. Justice Clarke was finally appointed, and 'he made the investigation which the statute required him to carry out. He made two reports, an interim report and a final report. Under the law he had to report to the Governor General the evidence taken, and what he had found concerning the matter referred to him, and he did so. He had to report the names of all persons whom he found to have been guilty of any corrupt or illegal practices at the election, with the particulars thereof, and he did so. The law, section 30 of chapter 51, provides that:
Every such report shall he submitted to parliament:	(a) within fourteen days after
such report is made, if parliament is sitting at the expiration of the said period of fourteen days; or (h) if parliament is not then sitting, within fourteen days from the time of the next meeting of parliament after such report is made.
The two reports were submitted to parliament according to law.
There is a duty placed upon the Attorney General of Canada under the statutes. Section 31 of chapter 51 provides:
Whenever it appears by the report of the commissioners under this act that any person named by them has been guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice and has not been furnished by them with a certificate of indemnity, such report with the evidence taken by the commissioners, shall be laid before the Attorney General of Canada, who shall, if in his opinion there is sufficient evidence available for a prosecution, certify 'Such opinion to the Secretary of State, who shall thereupon communicate the report with the evidence to the lieutenant governor of the province in which the election wras held.
And section 32 says:
The Attorney General of Canada shall instruct counsel to assist in any prosecution which is thereon instituted by the local authorities charged with the 'administration of justice.
The interim report, the first report, submitted 'by Mr. Justice Clarke, was received by my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. REVISED EDITION
1804	COMMONS
Athabaska Election-Mr. Lapointe
Cannon), who was thea acting Attorney Geaeral of Canada, during my absence, I believe, at the Imperial conference. Having read the evideace, the officers of the depart-meat, because, after all, it is a departmental affair, made their report to him, aad he signed the following certificate:
The undersigned has the honour to inform you that the Hon. Mr. Justice Clarke, the commissioner appointed to inquire into the alleged existence of corrupt or illegal practices in the elections holden in the electoral district of Athabaska, in the province of Alberta, on the 29th of October, 1925, has laid before him his interim report, together with the evidence taken by the commissioners upon which such report is based.
The undersigned is of opinion that there is sufficient evidence available for prosecution against William A. Deyl, William (Bill) Lawler, H. M. Barton, and Harry Bowtell, named in the said report, and he hereby certifies such opinion to you accordingly in accordance with the provisions of section 31 of the Corrupt Practices Enquiries Act, revised statutes of Canada, 1906, chapter 8.
It is to be observed that the matter is of some urgency in view of the fact that the time for prosecution expires at the end of one year from the 29th October, 1925. Report and evidence herewith.
Dated at Ottawa, this nineteenth day of October, 1926.
(Sgd.) Lucien Cannon,
Acting Attorney General of Canada.
This was sent to the Secretary of State, as the law provides, and the Secretary of State acknowledged its receipt, and informed my hon. friend that the necessary action had been taken in reference thereto. I find in the record the letter of the secretary to the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta acknowledging receipt of a letter from the attorney general stating that he had taken action and that warrants had been issued against those parties who had not received a certificate of indemnity from the investigating judge. After the final report was received I, as Attorney General of Canada, issued another certificate to the Secretary of State in these terms:
The undersigned is of opinion that there is sufficient evidence available for prosecution against Isaac Gagnon, William A. Deyl, William (Bill) Lawler, H. M. Barton, W. R. Jex and W. E. Proctor, named in the said final report, and he hereby certifies such opinion to you accordingly.
This was sent to the Secretary of State, and he forwarded it with the evidence and other papers which the law requires to the authorities in Alberta.
Now my friend from Battle River (Mr. Spencer) cited Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms to the effect that the house has the right and authority to proceed against

men who have committed illegal practices at an election. There is no doubt of that. But parliament in its wisdom has decided that the provincial authorities can more effectively deal with such a matter, and it is their duty to do so. I have not the slightest doubt that the local authorities of Alberta have done everything which they could do to prosecute those who were guilty of any illegal practices at that election.
My hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary) has just said that if the committee on privileges and elections did not do anything it was the duty of the government to take action. I beg respectfully to say to him that usually the government is charged with doing too much, with trespassing upon the jurisdiction of parliament, and that in this particular instance the law makes it the work of parliament altogether. It is parliament that directs investigation to be made, and the law says the report shall be submitted to parliament. If there is anything to do it is for parliament to decide; and as far as we are concerned, I repeat, we shall be only too pleased to do anything which the committee recommends in that respect. I do not know whether my friend from South Toronto is not himself a member of the privileges and elections committee. Surely he would not suggest that we should do what the law says he himself ought to do in that respect.


George Reginald Geary: If I may interrupt the hon. Minister of Justice-I merely suggested that failing action by the committee, with all the information contained in this report before the government, they might very well consider it with a view to taking such steps to revise the Elections Act as might seem necessary and wise in the circumstances.


Ernest Lapointe: I have no doubt that,
although the Elections Act has been revised many times, it may be still further improved, and I for one think that prior to the next general election something might be done in this direction; all the wisdom of parliament might be conscripted for the purpose of devising such amendments as would improve and strengthen the present act in this respect.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is not this a question of administration rather than of law?


Ernest Lapointe: It is really a question
for parliament to decide what would be the best electoral law to prevent frauds.


Milton Neil Campbell: But at the present time it is a matter of enforcing the law which you have.

Athabaska Election-Sir Henry Drayton


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely. But what
had, to be done has been done. I do not know what has been the result of the prosecutions instituted by the province of Alberta. My friends may know better than I do in that respect. We have received no report.


Mr. OAHAN:: Was the department of the Minister of Justice represented?


Ernest Lapointe: I stated in parliament
that we should be only too pleased to appoint counsel to help in any proceedings which might be instituted against those who were charged with fraud and other illegal practices at the election. We never were requested to help and, as I have stated' already, it is for the local authorities to take proceedings. We were advised that they had actually issued warrants against the guilty parties.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Will my hon.
friend kindly tell the house in how many prosecutions which he initiated in this way he was successful; what were the convictions, and against whom?


Ernest Lapointe: I never initiated any
proceedings in that respect.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend asserted that certain prosecutions had taken place.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I assume they
took place.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was going to ask my hon. friend if he knew how many convictions had been secured.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend does not know. Can he tell the house how many of those convicted have been let out?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know.


Mr. McGIBBON:: What about Baldy
Robb?


Ernest Lapointe: We have done what the law stated we should do. As Attorney General of Canada I have certified to the Secretary of State the names of those persons whom I thought should be prosecuted. It was not either for me or the Secretary of State to issue warrants; the law provides that those warrants Shall be issued by the provincial authorities. The provincial authorities have acknowledged receipt of our certificate and told us that they were issuing warrants.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is mot giving the house a very good-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: Is it a question?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; I thought he was through.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not wish to deprive the hon. gentleman of his privilege of asking a question, but I do not think the hon. Minister of Justice has concluded his remarks.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, Mr. Speaker.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall not deprive the
house any longer of the pleasure of listening to my hon. friend, whom we are all so pleased to welcome back. May I add once again that I will support the motion of my hon. friend. I am prepared to help him in any way which might improve the election methods of Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance may I thank my hon. friend for his very kindly reference to myself. He is always delightfully amiable and it always affords me great pleasure to have anything to do with him. But, sir, I want to direct the attention of the house to one or two things. Some way and somehow we have had delay in punishing election ciimes that have never yet, so far as I know, been equalled in iniquity in this country. That delay in the first instance was brought about by my hon. friends opposite. The Minister of Justice said:	This is not a
matter for the house, it is a matter for the commissioner to deal with. Why? Because when this house wanted to become seized of this iniquity, when we wanted to see that the right thing was done, and done at once, the government with its supporters saw to it that it was not done, they saw to it that action was held up. The government, through its chief officer, is so much interested in seeing that the right thing is done that it does not know to-day who is being prosecuted, who is being convicted, or whether anybody has been convicted at all. That is where the matter rests. In answer to my question the Minister of Justice says, "I do not know who was convicted". I asked him explicitly whether anybody was convicted, and if so whether that person was still confined or had been let out; but he does not know. Why, the government knows less about the matter than any man on the street knows, because everyone is aware that Baldy Robb was sent out with the government's blessing.
1806	COMMONS
Athabaska Election-Sir George Perley
An bon. MEMBER:	That was another
matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is the same election.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend seems to know all about Baldy Robb. Does he think that Baldy Robb was connected with this particular election?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, but it is of the same stripe.


Ernest Lapointe: It is another election.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is the same general election, absolutely. Now is there no duty on the part of the government to see that the laws of this Dominion are carried out?


Mr. CANNON:: Before my hon. friend
leaves Baldy Robb I would suggest, if he wants to know the reason, that he had better inquire of his own leader.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a suggestion the hon. gentleman can safely make in the absence of my hon. leader.


Lucien Cannon: I give you warning.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no doubt my leader will look after himself very well if my hon. friend puts the question to him. But is there no responsibility on the government to see to it that the laws, not of the provinces but of the Dominion, are respected? I submit there is. The Minister of Justice says that no counsel was retained by the Dominion in this prosecution; he declares it was not asked for. But the statute does not imply that he should wait to be asked. Section 32 reads:
The Attorney General of Canada shall instruct counsel to assist in any prosecution which is thereon instituted by the local authorities charged with the administration of justice.
The Attorney General was not to wait until he was asked; he was then and there to instruct counsel. Why? Simply to ensure that a proper procedure Should be followed and that the matter should be properly pressed. It was his duty to see to it that the laws of parliament were observed. It is idle to say that the government have done all that they could or ought to do in connection with this whole question. If they say they have then they admit that they are indeed impotent to do anything that should be done to punish election frauds. I got up merely for the purpose of pointing this out. My hon. friends were under an obligation to take steps to see

that misdemeanour was punished, and not to throw the whole responsibility on the local authorities. Section 32 of our own act declares that counsel must be appointed.


Ernest Lapointe: When there are proceedings.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But my hon.
friend does not know whether there were any proceedings.


Ernest Lapointe: Has my hon. friend read the report?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have just
quoted the section. It is a question for my hon. friend to ascertain whether there were proceedings or not.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend does not know about any proceedings having been taken, and he appointed no counsel. If he is content to leave it there, I am.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: I
regret exceedingly that my leader is not here to-day. This is a question which he has studied closely and he is much interested to see that justice is done and that parliament shall do something to remedy the iniquities of the election in question. It is all very well for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), to say that this is a matter for parliament. Of course it is a matter for parliament. But hon. gentlemen opposite have a very nice way of shedding their responsibility on to parliament when they want to, and at other times doing things and then bringing them to parliament for ratification afterwards. Who are in the majority on the committee on privileges and elections?


Ernest Lapointe: We are blamed if we
do and we are blamed if we don't.


George Halsey Perley: The government have a majority on this committee. The Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) are both members of the committee and therefore, by reason of their position in this house, they have a greater responsibility in relation to the work of the committee on privileges and elections than any other single member could have. I submit, therefore, that it is a most extraordinary thing that in a matter of this sort the privileges and elections committee could not get a meeting together last year, and it seems to me that the responsibility rests on the government, with a majority in the house, to see that there shall be a meeting of the committee to consider the question.

Athabaska Election-Mr. Kellner
I want to say a few words regarding another matter which is associated with this question. One of the candidates in the election, Mr. Geauvreau, was not returned his deposit. According to the figures given by the returning officer he did not receive half as many votes as the man who was elected, but I submit that this is a case where some consideration ought to be given to this man by reason of the extraordinary circumstances of the election. Who knows how many votes were cast in the election? I say, no one knows.


Ernest Lapointe: Was he a third candidate?


George Halsey Perley: Yes, he was a
third candidate. But I say no one knows how many votes were cast at the election. I want to read a few extracts from the report of Mr. Justice Clarke, and I could read many others of a similar kind. I took the statement with reference to Cold Lake poll No. 212a, at page 2 of the report:
The list contains 402 names, which is more than double the number of persons qualified to vote.
Then poll No. 212(a) (2), another section of the foregoing poll:
^ The poll book and statement of the poll show 73 to have voted, as follows: 54 for Cross, 3 for Geauvreau 16 for Kellner. I find that approximately 27 of the persons named in the poll book as having voted did not vote, and most of them are unknown.
At page 3 of the report, in connection with Reita Lake poll No. 220, there appears the following:
I find that what purports to be the voter's list for this poll and to be signed by Thomas J. Cardinal as registrar, and returned with the election papers contains 73 names, and that not more than ten persons were entitled to vote in this division: that no such person as Thomas J. Cardinal is known in the neighbourhood.
And further down on the same page:
I find that the poll book is a forgery as no votes were polled and no poll was held.
Under these circumstances it is rather unfair that any one of the candidates in that election should lose his deposit. I understand that Mr. Geauvreau has made a claim to the Auditor General for the return of his deposit. On the face of the return, in accordance with the law, the Auditor General could not very well return him his deposit, but I submit to the government that this is a matter which they might very well consider from another point of view altogether.


Ernest Lapointe: How many votes did he poll ?


George Halsey Perley: We do not know. Who knows? Do you know? I submit that is a very unfair question.


Ernest Lapointe: I mean, on the return as it is.


George Halsey Perley: The Minister of Justice is well aware that no one knows.


Ernest Lapointe: I mean, on the return as made.


George Halsey Perley: He polled only 643, according to the return. From the evidence given before Mr. Justice Clarke is that any proof as to how many votes he polled? I submit there is no proof whatever, and I suggest to the Minister of Justice that he consider this matter.


Ernest Lapointe: I admit that is a fair argument for my hon. friend to make.


George Halsey Perley: I think in all fairness, under these circumstances, something should be done. I do not think the Auditor General can do it, but I think this parliament and this government Should see that an amount is placed in the estimates to provide for the return of his deposit to this man, because there was really no election actually held in that constituency.


Mr. D. F. KELLNER (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak I wish to support the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Sir George Perley). I also agree that no one could tell in any way how many votes were polled in this election, and I might also point out that if it were so very easy to poll votes which did not exist it might be equally easy to destroj' some of the legitimate votes which were polled. While my opponent in that election, Mr. Geauvreau, only polled some 645 votes, it is quite reasonable to suppose that some of the other votes might have been polled close to a river, and that the ballot box containing perhaps some further votes for him disappeared therein. Therefore I think in all fairness that his application for the return of his deposit should be considered.
I want to join with some of the statements which have been made in regard to an investigation by the committee to see if something cannot be done in connection with the plugging of lists, the holding of polls in districts where no one lives and the return of supposed votes in districts and in polls where no votes were cast, and beyond that I wish to introduce a few other matters which none of the previous speakers has brought

Athabaska Election-Mr. Kellner
up for consideration. In the first place, if you refer to section 50, sub-section 4, of the Dominion Elections Act, you will see that it provides that the printer shall file an affidavit giving the number of ballot papers printed, and also containing the statement that no other ballot papers were printed. In this particular election an affidavit was filed by the printer giving the number of ballots printed, but a peculiar thing which happened in that election was that there were two sets of ballots. On some of the ballots my own name was incorrectly spelled, as was the name of the Conservative candidate, while on the remainder of the ballots our names were spelled correctly. No reference to that was made in the affidavit. I think it reasonable to say that if you can make a slight error in the spelling of a candidate's name there is no limit to the distance you can go in that direction. For instance, if during an election it is presumed to be correct to mis-spell the name of a candidate, why could you not transpose all the letters of his name so that no one would know who was meant? As an example, supposing you transposed the first and last letters of the name of the Prime Minister.
We must also recall that the printer is required to make an affidavit stating the number of ballots printed, the amount of paper used and the disposition which was made of the balance of the paper. If some 15,000 or 20,000 ballots were printed on which the names were incorrectly spelled; if these ballots were. sent out for general use in the election and were not included in the affidavit, how could an affidavit be made giving the amount of the paper used and the disposition made of the balance?
Then I pass from that question to the requirement that the returning officer stamp the ballots. That section of the act is very clear and very drastic; it provides that the returning officer must stamp each and every ballot used, and that anyone not being a returning officer, having) in his possession any stamp, imitation or counterfeit, is guilty of an indictable offence. In this particular case, as was stated by a previous speaker, the returning officer lived in Lac la Biche, while the ballots were stamped by a man in Edmonton; they were never sent to Lac la Biche, and the returning officer did not even know who printed them. Is that in conformity with the requirements of the act, =r is that something for a committee of this aouse to deal with?
Provision is also made with regard to the distribution of the ballot. In this particular case it was shown that the ballots were sent
IMr. Kellner.]
out by automobile, by mail and I presume by every other conceivable method which could be made use of. For instance, we are prepared to prove, if it has not been done already and I am not sure whether it came up in the investigation, that two or three men in automobiles w'ent from poll to poll asking the returning officer if he had all the ballots he required, and if he had not they gave him some. I am sure the Minister of Justice is reasonably familiar with the provisions of the act, and I wonder if he thinks that is carrying out the provisions of that act or whether it is an additional reason fot referring this question to the committee, with the understanding that these various sections will be definitely decided upon, so that in the future we may have some sort of ruling or authority to follow? I just wish to read a part of what Judge Clarke says with regard to that particular matter, which will be found at page 8 of his report:
The office of the returning officer was at Lac la Biche and the ballots were printed in Edmonton, more than one hundred miles distant. Instead of coming to Edmonton with the stamp or haring the ballots sent to Lac la Biche to be stamped before they were bound up in pads suitable for delivery the stamp was sent to William R. Wilson of Edmonton, for the purpose of having him stamp the ballots on behalf of the returning officer, which he did, and then returned the stamp to the returning officer. There is nothing to indicate any wrong doing in connection with the printing, stamping or distribution of the ballots except that the stamping was done by Wilson and not by the returning officer.
Section 51 (f) of the act makes it an offence punishable with severe penalties for anyone not being a returning officer to have the stamp in his possession, and I am asked to find Wilson guilty of that offence. With some doubt I have come to the conclusion that I should not do so. It is true that Wilson did, in a sense, have possession of the stamp, but he held it for the returning officer, in whose possession I think it could he fairly said to be. and having regard to the different senses in which the word "possession" is used, and the severe penalties attached to the offence I think it is not the intention of the act that such possession as Wilson had was an offence.
I presume that if another case is brought up under this act this judgment by Mr. Justice Clarke will be cited as a precedent, and this is what it amounts to: Supposing in the Peace River country you had a returning officer living up in the Pouce Coupe country. He could send that stamp down to Baldy Robb and say, "You stamp all the ballots you require and send them out as you please." Or the returning officer might live up in the Athabaska constituency say at Lac la Biche; he could send the stamp down to that mutual friend of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) and myself, Mr. Bowtell, and say,

Athabaska Election-Mr. Kellner
" Harry, you stamp them and send them out." As far as I can see there is no way of keeping any track of the number of ballots sent out or where they are sent, and I am sure the election act never anticipated anything of that kind.
I might refer to another clause in the act which provides that in the event of any civil servant, or anyone else for that matter, being proven guilty, or pleading guilty to an offence under this act, in addition to other penalties, he shall not be permitted to hold any office within the nomination of the crown. When that was mentioned a minute ago the Minister of the Interior stated that some fifteen government officials had been discharged following the discussion of this matter in the house last year. I am afraid that he would have a hard time trying to find that number of officials that had been discharged. I believe the sendees of one were dispensed with; I believe the Minister of the Interior did discharge the land agent at Lac la Biche. Outside of that I do not think there were any. I am pretty sure I would know it if what the Minister of the Interior states is correct. I repeat, there was but a single civil servant discharged in the constituency.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask my hon. friend who were the government employees who were before Judge Clarke or who were in any way implicated? I am really interested in getting this information because any of those in my department who were proved guilty are certainly not in the employ of the department to-day.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I could not give the minister that information offhand. I do not think it would be a difficult matter to find out, and if I were getting the information I should have to have assistance of the department. However, I am quite sure there is quite a number of them.


Charles A. Stewart: It is hardly fair for my hon. friend to make assertions of that kind unless he is prepared to back them up with evidence. In acting as I did I acted according bo the evidence taken by Mr. Justice Clarke. If there are any guilty parties in my department-and I do not know of any-they will be dismissed forthwith.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I can give the names of some and what disposition was made of theil cases, and will do so in a moment. First of all I should like to offer a few comments on the assertions which various ministers made last year, to the effect that they were in favour of cleaning up this matter. If we are to take the statements of the ministers, they are
very much in favour of getting rid of those civil servants who were guilty of the offences in question, and I suppose they will go further and say that they are not in favour of employing any of the others who were implicated. The Minister of the Interior said that the postmaster at Lac la Biche had been discharged. Now I want to deal in some detail with t'he post office at that place, and show what took place there. I am glad that the Postmaster General (Mr. Yeniot) is here because he will be able to correct me if I err in any statement I may make. The postmaster at Lac la Biche was not discharged. There was, however, a case against him of having incited one of the witnesses in the investigation to perjury, and we felt quite sure that we could convict him on that charge. I was probably a little indiscreet because at a meeting I said that if he were left in the office I was going to see whether we could not persuade the government to proceed against him on the charge referred to. Almost immediately he resigned. I do not know whether his resignation was because of that statement or whether it was merely a coincidence. Anyway he resigned.


Mr. YENIOT:: That was at Lac la Biche?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Yes, Lac la Biche.


Mr. VENIOT:: That postmaster resigned
on request after investigation was made.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I was citing the information which I think I obtained from the Civil Service Commission. If he was fired, so much the better.


Peter John Veniot: The Civil Service Commission had nothing whatever to do with his resignation.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The Postmaster General
is evidently trying to get me to say something I have no intention of saying. I did not say they had anything to do with the investigation. I said the Civil Service Commission advertised the position and they did. There were three applicants. One was ruled out as ineligible because he did not reside within the district. That cut the number down to two. One of these was Clovis Hamel, son of the former postmaster, P. D. Hamel. The other was a man by the name of J. L. Lavoie. The latter had been a bank teller for three or four years, and had considerable business experience. At the time the Civil Service Commission had the position under review, I submitted the evidence which had been given in the case of the Lac la Biche polls. That covered both polls. Clovis Hamel, who was making application for the position

Athabaska Election-Mr. Kellner
of postmaster, was the deputy returning officer in one poll. When we started to investigate the happenings at the Lac la Biche polls we hoped to prove that a large number of voters, after voting in one poll, had gone over and polled their votes at the other booth. Unfortunately when we got the election returns the poll book for one of the Lac la Biche polls was missing. Now the responsibility for destroying that book was sought to be placed on Isaac Gagnon who had been returning officer, the man whose name has already been mentioned here as being unable to read or write. I consider the attempt to fasten this charge on the late Mr. Gagnon was the most despicable thing I have ever seen in my life. I do not for a moment believe that Mr. Gagnon destroyed that poll book; I think that some persons who are now occupying positions under the government destroyed it. However, that is only my personal opinion. Mr. Lavoie made application for this position, and after the Civil Service Commission had given due consideration to the application, he was appointed. A little later on the Post Office Department refused to accept the appointment, and then there was only one applicant left, namely, Clovis Hamel, the son of P. D. Hamel who had been fired. The result was that Clovis Hamel was made postmaster. Clovis also got the appointment of land agent, and P. D. was never relieved of his position as telegraph operator. So here is what the government accomplished in that case: They took the post office and the land office away from the father and gave them to the son. As regards the position of telegraph operator, P. D. Hamel had the position before and he still holds it.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my hon. friend now say that Clovis Hamel had been proven guilty of any misconduct?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: No, I do not say that.


Charles A. Stewart: That is what I want to get from my hon. friend. You do not say that?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I will make it very plain to the minister. Here is what took place: We submitted-perhaps I had better say I submitted-the evidence to the Civil Service Commission covering the investigation, but we could not prove what we started out to strove owing to one poll book at Lac la Biche saving disappeared. In the case of the other poll we did prove that they had taken ballots for quite a number of persons, sixteen or eighteen people, that never voted. In the poll, where Clovis Hamel was deputy returning officer, we did prove that one man, who
Air- Kellner.]
was in the town of Waterways on election day, was recorded as having voted. Of course he could not have voted in Lac la Biche when he was in Waterways. The minister will know that well enough. Another man who operates a store-he is a Serbian, I think, and I am satisfied is not a citizen of Canada-voted although his name was not on the voters' list. He was not challenged and did not have someone to verify his identity as the act requires. There were two charges against Clovis Hamel wihch the evidence will prove at any time. Now Judge Clarke makes no comment on them in the report. I think the minister will admit that where there were such offences, an infraction of the law covering merely two or three votes would be hardly worth mentioning.


Charles A. Stewart: That is just what I want to bring out. My hon. friend has mentioned what I have contended all the time, that not a word was said about it in Judge Clarke's report. My statement is now, and has been all the time, that every one of the cases mentioned in Judge Clarke's report has been dealt with. And may I say further: If my hon. friend will prove his contention when this investigation goes on- as I hope it will; no one hopes it more than I do-every one of the people who have been found guilty of offences will be punished. I want to say this with reference to my hon. friend-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles A. Stewart: All right. I will make a statement later.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The Speaker will give
me extra time for this interruption. I was just thinking that the Minister of the Interior should have directed his remarks to the Minister of Public Works in regard to Mr. P. D. Hamel, in connection with his occupying the position of telegraph operator there. He is not arguing that he was discharged from that position.


Charles A. Stewart: I am speaking of my own department.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: That, however, is what
took place. You have the post office, the sub-land agency and the telegraph office in the same building they were always in, and you have the same officers operating them with the exception that now the father is working for the son instead of the son working for the father.
I will pass from that to the case of the Heinsburg post office and I want to read a little extract in connection with that from

Athabaska Election-Mr. Kellner
Mr. Justice Clarke's report. On page 6 of the report Mr. Justice Clarke has this to say:
I find that the said William Robertson and W. L. Crook by reason of each aiding in the commission of the offence and each having an intention in common with the other to prosecute an unlawful purpose are both guilty of forging 66 ballots and the poll book.
Let us remember that the poll clerk in that poll is W. L. Crook. He was an official at the poll known as Parenteau during that election. Tributary to his home is a post office known as the Heinsburg post office of which a Mr. L. Coombe was the postmaster. He was a returned man who had spent about four years in the war and had been discharged. This is a small post office and the income is very little, but it was certainly a position valued by that man. He had been running the office for several years and last summer he was notified that the office was to be taken from him and that the new appointee would be Mrs. W. L. Crook, wife of this poll clerk. The matter was brought to my attention along with a petition signed, I am told, by every patron of that office with the exception of the Crook family, requesting that Coombe be retained as postmaster. Here you have the position. Every single patron of the post office, with the exception of W. L. Crook and his family, were satisfied with the man who was in charge of it. I thought this was something that must have been put over without the knowledge of the government so I wrote to the Postmaster General giving him all the details. The Postmaster General wrote me back saying: Yes, Mrs. Crook is the wife of W. L. Crook; but do you think that is any reason why she should be disqualified from taking this office? That is the answer of the Postmaster General. I thought surely the government are not all of that opinion, so I wrote to the Prime Minister and told him about the matter. The Prime Minister replied saying: Yes, I have investigated this case, but the petition was largely a protest against the office being moved. Regardless of whether it was a protest against the office being moved or whether she is qualified or not, is the government going to excuse things like that by giving a postmastership to the wife of a man to whom they cannot give it, and taking it away from a returned soldier, a man who has gone out and defended this country, in order to give it to a woman by the name of Crook and, I presume, crooked by nature, if we are to judge from the evidence we have before us? That is the whole question.
I pass from that to Frog Lake poll. The Minister of the Interior said a minute ago that Harry Bowtell was not in the country at the moment. If he is not, that is news to me, because I am sure he was a short time ago.	He may have left the country now,
but if so his wife is still running the post office. Harry Bowtell has the honour of being mentioned in this report just a little more frequently than anyone else who is mentioned in it. I will read a few of the comments that Mr. Justice Clarke makes. On page 3 of the report I find this:
I find that the said Martin Grasdal, Harry Bowtell, Ernest Yasey and Peter Peterson are guilty of a conspiracy to commit an indictable offence in respect of the matters aforesaid.
Turning over to the next page I find this:
Harry Bowtell is guilty of abetting in the commission of the said offences in violation of section 51.
On the next page we have this:
The deputy returning officer, Peter Peterson, says that he was also registrar for this polling division, and got a voters' list with the ballot box on the morning of election day from Harry Bowtell, which he signed as registrar. The poll book indicates that there were 194 names on tile voters' list, but there appear to have been only four qualified voters in the polling division.
A little further on the commissioner says:
In fact no poll was held and no person voted; the ballots were marked and put in the box by the said Peter Peterson at the instance of the said Harry Bowtell.
Turning over to another page I find that he again speaks of Harry Bowtell in these words:
-and that Harry Bowtell was guilty of abetting in the commission of such offences by reason whereof both of them became disqualified from voting at any election of a member to serve in the House of Commons for a term of seven years.
There are two other references to him, but I want to present the one in connection with Mrs. Bowtell. I find this on page 13 of the report:
In connection with this poll, a cheque was issued by the Auditor General to Thomas J. Cardinal for $24.26 for his services as registrar. No such person existed. The cheque was obtained by Emma A. Bowtell, wife of Harry Bowtell, the postmaster at Frog Lake, and she endorsed on it the name of Thomas J. Cardinal and obtained payment and appropriated the proceeds to her own use, and I find her guilty of forgery in respect thereof.
I should like to stop there long enough to ask the Minister of Justice if that is one of the cases the provincial government would have to prosecute?

Athabaska Election-Mr. Kellner


Ernest Lapointe: He was given a certificate of indemnity by the judge. Nothing could be done against him.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: That remark from the
Minister of Justice is not in keeping with the high position he occupies. How could a judge give anyone a certificate to preclude a prosecution against that person for forgery? It cannot be done.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend's question was misunderstood by the Minister of Justice. He was answering in regard to Mr. Harry Bowtell. The hon. member was asking a question about Mrs. Bowtell.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The minister made a remark a little earlier in the afternoon that these prosecutions should be carried on by the provincial government and in his remarks I thought I detected a little complaint, or possibly something stronger, that the provincial government had not taken any action. My suggestion is this: Whose responsibility is it to prosecute in connection with this offence? Surely the Minister of Justice will not say that the provincial government should prosecute in connection with such an offence.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is altogether wrong. The matter is one for the provincial authorities.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Let me quote further.
Speaking of the Cushing poll the Commissioner says:
In connection with this poll, a cheque was issued by the Auditor General to P. A. Patterson, for $40, for his services as registrar. No such person existed. The cheque was obtained by Emma A. Bowtell, already mentioned, and by her direction the name of P. A. Patterson was endorsed upon the cheque by her thirteen year old daughter, by means of which Emma A. Bowtell obtained payment and appropriated the proceeds to her own use, and I find her guilty of forgery in respect thereof.
She is the postmistress of the Frog Lake post office, or Harry Bowtell is the postmaster, and she is the postmistress-I do not know which.


Milton Neil Campbell: I have looked up the post office guide, and I find that Harry Bowtell is still the postmaster of Frog Lake.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: It is in the family anyway. They also have the telegraph office at that point. I am sure the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) will be glad to know that there are still a few of these people in the employ of the government. Summing up these three cases, in Lac la Biche, the son gets the post office, and other appointments. The post office stays in the same building,

it is kept by the same bunch of officials, and I am satisfied that no one could go in there to-day and detect one particle of difference from what it was before. In the case of the Heinsburg post office, you discharged a returned man who had fought for this country for several years during the war, a disabled veteran who required this little bit of support, and you give the post office to the wife of one of these ginks who was convicted. Then in the case of Frog Lake, you had both the wife and the husband. The children were not old enough, but the eldest was also convicted, and you leave them plumb alone. That is what you do, and nothing more.
Let me go a little further. I think anyone will realize that in order to submit the volume of evidence which we did submit in this investigation, it was going to cost us, and did cost us, a considerable amount of money, so I think any fair-minded person will give us credit for not being remiss in our duty if we neglected to bring in a few who should have been brought in or whose names might have been linked up with these others. I think it is fair to say that in a good many of these cases there is a preponderance of evidence, whether it was submitted before a judge or not, that should be taken into consideration. What I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), is this: Does he think that Charlie Cross's campaign manager could go through that election without being a party to what took place? And he is appointed a land agent at Bonny-ville.


Charles A. Stewart: Who was
his election agent? I thought it was Mr. Deyl.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Joe Deschene was his
campaign manager.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend is taking some chances in laying an accusation against Mr. Deschene.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I have made a statement that in cases where there is a preponderance of evidence that should be considered. How could anyone be closely associated with that campaign and not know something about what was going on? Regardless of whether I am .taking a chance or not, that is what took place.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will not suggest that all the men in Athabaska who were associated with Mr. Cross-I hold no brief for Mr. Cross, as my hon. friend well knows-would be guilty of wrongdoing.
181:

Alhabaska Election-Mr. Kellner


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: No, I am not making
any such suggestion as that at all, and I do not for the life of me see how the minister can imagine that I am. I am trying to be fair in this, and I am arguing that anybody who was actively associated with that election, either as a candidate, or as taking part in the organization of the machine that put this deal over, could hardly be considered as knowing nothing about what was going on.


Charles A. Stewart: I am always loath to believe wrong of anyone until it is proven. I have known Mr. Deschene for a considerable number of years, and I have yet to know of him doing anything wrong.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I would not make any
suggestion about anyone that I did not think was merited, but I cannot for the life of me conceive of any person going through that campaign as manager for the candidate and know nothing about what was going on.


Charles A. Stewart: Is my hon. friend correct in saying that Mr. Deschene was the campaign manager? We all know that he was in that election and that he spoke in the election, but this is the first intimation that I have had that he was campaign manager.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I will put it this way.
If the Minister of the Interior has good reasons for thinking he was not, possibly he will submit his reasons to the house, and we will decide the matter.


Charles A. Stewart: That is all
very fine, but my hon. friend is making an accusation, and I am not going to be put in that position.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I do not really know what you are going to do about it.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend can do what he likes about it. If he has an accusation to make against Mr. Deschene, let him make it.


Mr. MANION:: He is making it on his
authority as a sitting member of this house.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: My accusation, if that
is what you choose to call it, has been repeated two or three times already, and there can be no doubt as to the statement I made, and outside of the Minister of the Interior, I venture to say that no one in this house will call my statement an unfair one. Seeing that our friends over there are getting so "het up" over this matter, I think I will just give them a few.
This Liberal party which we have in Canada has sunk, so far as Alberta is concerned, to possibly as low a level as any political party could sink. I have here one of the booklets which were sent all through my constituency, and I expect all over Canada, called, "Hints on Organization and Work on Polling Day". This is sent out by the National Liberal Committee, 115 Sparks street, Ottawa. I want to quote some of the instructions it gives. At page twelve, it says:
If a friendly voter spoils his ballot, see that he gets a new one, and that the spoiled one is marked and cancelled.


Lucien Cannon: What is wrong with that? He is entitled to a ballot.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Is it fair to ask what
would happen to the unfriendly voter? I quote again:
Once a voter gets a ballot he has a right to use it, 'whether he has been sworn or not. When a friendly voter therefore gets a ballot, he should at once mark it and have it deposited into the box.
In case somebody heads him off, I suppose. It continues:
He cannot be sworn after he gets the ballot paper. Remember this, each ballot is counted, no matter by whom cast.
I ask the Solicitor General, what is the matter with that?


Lucien Cannon: That is absolutely fair.
There is nothing wrong about that.


Peter McGibbon: What about the suggestion contained in it?


Lucien Cannon: There is no suggestion
contained in it. That is perfectly all right.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: If these things appear
to be all right to the members of this government, then certainly it is beyond my powers to point out anything that they would consider irregular, but in spite of that, I am going to give one more quotation:
Only two agents for each candidate are entitled to be present. If possible, arrange to have all objected ballots laid aside before you argue for their rejection or validity, so that you may see how the ballots will affect the count. Examine carefully back and front, each ballot marked for an opposite candidate.
What is the inference there? Is it not this? You take the unfriendly ballots and you put them over here; you take the friendly ballots and you put them over here. Then you size up the two piles, and if the friendly ballots make the biggest pile, argue for the inclusion of the whole thing, but if the un-friendy ballots make the biggest pile, then argue that they should all be rejected. There can be no other interpretation.

Athabaska Election-Mr. Manion
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me address these serious words to the government. Out through that district a very large percentage of the young people are just developing into womanhood and manhood. When I was there last summer the only topic universally discussed was the fact that those who had been proved guilty of illegal practices in the Athabasca election were appointed to these positions. It seems to me that this is what the government is doing. You are saying to the young people of that country: If you go out and forge cheques to help out your party on election day, to put this stuff over, you are all right, you can get a government job; you oan forge cheques, you can beat the Dominion of Canada out of money which you should not have, and nobody will say a word to you; but, on the other hand, if you do not do anything like that, even though you helped your country to fight its wars, your post office will be taken away from you and you will get no consideration at all. Now, sir, is that the impression this government wants (to make on the people in that constituency?


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but a few minutes ago when the member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) was speaking, the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) interjected a couple of remarks which to my mind, if they are to 'be permitted to go out to this country unchallenged, cast a more or less shameful reflection upon my hon. leader (Mr. Bennett), and I intend to ask the Solicitor General to explain them. The incident occurred when the member for West York was speaking to the effect that Baldy Rob'b had been sentenced to imprisonment for crooked election practices and had been shown clemency. The Solicitor General interjected these words-I took them down at the time and have since had them typed:
t>
-V,r- Sa"Tm' before my hon. friend leaves Baldy Robb, I would say that if he wants to know the reason he had better inquire of his own leader.
Then .the member for West York replied to the effect that his leader could look after himself, and the Solicitor General retorted:
I give you warning.
Now, sir, only one possible conclusion can be drawn from those remarks of the Solicitor General, and as my hon. leader is sick in bed I feel that this shameful implication should be retracted or explained. Either the

Solicitor General has said too much or he has said too little. In justice to my hon. leader I wish to ask the Solicitor General to explain u'hat he referred to in those interjections.


Lucien Cannon: In answer to my hon.
friend, I regret as much as he does the absence of the leader of the Conservative party when my friend from West York was addressing the house. If my hon. friend for West Calgary, the leader of the Conservative party, had been present I am quite sure that no reference would have been made to the case of Baldy Robb, for two obvious reasons. First, because the case of Baldy Robb has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the present motion. Baldy Robb was connected with the election in the constituency of Peace River, and was in no way connected with the election in the constituency of Athabaska. It goes to show that my hon. friend from West York when addressing the house should have taken more time to examine the motion, its object and its meaning. The second reason why no reference would have been made to the case of Baldy Robb is that that case was dealt with in such a manner and under such circumstances as are well known to the leader of the opposition, and he would have been the first to keep the hon. gentleman from mentioning it in the house.
As to my intention in interjecting what I did interject, I may say that I did not want to cast any shameful reflection on the character of the leader of the Conservative party. I had no such intention. Members of this house know me sufficiently well to be assured that I would have waited for the leader of the Conservative party to be present if I wanted to attack him. I have never had the habit of attacking people in their absence, but on account of the very peculiar circumstances of the case referred to by the member for West York, I thought it was just as well that I should say enough for the incident to close immediately, as it did close, and I may assure-


An hon. MEMBER:: You have not said enough yet.


Lucien Cannon: -and I assure my hon. friend from Fort William that I attach no shameful interpretation in any way to the conduct of the leader of the opposition in that matter; but if he will discuss it with his own leader he will reach the same conclusion as I have, that we should not discuss it in the house.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why not?


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Tell us.

Atliabaska Election-Mr. Manion


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend from St.
Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) wishes to know the reason. Suffice it to say that in all cases of remission of sentence the crown exercises the royal prerogative.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so.


Lucien Cannon: That exercise of the royal prerogative is not to be debated.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so.


Lucien Cannon: Therefore when the royal prerogative was exercised in the case of Baldy Robb it was exercised for reasons that I cannot discuss here.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so; but why not explain?


Lucien Cannon: When the member for West York introduced the matter he was placing me in a position as the minister who advised in the matter of being-I would not say accused, but of being suspected of having taken a decision which I should not have taken, when as a matter of fact I acted after consulting many people and inquiring in many quarters. I cannot say any further, but in fairness to the minister in charge-


Mr. BOYS:: Why did you give the warning?


Lucien Cannon: In view of the special prerogative which is exercised in such matters, in view of the parliamentary practice in similar cases, and in view of the fact that the motion before the house is in no way connected with the case of Baldy Robb, I think that incident should not have been introduced here at all.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the Solicitor General will allow a question-in reference to the explanations which have been made, and which are highly honourable to the hon. gentleman, does he still make any aspersions on the leader of the opposition?


Lucien Cannon: I never made any. I
want to make that very plain-I never made any.


William Alves Boys: What was the warning for?


Lucien Cannon: The warning that I gave to my hon. friend from West York was that he should not discuss that matter at all because apparently he was not familiar with it, and I am quite sure he was not.


William Alves Boys: Cheap.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend may
consider it cheap, but I think that what I said was said in fairness to everyone. I have no intention of casting aspersions on the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and if my hon. friends opposite think so they are entirely under a false impression.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am glad you say that.


Lucien Cannon: If I wanted to attack the leader of the opposition I certainly would not do so when he was away. I never attack any man in his absence.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman has
answered the question to his own satisfaction, but when he says that he meant to make no attack on the leader of the opposition, I wish to say that he thinks too late, because he made the attack in these very statements. And immediately upon hearing these statements from the hon. gentleman I said to myself, "Either Mr. Bennett has done something shameful or the Solicitor General has no right to make any such statements."


Lucien Cannon: Has my hon. friend concluded his remarks?


Robert James Manion: No; I am going to conclude them now.


Lucien Cannon: Well, what was I doing?


Robert James Manion: You were answering my
question.


Lucien Cannon: In that case I will allow
my hon. friend to conclude his remarks and then I will speak.


Robert James Manion: I will conclude very quickly. The point I am making is this: that had I not asked the Solicitor General the question I did, there would without a doubt have gone out to the whole country through the press, and rightly, the suggestion from the Solicitor General that the hon. member for West Calgary, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), had done something shameful or disgraceful in connection with the clemency shown Baldy Robb. This certainly was the only possible inference that anyone could have drawn from the Solicitor General's remarks -that if the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) did not bring to a close his observations in reference to the clemency shown Baldy Robb, he, the Solicitor General, wanted to warn him that he was going to show up the leader of the opposition. That is the only possible sense which could be read into the statement of the Solicitor General. What other conclusion could one draw from it? The hon. member for West York had

At.habaska Election-Mr. Cannon
been speaking of the clemency shown Baldy Robb, and he made some remark to the effect that the government had been very kind to him, or something of that sort. I do not remember the exact words. The Solicitor General then interjects the remark: "Before my hon. friend leaves Baldy Robb I would suggest, if he wants to know the reason, that he had better inquire of his own leader."


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: No royal
prerogative against insinuation.


Robert James Manion: And later on the Solicitor General adds: "I give you warning." In other words-and this is the only inference-he wa3 giving warning to the hon. member for West York that if he persisted in his remarks regarding Baldy Robb he, the Solicitor General, would show up the leader of the opposition as having been in some shameful way connected with Baldy Robb. I accept completely the Solicitor General's withdrawal but I certainly find it difficult to understand his explanation.


Lucien Cannon: I wish to say first of all that I do not withdraw anything I said.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend withdrew his implication; he did so three or four times -the implication of guilt.


Lucien Cannon: I cannot withdraw anything I did not advance; I cannot withdraw anything I have not said. And now, as to continuing the discussion with my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion), I do not think I can do so because my hon. friend is evidently slipping on the ground of partisanship, and these are the very last matters that should be discussed in a (partisan spirit.


Robert James Manion: You should have thought of that sooner.


Lucien Cannon: I	will	warn	my	hon.
friend-


Robert James Manion: Go ahead.


Lucien Cannon: I	will	warn	my	hon.
friend


Robert James Manion: A very popular pastime.


Lucien Cannon: -that when he does speak in this house I make it a rule to listen to him attentively. I do not interrupt the hon. gentleman and I ask him to accord me the same privilege.


Robert James Manion: I will not interrupt the hon. gentleman if he will be careful in his remarks about warning us in regard to our leader.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend is afraid that the words which I uttered will result in having the whole of the people of Canada think that the leader of the opposition has possibly done something shameful. I do not think my words will have any such effect. The leader of the opposition has a standing in this country-


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Lucien Cannon: -as a public man and as a lawyer, and I have greater confidence, I think, in the reputation of the leader of the Tory party than my hon. friend from Fort William seems to have. Now, coming to the motion Which is before the house, I may say this to my hon. friend who has just resumed his seat: The government has absolutely no objection whatsoever to the motion. Every member in this house, whether he sits on this side or on the other, will co-operate with him in order to obtain as satisfactory a result as possible from an investigation by the committee on privileges and elections into the report which has been submitted by Mr. Justice Clarke. We are at one on this question. The government does not oppose the motion; the government is willing to participate in the investigation before the committee on privileges and elections in order to assist my hon. friend in securing results. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a distinction to be drawn between the responsibility which may attach to the government in this matter and the responsibility which rests with parliament as such. The Minister of Justice is not responsible for the administration of the criminal law in Canada. This is a well known fact.


William Alves Boys: Who is?


Lucien Cannon: I will tell my hon. friend. If an investigation is held under chapter 51, the judge having reported that offences have been committed, the prosecutions are to be instituted, not by the federal government, not by the Minister of Justice, but by the provincial government, by the attorney general.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Where do you find that
provision?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Will the Solicitor General say that, cheques having been paid in the federal government's money, and it having been established that these election officials never existed, the provincial government should prosecute?


Lucien Cannon: Certainly. I have no
doubt my hon. friend asks the question in perfect good faith, and I am more surprised

Athabaska Election-Mr. Cannon
that legal gentlemen should express a doubt on the point, as does my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), for instance, or my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Boys).


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Doubt as to what?


Lucien Cannon: The attorney general of
the province is the officer who administers justice within the province and who sees to it that prosecutions are taken. Every indictment laid before a criminal court is signed by the attorney general of the province. The attorney general of Alberta is the man who in this instance was supposed to take the prosecutions in connection with offences disclosed when the investigation was held. I do not blame the attorney general of Alberta; he probably did his duty. As a matter of fact, as appears on the file, when he received from Ottawa the documents which he was supposed to receive, the attorney general of Alberta did not complain that we had not done our duty. The attorney general of Alberta did not say to the Acting Minister of Justice, "You have not performed your duty under the act". The attorney general of Alberta reported that he was instituting proceedings, as it was his duty to do. Why should we be blamed as a government? It is altogether outside of our competence.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Lucien Cannon: It is.


William Alves Boys: Does the hon. member contend that the Criminal Code of Canada cannot be set in motion by the Department of Justice? He has mentioned my name, and that is why I rise. I do not suggest that the administration cannot be properly carried on by the province, but does the Solicitor General suggest for a moment that the enforcement of the criminal law cannot be set in motion by the Department of Justice of Canada?


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend knows
that should a murder be committed in the House of Commons the murderer would be prosecuted not by the Minister of Justice but by the attorney general for the province of Ontario.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would my hon. friend allow a question?


Lucien Cannon: That is the practice, and has been so since 1867. Criminal prosecutions are instituted by provincial authorities.


William Garland McQuarrie: But cannot anyone lay an information?


Lucien Cannon: Certainly, but if rpy hon.
friend went to the police station in the city of Ottawa to lay a complaint of an infringement of the criminal code, his complaint would be received and if the judge deemed fit a warrant would be issued. If that were an indictable offence, however, the case could not be brought before the criminal court without that indictment being signed by the attorney general for the province of Ontario.


William Alves Boys: Nobody disputes that.


Lucien Cannon: Then if no one disputes
that my argument is perfectly correct.


William Alves Boys: You could set the law in
motion.
_ Mr. CANNON: Certainly; we set the law in motion according to the act the moment the report was received. My hon. friends must be fair in this matter, as I am quite sure every hon. member wishes to be fair. This is not a partisan matter but a question of law.


William Garland McQuarrie: The Dominion police are doing it every day.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly, but this whole matter must be considered in a spirit of fairness. We had a right to appoint a commissioner. Will my hon. friend who sits for that constituency deny that the moment he asked for a royal commission the government appointed a commissioner? We appointed one of the most distinguished jurists in the west, and placed at his disposal every posible convenience to assist him in arriving at the truth.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Will the minister permit me to reply to his question? The government did appoint a commisisoner, in the person of Mr. Justice Beck. I think he held the appointment until some time in June, but made no effort to hold any inquiry. That appointment was later changed to Mr. Justice Clarke, who was held up for some little time because he had no money. Mr. Justice Beck refused to go on with the inquiry because he said the government had not supplied him with funds.


Lucien Cannon: I hold no brief to defend Mr. Justice Beck; I simply state to my hon. friend that his name was mentioned in the petition addresed to this parliament. For some reason or other he was later replaced by Mr. Justice Clarke, and I am sure no one will ever say anything against Mr. Justice Clarke. The government even appointed the counsel who represented the interests of my hon. friend, and paid $3,000

Athabaska Election-Mr. Cannon
for th.eir services. Could we do more than that? The report was sent in; what did we do? There had been some delay in forwarding the report, but surely we cannot be held responsible for that. The moment the report was received we hurried the proceedings in order to be within the period set by law; we sent the documents to the proper authorities in Alberta.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Lucien Cannon: Yes.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has
already spoken several times. If he desires to put a question, well and good, but he may not make a further statement.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I was interrupted quite
frequently, and I think I should have a little leeway in this matter. Of course I submit with all grace to your ruling, but I wish to ask the Solicitor General a question. If Mr. Justice Beck had proceeded with the investigation shortly after his appointment-and his reason for not doing so was that the government had not provided him with money- that report might have been submitted earlier, and more time would have been given to those looking after the prosecutions. Is that not so?


Lucien Cannon: As far as that feature of
the matter is concerned, certainly I am not going to discuss before this house whether or not Mr. Justice Beck did not act because he had no money. I doubt very much whether that was the reason, but if my hon. friend has an accusation of that kind to make against Mr. Justice Beck he can do so. I simply say that when the report was received by this government we did what we had to do; we forwarded the documents to the attorney general of Alberta, who acted as he should have acted. If my hon. friend has any complaint as to how the prosecutions were conducted he should not address them to the Minister of Justice or to this government but to the provincial government of Alberta- if any such complaints can be laid, which I doubt very much.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I intend to address them
to this government if I am given an opportunity.


Lucien Cannon: The question was raised
wny certain prosecutions were not taken against people who had evidently committed infractions of the law. Again I say the responsibility for that matter lies with the

attorney general of Alberta, but in fairness to him-and I wish to be fair to everyone in this matter-I must remind the house that prosecutions could not be instituted if certificates of immunity were given. That is the law. Section 27 of the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act states:
If any information, indictment or penal action is at any time after an inquiry pending in any court against such witness in respect of any corrupt or illegal practices committed by him previously to the time of his giving his evidence, at any election concerning which he has been so examined, the court shall, on production and proof of such certificate, stay such proceedings, and may, in its discretion, award to him any costs to which he has been put.
My hon. friend knows that certificates of immunity were granted to most of the people connected with the electoral frauds practised during that election.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Why not to all the
electorates?


Lucien Cannon: It was for the judge to
decide; he has to exercise his discretion. Are my hon. friends going to discuss in this house the exercise of judicial discretion?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Such a certificate could
not be issued for the offence which I cited a moment ago.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Was a certificate of immunity given to Mrs. Bowtell for forging a Dominion cheque, which resulted in a defalcation of Dominion funds?


Lucien Cannon: I do not think such a
certificate was granted.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That was the issue raised
by my hon. friend, which you are avoiding.


Lucien Cannon: That issue was not raised, but let us examine that case. If Mrs. Bowtell could be prosecuted, and if my hon. friend really wanted her punished, why did he not exercise his right as a citizen and lay a complaint? He could have done so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Are you going to leave to private citizens the duty of prosecuting those who have been found guilty of defalcations against the Dominion government?


Lucien Cannon: The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, with his usual ability, is evidently trying to shift the ground of discussion.	_


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not; I was protesting against the implication which I thought underlay the remarks of my hon. friend.

Athabaska Election-Mr. Cahan


Lucien Cannon: The hon. member for
Athabaska brought up the question of certain people who had been found guilty of infractions of the election law. In answering that I say, first, that the prosecution should be instituted by the attorney general of the province according to the law; and secondly, that in cases where certificates of immunity had been granted by the judge, in the exercise of his discretion, no prosecutions could take place.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With respect to corrupt electoral acts.


Lucien Cannon: As to the case of Mrs. Bowtell, or any other person, I am not sufficiently conversant with the situation to discuss it on its merits. May I add that in so far as the government is concerned we stated two years ago, we stated again last year, and we make the statement this year, that my hon. friend from Athabaska can appear before the committee on privileges and elections, and any suggestions which he can make to improve our system will 'be received with gratitude. We have no intention whatsoever of protecting those who may have been guilty of corrupt practices during that election. Again I repeat that this matter must be discussed in the light of the law as it exists, not in the light of wbat my hon. friend, or any other gentleman opposite, would like it to be. If the law is not as it should be, it becomes a matter of making the necessary amendments. I do not think any member in the house can accuse the Minister of Justice of having been derelict in his duty when he followed every clause of the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think the house is very glad indeed that the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), if he did not withdraw the implication contained in his remark, as we understood it, at least assures us that he had not intended any such implication. Certainly when I heard him I felt he was making some reflection on the (honour of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and I am glad to know that is not the case. Among other points raised by the hon. member for Athabaska, he called attention to-


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
permit me, in order that we may argue the case with the facts before us. The Minister of Justice informs me1 that Mirs. Bowtell was granted a certificate of immunity.


William Alves Boys: Not for forgery.



S6103-116

Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With respect to those found guilty of illegal and corrupt practices under the Elections Act the commissioner could grant a certificate of indemnity, but the hon. member for Athabaska has pointed out that in addition to those there was the case of Mrs. Bowtell who forged the endorsements on cheques issued by the government and received and applied the proceeds to her own use. Now I say to the hon. gentleman that in the case of the forgery of a Dominion cheque and the defalcation of Dominion funds the Department of Justice has, from time immemorial, undertaken the prosecution of its own officials who have forged such cheques and forged such endorsements. I know of at least ten or fifteen cases in the last thirty years where such prosecutions have been undertaken by the Department of Justice. That is the point which my hon. friend the Solicitor General is entirely avoiding. Now supposing the commissioner did hold an inquiry in connection with corrupt practices and did give a certificate of indemnity to Mrs. Bowtell. That indemnity would be no defence to the prosecution of Mrs. Bowtell for the forgery of Dominion cheques and the misappropriation of Dominion funds. I think there is no doubt about that. However, I am not going to stress the point further; I simply give that as mjr clear opinion.
Now chapter 51 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, provides that the commissioners shall report with respect to each election the names of all persons whom they find to have been guilty of corrupt or illegal practices therein. May I point out that "corrupt or illegal practices" has a special definition, and I do not think that the forgery of Dominion cheques and wrongful appropriation of Dominion funds comes within it. The commissioners are required to report the names. To whom are they required to report? Section 28 says that the commissioners shall from time to time report to the Governor General the evidence taken and what they find concerning the premises. The report is made to the Governor General, in reality to the government of the country, in order that such action as may be deemed necessary in the premises may be taken. The report which is made to parliament is rather a subsidiary matter, because the act proceeds to state in section 30 that every such report which has been made to the Governor General shall be submitted to parliament within fourteen days after such report is made if parliament is sitting, or if parliament is not then sitting, within fourteen days from the next meeting. So not only is the government to receive a report for its iiv-



Athabaska Election-Mr. Cahan
formation, but parliament is also to receive the report for the same reason. The report when it is received by the government shall be laid before the Attorney General of Canada, the Minister of Justice. Now the Minister of Justice has a special duty to perform in the premises. It is his duty to examine the evidence, and if he finds sufficient evidence available for a prosecution he must certify such information to the Secretary of State, who in turn must communicate the report, with the evidence, to the lieutenant governor of the province in which the election was held. But in addition to that, the statute places a duty upon the Attorney General of Canada in respect of his office, and his official duty in the premises is expressed in section 32, which says that:
_ The Attorney General of Canada shall instruct counsel to assist in any prosecution which is thereon instituted by the local authorities charged with the administration of justice.
The word "shall" is used. The Attorney General of Canada "shall" instruct counsel. It is not within his discretion to refrain from making the appointment of counsel. It is a duty incumbent upon him under the statute so to act in this matter, therefore it is his duty to ascertain the result of the transmission of this report to the lieutenant governor of the province. It is his duty to ascertain whether the attorney general or crown prosecutor or other authority in the province has undertaken to prosecute for these offences. He must keep himself informed in regard to these matters. When a prosecution is undertaken, section 32 states that the Attorney General of Canada shall instruct counsel to assist in any prosecution.
I am the last one to endeavour to impose upta the Minister of Justice any duties which dc not properly belong to him. I know he often has to be and has been absent from his office performing very high and onerous duties as representative of Canada in other countries. I do not know whether or not he was absent on this occasion; I do not know who was fulfilling his functions as the acting attorney general during his absence; but I say that under the statutes the Attorney General of Canada, or whoever was acting as Attorney General of Canada, has been utterly negligent and faithless in the performance of his duties in the premises. I say that, because we have had the admission to-day that no counsel was instructed by the Department of the Attorney General of Canada. I am not making any suggestions in regard to the present incumbent; I do not know who was fMr. Cahan.]
acting at the time; but this is a case in which the Attorney General, or the acting Attorney General of Canada for the time being, has not performed his duties under the statute. If he had performed his duties under the statute we would not have had the Solicitor General or the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, suggesting to-day to the house that they were unaware of the results of the various prosecutions which were undertaker! by the crown prosecutor in the province in question. That is my point, and I think that should have been met more fully than it has been.
Just one other point. I think we all as members of this house must recognize that a duty is placed upon the house and especially upon the government with regard to the reconsideration of the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act, the Elections Act and the registration of voters thereunder. It is impossible, as will be admitted, for any private member to procure with any facility amendments to the public acts of Canada, especially public acts such as the Corrupt Practices Act, the Elections Act, and all the rest. But certain kinds of illegal acts which were so prevalent in the constituency of Athabaska are prevalent in our city of Montreal to an enormous extent. I drew the attention of the house to this once before when this matter came up. I pointed out that in the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George before my first election I found on the list more than two thousand fictitious names. At the last election at which I was a candidate I found more than two thousand fictitious names on the list, and at the present time, although I have not counted them, I am sure that coming in from the provincial registration and otherwise there are already on the list which would form the basis of a new revision, many hundreds of fictitious names. We all know that at elections certain gangs of men are hired in the city and men are even imported from outside to do impersonating. We know there are hundreds of impersonations of registered electors. We know that gentlemen who are late going down town after breakfast find that others have voted in their names.


Mr. HEAPS:: Why have there been no prosecutions in those cases?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Because no individual alone has the funds or the means to prosecute a thousand people. I am not saying whether this is due to the efforts of the Liberal party or of the Conservative party; but in any

Athabaska Election-Mr. Cahan
of our constituencies in Montreal, in the municipal elections, largely in the provincial elections and still more largely in the federal elections, there are impersonations not by the hundred but by the thousand.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it not a fact that these men when caught have been let off with neither fine nor imprisonment? Have they not been dealt with in the most lenient fashion?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think so, but perhaps I have been so much concerned with the conviction of some of them that I may not be able to give an impartial opinion. You get together an executive committee of the most honourable and honest men you can find in your constituency, men whose reputations are above reproach, men who assist, on election day in the ordinary election work of the constituency, even those who represent you at the poll. Then there are issued in the city of Montreal blanket warrants purporting to be signed by judges; in fact I have seen some myself purporting to be signed by a judge of the court of sessions. I do not know whether they are forgeries or not, but these blanket warrants have been issued by the hundred and put into the hands of police constables for the purpose of arresting early in the morning the most reputable men of the city so as to prevent them from taking part in the election. I am not accusing anybody. The Minister of Justice, I know, is as anxious as I am to put an end to that sort of thing and I believe the other members of the government are equally anxious.
But when the provincial lists in Montreal are prepared, it is impossible for me in the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George to ascertain whether proper names are going on the list. Under the provincial law people can register for St. Lawrence-iSt. George at La-chine; they can register ten miles out of my district on the other side of the river; they oan register at Pointe aux Trembles. It would take more than my personal revenue in a year to keep track of the registration of the names of voters in my constituency on the provincial list which go automatically on the Dominion list, so that it is impossible to have any effective supervision of the list until it forms the basis of the Dominion list. In my constituency at the last revision I found more than two thousand fictitious names. That meant that I had to have two thousand individual affidavits made as to whether or not on a certain day those people were residing at the places of residence stated in the 56103-1164
list. That meant that I had to hire men by the hundred to go out and make inquiries at those residences on that day and then make [DOT] individual affidavits. That expense is placed upon me; I have to bear it myself. I am not wealthy; but that expense, which applies also to other city constituencies, is so high that at the present time in the city of Montreal no honest, respectable citizen of moderate means can afford to run a federal election and to pay his own election expenses. Those two thousand affidavits were put in, and what I did was quite fair and frank. I gave a list of the whole two thousand applications to the representative of the gentleman who was opposing me. I do not presume that he knew anything about the matter, but someone knew about it. I said to them: send out to those addresses and if you can find one of them that represents anybody who by chance is not living at that address but is living in any other part of the constituency or anywhere where under the law he has a right to vote, I will not press the objection. After a complete search, I believe there were found out of over two thousand names some fifty residents who had moved from one house in one part of the constituency to another. We sent our agents out, two and two together, to deal with these fifty or sixty residents, and we dealt with them in a satisfactory manner. But the expense of all that, and the expense of revision in my constituency, with over two thousand fictitious names and thousands more coming in at the time of revision, is so great that it costs from four to five thousand dollars at the time of the federal revision simply to supervise this nefarious work and to prevent it having full effect. I know there are members on the other side of the house who complain of exactly the same conditions. When we make prosecutions before the court of sessions, the prosecutions are delayed and delayed and delayed and finally result in nothing. Members cannot initiate one thousand or two thousand prosecutions and then employ a sufficient number of lawyers to appear at the court of sessions day after day, and week after week, and even month after month. It is a scandal that must be prevented in the future. I ask the government, through the Minister of Justice, either through this committee or some other committee, to initiate as a government undertaking, because you need the force and power of will of government to put it through, a reconsideration of our electoral law with a view to making euch amendments in the law governing the revision of
The Royal Assent

the electoral lists in the city of Montreal- and conditions, I have no doubt, ajre the same in other cities-as will give us fair and honest lists that will preclude impersonation and perjury, and enable our committees of honest and representative men to do their electoral work on election day, without being subject to arrest on false and fraudulent warrants and to confinement in the police station under the control of the police until election day is past. It is a scandal. My hon. friend from the west said that conditions out there imperilled responsible democratic government. Democratic government in the city of Montreal in federal elections is at an end, democratic representation is at an end-


Ernest Lapointe: Did such a state of
things exist when we were using the provincial lists for federal elections? Is not the condition may hon. friend speaks of the result of that change in the method of making up the lists?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I daresay it is, to a very considerable extent; and remember, I am not charging the Minister of Justice, or the government with Which he is associated, or even the party with which he is associated in the province of Quebec, as being responsible for the iniquities which are perpetrated. I am not charging that, but I say it is a matter in respect of which we ought, on both sides of the house, to come to some reasonable understanding, and we ought to adopt and carry through such measures as may be calculated to put an end to it. To me personally it does not matter. The greatest kindness the Minister of Justice could do to me, as he suggested the other day he should do in the public interest, would be to prevent my representing a Montreal district in this house. But I come in contact with many young men in that city-young men not only of my own race, because my race is in a minority in Montreal, but the best young men who are coming out of the Montreal universities, Liberals as well as Conservatives, and they truthfully say that in view of the conditions " which now exist, it is impossible for young men to attain any eminence in the political life of this country unless they are prepared to become a part of the party machine, on one side or the other, take party funds by thousands and tens of thousands of dollars, and participate in the iniquities which are prevalent, not only one side but on both sides in that city.


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (East Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I think the time will not be lost that is devoted to a further consideration of
[Mr. Cahan.l
this case. So important is it that I do not think that any matters which are extraneous or are related only indirectly to it should be considered by this house in this connection. The facts are that this election was the most shocking and the most astounding one ever held in the Dominion of Canada, so far as we have any information. The Baldy Robb election in Peace River was held at the same time. It is true that the man who occupied front stage in that election does not come into the inquiry which I am sure will follow this resolution; nevertheless, the fact that the things he did, and kindred things, were repeated in the Athabaska election makes it all the more necessary that we should look to the dignity of this house and our own personal honour, because that is what the question involves.
This report was laid on the table of the house on the 15th day of December, 1926. Who is in control of parliament? The Prime Minister and his cabinet. Who has to deal with a matter of this kind? The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). We come down to this very day and we find that nothing was done or even suggested during the last session of parliament in regard to this report. To-day we find that the Minister of Justice says:	Oh, I am in favour of the resolution.
The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) says: There will be no one who will be more pleased than I if this resolution carries; and the very words of the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) were, "I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to the motion." Has it come to this, Mr. Speaker, in this parliament, that where the honour of all members is concerned it must devolve upon a private member to bring forward a resolution which will be passed unanimously by the house? There is not a member of this house who will dare to vote against this resolution.



THE ROYAL ASSENT


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as' follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the senate.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor

Athabaska Election-Mr. Ryckman
General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act.
An Act to authorize an extension of time for the completion of the Saint John and Quebec Railway between Centreville, in the county of Carleton, and Andover, in the county of Victoria, N.B.
An Act to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Act.
An Act to amend the Railway Belt Water Act.
An Act respecting the Royal Military College of Canada.
An Act to confirm a certain agreement made between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railway Company.
An Act to amend The Patent Act.
An Act to amend the Trade Mark and Design Act. '	_
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1929.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1928.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. ATHABASKA ELECTION
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Garland (Bow River) that the final reports of Mr. Justice Clarke with reference to the Athabaska election be referred to the select standing committee on privileges and elections.
Edmond Baird Ryckman: At six o'clock I was
stating that ministers without exception were now unanimously in favour of the reference of this report to the committee' and action thereon. This report, as I have stated, was tabled on December 15, 1926. Ministers have taken credit for tabling the report. The report is required under the statute to be tabled. No action was taken thereon and I submit to this house that it was the manifest duty of the government in power, represented especially in a matter of this kind by the Minister of Justice, to have this report examined and action taken on it in order to maintain the honour and dignity of the crown ad especially the purity of the fountain of justice. That action was not taken, but the ministers are all ready to take it now upon the resolution of a private member, and I say that the thanks of this house and of this country are due to that private member. Why was not action taken? Simply because an examination of this report would have disclosed that the Liberal party had out-
Heroded Herod in election frauds and crimes. The government of the Hon. George Ross was turned out of power in the province of Ontario by election crime, but the post-graduate work in election crimes has been done by friends of this government, Baldy Robb and Cross, who, I understand, was himself at one time an attorney general of one of the provinces. Action was not taken because the Liberal party would have been exposed and there would have been brought to the notice of the people of this coufitry, as I say, election crimes such as had never been heard of before. Further, there was this reason why the Liberal party, the government, were anxious to avoid an investigation of these crimes: they were maintained in power at the time-so narrow was the division-by just such votes as Cross could give. No one can tell me that after this had occurred the Prime Minister did not know every candidate in the Dominion of Canada who was carrying his banner. And after all this had occurred the man who was put forward by the Liberal party as worthy of the suffrages of the people of Canada was the same man Cross.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Perhaps I may tell my hon. friend that the Liberal party did not countenance Mr. Cross as its candidate at the last election.


Peter McGibbon: They never repudiated
him.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The Prime Minister's
answer is a ready one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I myself wrote to Mr. Cross to tell him that we would not countenance him.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: We may put a question on the order paper, asking for the production of the letter. But there is no doubt that if he had been elected he would have come here and the Prime Minister would have taken the avails of his election as a good Liberal.
What amuses me is the excuses offered by the Department of Justice through its two representatives for not proceeding with this matter. Let me deal with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) first. The excuse he gives to this house is this: We did all that the law required us to do. That is the expression, verbatim, that he used. I say that in a matter of this kind he has a right to assert the inherent authority which he has of protecting the fountain of justice and the honour and dignity of this parliament and of the members thereof. But he did not do so. The excuse of the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), is more naive; he says that the
1824	COMMONS
Athabaska Election-Mr. Ryckman
administration of justice is with the provinces. There is no legal infant who does not know that. But what we do know is that action in any matter that relates to justice in this Dominion has its inspiration and its control in the Minister of Justice of Canada. _ There is no question about that. He cannot tell me that there ever was a case of a major offence where the Dominion asked for action on the part of a province when the province did not act. There is no case that he can cite where a crime has been committed and the Dominion has asked for action and the province has failed to act. The provinces so understand; it is the unwritten law. It is as though the Solicitor General wanted an errand boy to do a message: he sends for the errand boy; he does not do the errand himself, but the boy does it. How ridiculous, therefore, it is for the Solicitor General to come here and say-and this is his argument -that because the administration is with the provinces the Dominion is functus in this matter, that it had nothing to do and could not even put in a request to prosecute, so that, as he puts it, the government did all that was required by law. The Minister of Justice is not required by law to remit any penalty. A man is in penitentiary, and the grace of the crown, represented by the Minister of Justice, is extended in the matter. It is therefore a thing unheard in this country, until announced in this house to-day, that the Minister of Justice cannot get action on the part of the administration in any of the provinces in connection with any criminal matter.	[DOT]
Just a word in conclusion. I am glad this committee is going to meet and I hope it will make a thorough investigation of this matter. They must not allow a red herring to be drawn across the trail by the statement from the other side of the house that there is some new limitation pronounced against prosecutions for forgery in this country; there is not. If this committee finds that forgery has been committed, that a criminal conspiracy has been set up or that perjury has been committed, it is open to the committee to vindicate the justice of this land and to require that the offenders be prosecuted unless there is a certificate of immunity. One must admit that exception, but even that does not go all the way. In that case the matter would be decided by the court, but no one can tell me that where such widespread crime and fraud has been committed by men of the Liberal party in an endeavour to win an election and a supporter for the present Prime Minister, it will not be found that all through the piece 
the criminal law of this country has been broken, and I gay the offenders should be punished. I hope that out of this investigation by the committee there will come an improvement in the law, and above all an assertion by this parliament that no one can commit a crime against the sacredness of the vote without being called speedily to justice. If anyone dares oppose this resolution now I think he should rise and attempt to give his reasons, because the people of Canada are not going to allow the value which we place on the honest vote of the honest citizen to be traduced or destroyed by men such as Baldy Robb and Cross.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to
speculate on what would be said on the other side of the house if Baldy Robb had been operating as an official of this party. I think there would be a somewhat different attitude over there, because there is scarcely a parallel in the political history of Canada to what took place in the constituency of Athabaska. I thought, however, I could make a little contribution which would be of interest on this question by relating some of my own experiences in an election under the direction of the present government.
It will be remembered that in 1925 the election machinery was in the hands of this government. I do not represent a bush constituency; my riding is about one mile square and contains from 65.000 to 70,000 people. One would think that under the scrutiny of so many people, with 600,000 more surrounding them, we would get an honest election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I would remind the hon.
gentleman that the motion before the house is to refer a report by Mr. Justice Clarke, who was appointed to inquire into the alleged existence of corrupt or illegal practices in the electorial district of Athabaska, to the committee on privileges and elections. I hope the remarks which the hon. gentleman intends to make are relevant to the subject matter.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I submit to your judgment, Mr. Speaker, but you allowed the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George to describe at some length the conditions existing in his own riding and his own city.


Mr. CAHILL:: That was all out of order
also.

Athabaska Election-Mr. Hocken


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I was going to speak about the conditions in my own riding during the same election, and to point out that what occurred in Athabaska was not an isolated case.


John Wesley Edwards: All the
more reason for an investigation.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Exactly. For my opponent in that election I had a man who stated that on his advice the limits of the riding were changed. He said, "I have cut the riding to my liking; I have appointed all the officials, and if I cannot win this election now I never can." I want to show the house how he used the election machinery at that time to secure his ambition.


Mr. DUNNING:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: So far the hon. gentleman is not out of order.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: This is what I observed:
This man protested 6,400 names on the voters lists in that one riding. His method of p'o-cedure was to send canvassers around in the month of August,, when many people were on their holidays; he had a force of about fifty canvassers, who would go to a house and knock on the door. If their knock was not answered the people living in that house were struck off the list as having moved away. The reports of those canvassers were taken to his headquarters and four people swore to the affidavits striking off these 6,400 names. By no possibility could those four people know anything about it of their own knowledge. I proceeded against two or three of them; I took them into the police court on the charge of perjury, but they escaped conviction on the ground that they were swearing to the best of their knowledge and belief. They had no knowledge or belief, and they made no attempt to get the facts themselves. They simply took the word of the canvassers and swore to statements made by these men.


Charles Avery Dunning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member now speaking is in order, will it not be in order also for other hon. members to relate what occurred under the War Time Elections Act, for instance? Are we to have a wholesale discussion on election matters on this motion to refer a certain report to a committee?


Hewitt Bostock: The motion is that a report on corrupt practices and illegal acts which took place in one constituency be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. Some hon. gentlemen speaking to the motion stated what their experiences had been in their own
constituencies, and endeavoured to establish that the practices complained of were not confined to Athabaska but extended to other counties, in order to strengthen the views that they were expressing. This is another instance of that, and I cannot see that the hon. gentleman is out of order.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Well, I will proceed with the story.


Hewitt Bostock: I suppose the hon. gentleman will come around to Athabaska.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Now the result of my opponent's actions, as I said, was to strike off 6,400 names, a fact which I did not discover until the completion of the registration. Of course I immediately endeavoured to get those names back on the list I will assume that about 2,000 of those names were properly stricken off; people had moved probably to that extent. But I was denied 4,500 votes by the tactics of my opponent. Now the expense of getting those 2,000 names, and the physical effort it called for on my part and that of my supporters, was something I never want to experience again, although it was confined to narrow geographical limits. The only redress I had, sir, was pub-, licity. I sent my agents around the riding to examine the homes where the people whose names had been struck off lived, and I was able to discover hundreds in the course of a few days. I made it my business then to write the facts for the newspapers of our city, and proved to the people of that riding that very discreditable tactics were being employed against me. The result was a happy one for me, for notwithstanding that my opponent was a Jew, and that there are 25,000 Jews in the riding, I succeeded in getting a majority of 3,000. I may say for my Jewish constituents that they are, perhaps, the most difficult class of people to round up under a boss that I have ever discovered. They are individualists, they think for themselves; and usually, Mr. Speaker, they think right because the majority of them voted for me. I submit, however, that the tactics that were employed, and which were supported by party funds, constitute a great miscarriage of proper procedure in an election in this country.
Now as for the Athabaska election, the proceedings employed there were easier than they would toe in a big city. These men went into the bush. They were not watched by the police, they -could not be watched by the opposing candidate, and they had everything pretty much their own way. But the fact that the same tactics were employed in the most
1826	COMMONS
Athabaska Election-Mr. McQuarrie
populous districts of the country, and in a riding which is a mile square with scarcely a vacant lot in its whole area, would indicate that the electoral methods employed by the opposite party are in need of very great and very close scrutiny. That is all the contribution I want to make. I simple desire to point out that somewhat similar tactics to those employed in Athabaska were employed even in the cities.


Frank S. Cahill: You were lucky to be able to get away with it, under the rules.


Hewitt Bostock: The point upon which I ruled a moment ago is very clear. Bourinot employs almost the same language. At page 340 I find the following with respect to the relevancy of speeches:
The freedom of debate requires that every member should have full liberty to state, for the information of the house, whatever he honestly thinks may aid it in forming a judgment upon any question under its consideration. But it is nevertheless the duty of the Speaker of the House (or chairman of committee), to interfere when he finds that the member's remarks are not relevant to the question before the house. On such occasions, he may very properly suppose "that the member will bring his observations to bear upon the motion before the house"; or "that he will conclude with something that will bring him within order".
Further, Bourinot says:
The precise relevancy of an argument is not always perceptible.
In the present instance it was to be seen that the hon. member's remarks were not quite relevant, and I told him to come to the question of the Athabaska election, which he did.


William Garland McQuarrie: I endeavoured to get the permission of the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), when he was addressing the house, to ask him a question. The minister is usually extremely courteous, but possibly to-day he was a little bit excited, for which no doubt there was good reason. The question I wished to ask him was this: How would he differentiate between the cases under discussion and the fruit combine cases in 1925? I remember very well in that year, when the Hon. Mr. Murdock was Minister of Labour, a report was tabled from a Mr. Duncan, who had been appointed a commissioner .to investigate certain alleged combines in connection with the fruit business. The same difficulty then arose that we hear of to-day, namely, that although Mr. Duncan in his report had found that certain crimes had been committed and recommended prosecutions, no prosecutions had taken place. The then Minister of Labour argued that
IMr. Hocken.l
those prosecutions should be brought by the provincial authorities, and that the Dominion government had nothing to do with the matter. Tlhe question was discussed many times, and from our side of the house we urged upon Mr. Murdock that he was entirely wrong and that it was incumbent upon the government to take some action in view * of the Duncan report. Later on, due to the agitation from this side of the house and from the public generally, something was done. I have looked up in Hansard certain references to the matter. I am not going to quote them all because there are a great many, but on page 3230 of Hansard of 1925 I find the following:
Alleged Fruit Combine
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Ladner (Vancouver South): There has appeared in the Vancouver Daily Province a headline article announcing that the government has determined to start prosecutions under the Lewis Duncan report against the alleged fruit combine. There has been no announcement in the house that I know of and I would ask the government whether there is any official authority for the statement.
Hon. Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice): I am sorry the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) is not here; he is dealing with the matter. I may inform my hon. friend however that counsel has been instructed to institute proceedings.
Mr. Ladner:	Is the prosecution eo-operating
with the provincial governments, or is it entirely on the part of the federal authorities?
Mr. Lapointe:	Counsel is instructed to communicate with the various attorneys general interested in the matter, but I do not know whether they will take part in the proceedings independently or not.
Prosecutions were instituted; I think they were carried on by counsel appointed by the Dominion government, and some very large fines were imposed and I believe collected. It seems to me that we are faced with the same situation to-day. The Dominion government says: No; we do not have to do anything about this report; that is for the provincial authorities. The Solicitor General contended that there should be an indictment by the attorney general. The Solicitor General must know that not one out of every thousand criminal prosecutions in Canada is issued by the attorney general or on his instructions. In the first place an information is laid and the matter is investigated before a magistrate. If the accused is committed for trial an indictment is preferred by the attorney general and the attorney general carries on the prosecution.
Surely in this case the Dominion government does not have to wait until the attorney general does something. The Dominion gov-

Athabaska Election-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine)
ernment has police stationed all over this country. Prosecutions are taking place every day for breaches of the Revenue Act, the Narcotic Drugs Act and other matters, for instance, escapes from penitentiaries. It will always be found that such proceedings are initiated in the first place by Dominion authorities and in some cases that I know of counsel for the Dominion has appeared with counsel for the province in the conduct of the trials. In this particular case the Minister of Justice says: Oh, but many of these men and women received certificates of indemnity and they cannot be prosecuted. One case that was brought to the attention of the house is that of a certain woman who had committed forgery. The Minister of Justice would suggest that in a case like that a certificate of indemnity would protect her from being prosecuted for forgery. He might as well argue that a person who committed murder during the election, if he afterwards appeared and gave evidence on an investigation, could not be prosecuted for murder. The thing is absurd. Forgery is a crime under the criminal code; it does not come under the category set out in section 27 of the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act. That section refers to corrupt and illegal practices and that is quite a different matter from the offence of forgery. It is most extraordinary that in a matter concerning a Dominion election where a report was brought down showing that forgery was committed, no prosecution was had and the Minister of Justice could say: Well, we wash our hands of the whole matter; we have brought this report to the attention of the provincial authorities; we are finished with it, and I do not know whether or not anything was done about the prosecution of this woman for the crime of forgery. It would be an outrageous condition of affairs if that were so, and I would remind the Minister of Justice that that is not at all his policy in connection with other matters.
Mr. LESLIE G. BELL (St. Antoine): Mr. Speaker, the only excuse that I can make for rising to speak to the motion before the house is that, being one of the younger members of parliament, one who has suffered through some of the irregularities committed under the present Dominion Elections Act, having been forced to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to defend my election in the last contest, and also as having the honour of representing one of the oldest divisions in Canada, namely, Montreal West, when certain questions are brought to the attention of the house regarding irregularities in the Athabaska election and when those irregularities cover
the question of fictitious names on lists, dead men voting and other practices which are very common in the province of Quebec, I feel that I can add a few words to the question under discussion. In doing so I assume no "holier than thou" attitude. Although my last election was protested, I will give due credit to the members who occupy the front line benches opposite that this was through no action on their part.
But there exist under the present Dominion Elections Act certain practices in regard to which they are quite as well aware as other hon. members that, if we are to have honest elections in this country, some radical changes must be made. I refer particularly to the common practice in Quebec to-day of impersonation. In my last election I endeavoured to take every precaution by police protection and otherwise so that honest electors would be able to signify the way in which they wished to vote, but I found that the obstacles we had to face in my particular constituency were such as to call for immediate remedy. When the question under discussion is referred to the committee on privileges and elections, it should be dealt with immediately; a report should be brought down to the house and amendments should be made to the act. Certainly the practice which exists is not confined to the constituency of Athabaska. I have every reason to believe that my hon. friends opposite are as sincere in this matter as those who sit on this side of the house; but why is it that when a general election takes place we should have gangs of men going around, paid through some mysterious agency, so that an election in the city of Montreal costs thousands of dollars simply on account of our trying to protect ourselves against crooks-because that is the only name that can be applied to them -and to give honest electors an opportunity to register an honest vote. If the ballot is supposed to be what we consider it is, namely, an honest expression of the views of the people regarding the return of an honest government, the Dominion Elections Act must be radically amended.
When an election is called, what do we experience? The practice has been that on the day of the election certain gangs line up and they telegraph-that is the common expression used in my particular division-from one division to another. They take one particular division in the morning; in the afternoon they come over and raid another. We employ police protection to keep those men away from the polls, but how often do we succeed? That is one of the reasons why I
1S28	COMMONS
Athabaaka Election-Mr. Mackenzie King
bring this to the attention of the house; I should be remiss in my duty if I did not do so. I know it may be offered as an excuse that, though the law is there, it cannot be enforced. I disagree with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) when he says that this is a matter that concerns the provincial authorities. He knows as well as I do that when men are arrested for impersonation at election time, in some unaccountable way they get an order from the judge and they are released almost as soon as they are put in. It is this class of men that we have to deal with, and surely we can find some way of seeing that men arrested for these nefarious practices shall be shut up for election day at least. Surely we can find some way of stopping this gang warfare against the honest voters of this Dominion. I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is deeply interested in this matter, and wishes the people of Canada to retain their confidence in our election system. He must realize that as our cities grow and population increases, unless we put a stop to these illegal practices, it will mean that whenever an election is held the party with the most money will get their candidate elected. Surely we can find some remedy for the conditions that have been pointed out to the house by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). I am glad that he has brought this question before the house, because something must be done to remedy present conditions, so that we may know, when we are elected to parliament, that we are elected by the honest votes of the citizens of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not intend to take any part in this debate, but as my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Bell) has made a reference in the nature of a special appeal to myself, possibly I ought to give the house certain facts relevant to the Elections Act which may help to disclose the matter in its true bearing.
My hom. friend has referred to the last general election. He will recall that the last election was conducted by bon. gentlemen opposite, by his own party, and that they were acting under the Elections Act which they themselves placed upon the statutes. The Elections Act as it is in Canada to-day is the act which was brought into this house by hon. gentlemen opposite, I think, in 1920.


Peter McGibbon: Was not that act first-submitted to the approval of the hon. gentleman?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not that I am aware of, no. There was a committee of the house which considered the act, but it was a government of which the hon. gentleman was a supporter that introduced that act into parliament; and it was passed while they were in office. My hon. friend says that the act needs amendment. I agree with him in that. The act of 1920 made certain provisions which it was hoped would have the effect of remedying some of the abuses that had prevailed at election time; among other features that I recall was - a clause that made the returning officers more or less permanent in their positions. But when hon. gentlemen opposite came in for the short time they were in office, a few months, they removed practically every officer and put friends of their own into those positions. So it was under their own act, administered by returning officers whom they themselves-appointed, and in an election which they themselves were conducting, that the alleged deficiencies of the act were exposed.
Mr. BELL. (St. Antoine): I would say that the same charges that I make would refer with equal force to the previous general election. I am not trying to imply that the government is any more responsible for these practices than is our party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend is quite fair in his statement. I agree with the point he has put forward, namely that the Elections Act is capable of distinct improvement, and I may say that it is the intention of the government, at the next session of parliament, to propose improvements in the nature of amendments to the Elections Act. I hope that my hon. friend's objections will be among the number that will then be considered. All I wish to make plain now are the circumstances under which these difficulties that have been mentioned have arisen. Anyone coming into the house during the course of this debate would have imagined as he listened that all the saints were on the other side of the house and that all the sinners were on this side.


Robert James Manion: Was not the Athabaska
election, which was really the point of discussion this afternoon, held in 1925, when my hon. friend was in power?


Ernest Lapointe: That is too clever.
Everybody knows that.


Robert James Manion: The Prime Minister implied differently.

Athabaska Election-Mr. Black (Yukon)


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Like the Prime Minister, I had not intended to say anything in regard to the subject under discussion, but as it is evidently the intention of the house to occupy the greater part of this sitting in discussing this resolution, perhaps I may add a little to the information which hsa already been given to the house by the various speakers.
It is true that this is only the seventh session of parliament that it has been my privilege to attend, but during those sessions I must say that I have been generally filled with admiration for the ability of the present Solicitor General, (Mr. Cannon) to take care of himself in debate. I am sure that other members who have been in the house for the time I have must have been enlivened this afternoon at the unsuccessful attempt of the Solicitor General to extricate himself from the dilemma in which he found himself, due to his unfortunate remark in regard to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). The task was too great even for the adroit Solicitor General. It was as transparent as the smoke screen which he undertook to throw around the inaction of the government in dealing with the matters referred to in this house in connection with the resolution of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland).
I was somewhat surprised that hon. members who have advanced information in regard to what happened in the constituency of Athabaska, Peace River, Montreal and other constituencies, should speak as if that were something new in the history of elections in this country. I can remember as far back as twenty-three years ago when the first federal election was held at which a member was elected to this house from the constituency of Yukon. Up in that territory we had a great conglomerate population. No party lines had been drawn. It was the first occasion on which we had been permitted to send a member here. Feeling ran high. The government was popular in some quarters, and unpopular in others. It was never anticipated that violations of the act such as have been described here this afternoon as happening in the Athabaska constituency would appear in the Yukon in those days, and no particular precautions were taken to guard the polls or to safeguard the interest of the opposition. What happened? From a situation which seemed hopeless from the government standpoint, the government candidate was elected with hundreds of a majority to spare. How was it done? By the most unblushing stuffing of ballot boxes. At polls *where there were not thirty people entitled
to vote, ballot boxes were opened showing two hundred ballots marked for the government candidate, and in some of these boxes there was not even to be found a voters' list. The voters' lists were made up of fictitious names to tally with the number of marked ballots found in the boxes after they arrived in the town of Dawson. At one poll where there were not over forty residents entitled to vote a special train was run in from the Alaskan town of Skagway, filled with longshoremen and gamblers, men who had no right to vote in Canada, and they were voted and revoted until hundreds of ballots had been polled for the government candidate. That was our first experience of a Dominion election in the constituency of Yukon in 1902.
Two years went by and the general election of 1904 oame on. Under the Elections Act of that day there was no provision whereby the enumerators who prepared the voters' lists were obliged to give to anyone but the deputy returning officers copies of the lists. So it was impossible for an elector to know until he went into the polling station on election day whether or not his name was on the list of voters. If it was not there he was out of luck; he had to leave without voting. These enumerators were undertaking to exercise their legal right in witholdimg copies of the lists, but having in mind their experience of two years before, the electors were not in a mood to leave anything to chance. So they formed committees and waited on those enumerators. Law or no law, they demanded copies of the lists, and in several instances those enumerators were induced, by proper persuasion, to produce certified copies. What happened then in the case of the great majority of enumerators?


Mr.   LETELLIER@: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I submit the hon. gentleman is not speaking to the motion before the house. Everyone of us on this side could say a lot about What happened in our constituencies on previous elections.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go to it.


George Black: The balance of
those enumerators, in view of what had happened to their fellows, ran for protection to the barracks of the Northwest Mounted Police at Dawson, seeking protection, as they said, from violence. The only violence that was sought to be done to them was to. demand that they should give the opposition copies of the voters' lists. The officer commanding the Northwest Mounted Police, being entirely impartial and desiring only to keep the peace, was in an awkward predica-
1830	COMMONS
Athabaska Election-Mr. Black (Yukon)
ment. A committee consisting of about one hundred citizens of Dawson waited on him. The committee was composed of men of both shades of politics, Liberal and Conservative, and from all walks of life, clergymen, professional men, labourers, artisans and miners. They made it quite clear to the commanding officer that they required copies of these voters' lists the election being only two days away, and they made it manifest to him that they were going to have these copies. I remember very well-


Hewitt Bostock: I hope that the hon.
member will bring his argument to bear on the motion before the house. It has reference to the Athabaska election.


George Black: I hope so, Mr. Speaker. I am stating those occurrences simply to show how necessary it has been, and is now, that the government give serious attention to the amendment and improvement of the Elections Act. I say I remember very well the words of an eminent Presbyterian divine who was a member of the committee that waited on the officer commanding the mounted police. He explained that he was not there threatening violence, that he was a man of peace, but he pointed out how necessary it was that the public should have copies of the voters' lists in view of what had occurred two years before, and he said:
When I came into this country I did as most men, I brought with me a Winchester rifle, and I have it to-day hanging on the wall of my study. I have plenty of ammunition, and if it becomes necessary in order to get these voters' lists, I am prepared to take that rifle off the wall and use it.
The officer asked the committee to withdraw and to return later in lesser numbers. During their absence he communicated with the government candidate and made it known to him that in his opinion the lists should be produced otherwise he could not be responsible for the lives of certain people in that territory. The upshot was that the lists were produced. It was found that hundreds of opposition names had been deliberately struck off and there and then under the eyes of that committee they were put back on the lists.
To show you, sir, how far some people will go in violation of the election law, at that very same election a poll was established at a point on the Pelly river, some four hundred miles away from Dawson. Nobody lived there. It was made a polling division and a poll was supposed to be held there on election day. What was done? In anticipation of electing the government candidate, a deputy returning officer, a poll clerk and a 
messenger were sent off from Dawson City with ballot boxes and a supply of four hundred ballots. They went up the main trail, thence up the Pelly river for a couple of miles, and camped in a tent a few miles from the telegraph station. What were they to do? They were to wait there until election night, then come down to the telegraph station and find out how many ballots were needed to elect the government candidate; then they were to go back to their camp, make up their list, mark the necessary ballots, come into town with them, and the government candidate would be elected. But their plan did not come off. The people had been warned and two days before the election warrants were sworn out for those men charging them with conspiracy under the criminal code, and they were brought into town under arrest before they could mark their fraudulent ballots. In that way ballot box stuffing was prevented and the opposition candidate was elected. What happened then? Hon. members have expressed surprise that persons involved in the election scandal in Athabaska were not punished, but were allowed to remain in government positions. Well, in Yukon the government candidate himself, who was chiefly responsible for the scandals in those two elections, defeated in 1904, was immediately appointed by the then government to a position of responsibility and substantial remuneration as a reward for his services, as were others. Charges were laid against a large number of officials engaged in that election, and no less than fourteen were sent up for tial on charges of conspiracy. What happened to them? On orders from Ottawa the crown prosecutor nolle prosequi'd in each case and dropped the prosecution.
Though the law needs amendment yet, we do not have election scandals in Yukon any more. Why? Not because of the law, but because public opinion precludes their recurrence, and would-be crooked election officials know what would happen to them if they undertook to repeat their operations of 1902 and 1904. Public opinion is the best remedy for the situation which faces the Dominion to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Hay the second and third reports of the select standing committee on banking and commerce were concurred in.

Questions


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Sydney Franklin Lankin-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of William James Wall-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of George Rubin Sanderowioh, otherwise known as Rubin Sanders-Mr. Geary.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: Will the government refer to the Supreme Court of Canada the question whether in making the decennial readjustment of the representation of each of the several provinces in this house, under the provisions of section 51, of the British North America Act, 1867, the population of the province of Quebec, which should be taken as the basis of such readjustment, is the population of the territorial area of said province as it existed on July 1st, 1867, or the population of the territorial area of said province as it may exist at the time at which such readjustment is made by the parliament of Canada?


Ernest Lapointe: In the opinion of the government no practical purpose would be served by such a reference.


MR. WILLIAM P. MANZEROLLE
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Has William P. Manzerolle of Shippigan, New Brunswick, been dismissed from the position of subcollector of customs at Shippigan, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	Were any charges laid against Mr. Manzerolle, and was any investigation held? If so, by whom?
i. Who asked for his dismissal?
5. Who lias been apointed to his position, and who recommended his appointment?


Mr. EULER:: This question was answered yesterday.


MILITIA PENSION ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (for the Minister of National Defence) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
In regard to reservations from an officer's salary while in the public service of Canada; to the payment of a gratuity to a widow or children in case of death before pension may be granted; and to the payment of pensions to militiamen of His Majesty's army reserve who enlisted in the permanent force; and for additions to apply the Militia Pension Act to the Royal Canadian Navy and to that portion of the Royal Canadian Air Force comprising solely the permanent active air force of Canada.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Is it the intention of the government to table the Friel report, and if so, when?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should prefer to have the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) answer the question. I think he wishes to make a brief statement to the house on the subject.


George Reginald Geary: Did I understand the Prime Minister to say that the Secretary of State would submit a detailed statement with regard to the claims of Canadians for reparations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question of reparations is many sided and there are some rather important considerations which have come before the government in connection with possible legislation which might be necessary at this session. I know the Secretary of State is anxious to proceed with the matter in a manner that will meet with the approval of the house. He does not wish to be unduly pressed; it is his intention to make a statement ito the house of the present position and the intention of the government, but I should prefer to have that statement come from him rather than from myself.


CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) whether it is possible, before the adjournment for the Easter recess, to table the documents in respect of the diversion of water at Chicago?


Charles A. Stewart: I was about to inform the house that we find it will not be possible to have the documents in shape for tabling before the recess. A day or two ago I thought it would be possible but I find that it cannot be done.
Easter Adjournment


BRITISH COLUMBIA LANDS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles A. Stewart: I may answer an inquiry of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie), directed the other day to the government, with respect to the return of lands in British Columbia. It is the intention of the government to enter into negotiations with the British Columbia government during the recess, looking towards an agreement regarding the return of crown and railways lands to that province, and at the next session to submit that agreement for ratification if it can be consummated.


BRITISH IMMIGRANTS-MEDICAL EXAMINATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: In
the absence of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), perhaps the Prime Minister will answer a question regarding the medical examination of British immigrants. In British despatches there is a good deal of criticism on this score. I am not asking this question by way of criticism but merely to bring the matter to the attention of the government. Is the government considering any change in this respect? If the Prime Minister is not ready to answer the question now, will he ask the Minister of Immigration to be ready to make a statement when the estimates of that department are under consideration?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am surprised to gather from my hon. friend's question that the special committee appointed by the house to look into immigration matters has not already taken up that question. My impression was that it was receiving attention. It certainly is one of the matters which the government wishes to have investigated by the committee, and if this has not already been done it will be.


Robert James Manion: I did not know it was being considered, otherwise I would not have asked the question.


HOME BANK DEPOSITORS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Garland McQuarrie: Has any decision been arrived at in regard to further relief to Home Bank depositors?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question is under consideration. If it is decided to give further relief, the fact will appear in the supplementary estimates when they are brought down.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE	.


EASTER ADJOURNMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Halsey Perley: In connection with the Easter adjournment it has been suggested that it might meet the convenience of members if to-morrow the house adjourned at six o'clock instead of sitting in the evening. It has been my experience that on the Friday evening before such an adjournment few members are present either in the city or in the house. Has the Prime Minister considered the question of adjourning at six o'clock?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will depend upon the
progress we make between now and eleven o'clock to-night. There is some legislation we desire to complete before the Easter recess, particularly in relation to the budget. We are near the conclusion of it and if we can make reasonable progress the disposition of the government certainly will be to meet the convenience of hon. members.


THE GOVERNMENT'S LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Halsey Perley: A
few days ago the leader of the opposition inquired from the Prime Minister as to when the government would be able to announce the further legislation which they might expect to bring down this session. At that time I understood the Prime Minister to say that he would be able to make such an announcement in a few days, and as our leader is not very well and is not in the house to-day, I thought I would ask my right hon. friend when he would be able to make that announcement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I first say to my
hon. friend that personally, and speaking for this side of the house, I regret the reason of the absence of the hon. the leader of the opposition. I hope his present indisposition will speedily disappear.
In regard to the business of the session I am happy to tell my hon. friend that mention of all the legislation which the government intends to bring down this session now appears on the order paper or will appear in

C.N.R.-Debenture Stock
the votes and proceedings of to-day. I do not think it will be necessary to announce any other legislation. Of course I should like it understood that this does not apply to legislation arising out of reports of committees of this house; there will, for example, probably be some legislation arising out of the recommendations of the committee which is considering soldiers' pensions and from other committees. That is always understood. There may also be further supplementary estimates. I would not like to say that there may not arise some legislation which at present cannot be foreseen but the need for which may later on appear. Apart from these reservations I think hon. members will be able to find the remainder of the legislative program in its entirety in print in the morning.


MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR RETURNED SOLDIERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria, B.C.):: I
wish to ask the government if they have received copies of a resolution passed unanimously at the last session of the legislature of British Columbia asking that free medical treatment, medicine and hospitalization be provided by the government for all returned soldiers who are in need of the same, and if any action is being taken thereon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I am unable
to answer at the moment my hon. friend's question, but I will direct it to the attention of the Minister of Health (Mr. King), and doubtless he will give my hon. friend an answer after the Easter recess.
HOLLINGER MINE DISASTER On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to
the thirty-nine men killed in the Hollinger mine disaster, the jury found that the fire was due to gross negligence on the part of the Hollinger management and the operating executive. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) whether he would consider amending the criminal code in order that its provisions and penalties might more adequately cover this class of crime.


Hewitt Bostock: I think this question is
of too serious a character to be answered immediately. This could serve as a notice, and the Minister of Justice might answer it to-morrow.


Ernest Lapointe: I have no objection to saying that
the suggestion of my hon. friend will be considered.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 153, respecting the Canadian National Railways and respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company five per cent income charge convertible debenture stock.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee, thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 to 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Lost or destroyed certificates.
George Halsey Perley: What happens in this instance if the certificates do not come in within the year?


Charles Avery Dunning: The usual provision with regard to furnishing indemnity for a lost certificate is included between lines 30 and 35 of the section.


George Halsey Perley: But if some of
the certificates do not come in I see it is provided that the money deposited with the trustee shall be paid to the issuing company. That is the Canadian National Railways, I take it?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Are the rights
of these people lost then, or can they obtain redress and have the matter straightened up afterwards?


Charles Avery Dunning: - The trustees are discharged, and of course the claim of the holders would be against the issuing company. This is the usual provision in England and is quite satisfactory to the holders of the bonds.


George Halsey Perley: Is this bill satisfactory to the holders of the bonds?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, they have accepted it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 9 agreed to
C.N.R.-Debenture Stock
[Stage Direction]
On section 10-Limit to the amount of the new securities.
George Halsey Perley: This amount to be raised is 94 per cent of the present face value of the old securities?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Proceeds of new securities to be deposited to credit of Minister of Finance in trust; accounts to be closed after three months.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the Minister of Railways explain why only three months is allowed?


Charles Avery Dunning: The point involved there with respect to the moneys which may not be taken up by the holders of the shares within three months after the arrangement is completed and authorized. In other sections of the act provision is made for the discharge of the trustees, and claims of the holders from that time forward, of course, would be against the issuing company and not against the trustees.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is understood, is it?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, that is understood.


George Halsey Perley: I notice in
another clause the trustees are discharged on the expiration of a year. In this instance the money is to be paid to the issuing company at the end of three months.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry that I made a mistake in answering my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George. These bonds are of Canadian registry and also of British registry. We have only in each case an approximate idea of the amount required at each place where, according to the terms of the bonds, this payment may be made. This provision is merely in order to enable that to be adjusted. There is a limitation under the previous section on the amount of money which may be raised. This section, I may say, is quite satisfactory, as the whole settlement is, to the holders of the bonds.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
On section 14-Agreements for purchase, lease or amalgamation.
George Halsey Perley: What is the
object of this clause?


Charles Avery Dunning: It has been the objective of both the management and the government to reduce the number of companies comprised within the Canadian National system as fast as it may be practicable to do so. I do not know if it is generally known, but the Canadian National railway system comprises at the present time between ninety and one hundred companies; and whenever we are dealing with an issue of securities which has a relationship to one of the companies comprised in that system, the legal officers make a practice of examining the relationship of that company to the whole system and making the necessary legal provision to enable such forward steps as may be practicable to be taken or bring about amalgamation as time goes on.


George Halsey Perley: I can quite understand that object, it seems to be quite a proper thing to do. But surely that is covered by the general act. I doubt the wisdom of inserting a clause like this in a bill of this kind for the specific purpose of arranging with the holders of these particular securities. This last clause does not seem to have anything to do with the remainder of the bill. Have the Canadian National Railways not got the power now to do this very thing? Is there no general act which gives them the power? Does not the Canadian National Railway Act give it to them?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, but the relationship to this particular trust deed is a legal one. There is an amalgamation arrangement contemplated by the trust deed in connection with this particular issue of securities for this particular company. That is why, I am advised, the legal officers thought it as well to insert here the clause of which my hon. friend has spoken and which, as he says, gives a power similar to that which the company has under the general act. The section starts with the words which relate to this particular issue of bonds:
After payment is made to the trustees under the provisions of clause 5 of the scheme of arrangement, the National Company, the Northern Company-
And so on. The reason is that this particular trust deed which will be eliminated by -this arrangement does contain provision for the amalgamation of the companies which comprise the Canadian Northern system into one company. I am sorry that I cannot elucidate the legal point any better than that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is not intended under this clause to effect any general consolidation of these lines?

Income War Tax Act


Charles Avery Dunning: Not any more than is
provided elsewhere.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is intended to keep them segregated as they were previously segregated before this financial transaction was carried through?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is satisfactory to me.
On the schedule.


George Halsey Perley: I should like
to ask in what way the holders of this stock gave their assent to this legislation.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have here, Mr. Chairman, a copy of the proceedings at a meeting of the holders of the bonds held in London on the 15th day of November last under the *chairmanship of Sir Gilbert Gamsey, chairman of the stockholders' committee:	There
is complete record of the transactions of that meeting, and resolutions were passed specifically approving of the scheme of arrangement. I may say that we have been scrupulously careful-I am speaking now for the railway company rather than for the Department of Finance; this is of course a Department of Finance matter-but so far as the railway company is concerned, we have been scrupulously careful to keep the London committee of the bondholders advised of every step that has been taken, including the contents of this bill, because we have thought at was wholly desirable that no misunderstanding should arise which would tend to impair the credit of Canada in the old land.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I presume that the scheme
*of arrangement which is being carried out is by virtue of *the provisions contained in the original trust deed under which the stock was issued.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would not say that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well then, in the proceedings at London did an authorized majority confirm these proceedings?-I will put it in that way.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I will give the exact proportion in a moment, but it was in excess of the necessary proportion, I can assure my hon. friend friend of that.


George Halsey Perley: Section 3 says
the arrangement was passed unanimously at that meeting.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think it is clear then that in accordance with the terms of the trust deed under which this debenture stock was issued the assent of the required majority was given to this financial arrangement?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And I presume that the
attorneys of the national railways have carefully inspected those proceedings and approved of them?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On its face it shows that the course of procedure was regular.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.	.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EUL^R (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of Bill No. 156, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
George Halsey Perley: May I say, Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion, that the next thing I think we ought to do is to take steps to reduce the temperature of this chamber? The place is too warm.


Hewitt Bostock: I will ask the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms to take note of that. The hon. member expresses, I think the general feeling of the members, because for days the same condition has prevailed. I will see that proper instructions are given in the matter.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I desire to take a few minutes of the time of the house in order to make a statement in regard to the second reading of this bill. The members in this comer of the house believe in the principle of income taxation and we feel that at the present time the govern-

Income War Tax Act

ment is going a little too far in reducing the personal income tax to the extent that is proposed in this bill. In 1926, some three years ago, there was a general reduction in the income tax; the schedule was materially reduced all round and certain further exemptions were given. Last year another reduction was made and additional exemption granted. This year it is proposed still further to reduce the income tax and 'also to allow further exemptions. We in this corner of the house, remembering the fact that this is a war tax act and that the different war tax acts now in existence do not produce enough revenue to take care of the expenses incidental to the war, are of opinion that the government is going, as I stated before, a little too fast in the matter. We believe the government could well give consideration to reductions in taxation m other forms which would enure to the benefit of the consumer generally. The organized farmers of Canada believe in the income tax as a fair measure of taxation. I should like to read to the house a resolution passed by the Canadian Council of Agriculture at their session of April 4, 5 and 6 of last year, dealing with the income tax. The resolution reads.
Resolved that this council recognizing the continuing need for the maintenance of stnct economy in public expenditure and for reduction in the national debt, with its heavy burden of interest, urges the Dominion government to do everything possible to serve these ends,
alBe it further resolved that reductions in taxation, as they become possible, should take place by the reduction and removal of protective duties on imports in preference to the reduction of other indirect taxes but that the income tax ought to be maintained as one of the chiet sources of public revenue. The council is oi opinion that the reduction successively made in the income tax and the increase in exemptions have tended seriously to impair its equity and productivity whereas it ought to be rendered both more equitable in its incidence and more general in its application by progressive improvements in the assessment and collection of the tax. The council suggests that inquiry into the methods and machinery of income taxation in Canada and elsewhere should be conducted by the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation with a view to the adoption of such improvements.
So far as I am aware the question of taxation has not been referred to the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation, but I wish to state in a few words the position we are going to take on this bill. It is quite possible that the government may propose some amendments when the bill gets into committee. If those amendments are acceptable to us, we shall be delighted. If they are not acceptable to us, we desire to inform the house that while it is usual to accept the principle of a bill on the second reading, [Mr. Gardiner.l
we wish to reserve our right to see what further proposals tihe government may make, and if they make no further proposals, then we intend to vote against the bill on the third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Corporations and joint stock companies. Rate reduced.
George Halsey Perley: I want to take
this opportunity of saying a few words again about the present system of taxing incomes of corporations, making the corporation pay a tax and then making the individual receiving dividends from the same corporation pay another tax. I am not referring to the super taxes; I am referring only to the normal taxes. We had this question up for discussion last year, but we could not make any impression on the minister. As a matter of fact, my own idea is that- the present system is very bad for business in this country, because if a man makes an investment in a business corporation he knows that not only will the profits of the company be taxed, but that afterwards any dividends he may receive from the company will also be taxed. The argument has been made that an investor receiving an income from one of the large prosperous corporations like the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, for instance, ought to pay income tax on his dividends even though the railroad company has already paid a tax on its profits. But consider how it works out in the case of a new company. We will say that a number of people are considering getting together and putting up their money for the purpose of starting a new business. They are met at once with this difficulty, that if the business is not a success they lose their money; if it is a success, then the joint stock ' company, under section two of this bill, will be called upon to pay income tax upon its profits, and afterwards the individual stockholder will also have to pay income tax on the dividends he receives. Considering the application of this tax in connection with an old established company rather beclouds the issue, but I want to submit that double taxation is a vicious principle, and it can never be defended. It prevents many people from going into new enterprises, because if the enterprise is not a success they lose their money, and if it is a success the government steps in and taxes them twice, once on the profits of the company and again on the dividends the stockholders receive. It is too late, I sup-


192S
[Stage Direction]
Income War Tax Act
pose, to have any change made this year, but I want to reiterate what I said last year, that I am sure it is a bad principle. All I suggest is that the individual holder of company stocks should be exempt from the normal tax on the dividends he receives from companies which themselves are paying a tax on their profits.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In the United States I
understand that there is no double taxation of this kind. There, I am instructed, the business tax is charged. It is somewhat higher than in this country, but the individual stockholder is not charged income tax a second time upon the revenues of the company. That, I understand, is correct, is it not? That being the case, I think it is wise, as the hon. member for Argenteuil has pointed out, that we should carefully consider whether we are not in that respect doing an injustice to the Canadian stockholder. It means that in many cases the foreign resident can invest in and control Canadian enterprises simply because he is not paying in Canada a second tax upon the income of that Canadian corporation which is exacted from the Canadian resident who is also a stockholder in the company. Foreign residents are obtaining control of a large proportion of the natural resources of this country. When the democratic party in the United States had their last convention they passed a resolution, a copy of which I have in my office, urging that as a national policy the financial men of the United States should obtain control in the neighbouring foreign countries of all those sources of supply of natural products which are necessary to the promotion of industry in the United States. The United States Department of Commerce, through its present very able secretary, Mr. Hoover, has time and time again urged upon the financial interests of that country that they should go out into the world, and particularly into Canada and Mexico, and obtain control of the sources of supply of those natural products which are necessarily imported into the United States for the promotion of American industry. They have done so in this country to a very large extent. At the present time the Americans control the great bulk of our asbestos production, in which, except for South Africa, we have practically a monopoly. They have control of our nickel production. They have control of the chief industries on this Ottawa river. They control the pulp and paper industry, and they control what is one of the great natural products of this country, hydro electric power along the river. They are acquiring control of hydro electric powers in
56103-117J
other sections of Canada, and they are using the control they exercise over companies in Canada for the purpose of preventing the carrying of the raw products of Canada through the various processes of manufacture in Canada, inasmuch as they control those raw products from their sources. They export them to the United States and use them there in the manufacture of goods which they send back into Canada for consumption. It is not a question of a protective tariff. I do not know just how we could meet it by an export tax without retaliation from the United States, but we should not encourage that process by taxing the Canadian stockholder in such industries twice while the American, who is carrying our raw products across the border to supply American industry, is free from double taxation in Canada. If the government will obtain the statistics which are available to them of the gradually increasing control which the Americans are obtaining of our raw products for manufacture, they will see that some advantage should be given by reducing the double tax on Canadians, which will induce the Canadian investor to invest more of his money in the stock of Canadian companies which are producing the raw materials in Canada. I do not know whether I have made myself clear, but the matter is really a serious one.
I know that some hon. gentlemen smile when I refer to some eight or nine years experience in Mexico, but the control by American financiers of the sources of raw material in Mexico has resulted in Mexico becoming a source of supply for other countries, and nearly the whole population of Mexico, dealing with the people generally, are simply receiving ordinary labourers' wages, while the people of other countries are enriched by converting those raw materials into manufactured articles. And that is going on in Canada, Mr. Chairman. I do not wish to deal with it now, perhaps next session I may do so, but I regard it as a matter most prejudicial to the interests of this country, and one that must be considered and met. Our financial men are buying back from foreign countries Canadian bonds which we might well sell abroad, and they are taking their money out of Canadian companies because of the double taxation which we exact from Canadian stockholders.


George Halsey Perley: Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue will give us his idea on the subject, he having had a lot to do with the collection of this taxation.
Income War Tax Act

i8i5S


William Daum Euler: I appreciate very fully the arguments advanced by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). But I should like to make a correction. He is not entirely right with regard to the exemption of the American shareholder from double taxation. I am informed that in the case of incomes of $5,000 and over the dividends of the American shareholder are taxable just the same as in Canada; in fact more so, because in Canada as a result of protests that were made against double taxation, we did establish what is known as the family corporation, which I think has given a good deal of relief.


George Halsey Perley: That is correct.


William Daum Euler: On the other hand, the American corporation is taxed 13J per cent against our 8 per cent.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I admit that.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps a change should be made later on, but I do not like to speak definitely in the absence of the Minister of Finance. However, so far as this taxation is concerned, it is not very much to the disadvantage of the Canadian taxpayer.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I admit that the corporation tax in the United States is slightly higher than ours.


William Daum Euler: Five and a half per cent higher.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is a measure before congress now I believe to reduce it, but still it will be in excess of our own. But that is an inducement to the American company to reincorporate a branch in Canada. That is the advantage which induces them to do so. 'Then, having established their business as a [DOT]Canadian corporation, the American shareholders of Canadian companies are placed in a much better position than the Canadian stockholders of similar companies.^ I do not wish to be dogmatic or assertive, but I regard this matter as one which must be considered in view of the fact that year by year the sources of supply of our mineral, pulp, and timber and other raw products are coming under American control. The Americans control the product from the time it is produced in Canada in the rawest form until they send it right across the border into their own factories and by various processes of manufacture enhance its value ten, twenty, even one hundred times; then they send the manufactured products back to us, having given employment in the meantime to American labour at the expense of Canadian labour. I am not discussing this in a party sense, I

am not discussing the tariff, but I am calling attention to a program endorsed by a great political convention in the United States and urged by the Secretary of Commerce of the United States time and again in official pronouncements, of which I have copies but not with me to-night. That policy has been urged upon American financiers as necessary in order to sustain for the future the various manufacturing industries of the United States which, having exhausted or partly exhausted their own sources of supply of raw materials have now to depend upon Mexico to the south and Canada to the north. It is a very serious question, and I think the double taxation of Canadian shareholders affects it very materially. I am not protesting against the measure,
I am simply in all sincerity calling it to the attention of the government.


George Halsey Perley: Mr. Chairman, if the government are considering seriously the alteration of this double taxation at the next session, I should like to put forward another argument why I think it is a mistake. Take a Canadian with money to invest. We all agree that it should be invested in this country. He has to consider whether he will invest the money in a company or put it into bonds. If he puts it into bonds he has only one tax to pay. But let us assume that a dozen of us here were considering taking stock in a company. Each one of us naturally would say to himself; if we go into this company together, and it makes profits, the company will have to pay income tax on those profits, and then each of us personally will have to pay income tax on our individual share of those profits; perhaps we had better put our money into bonds. I submit for the minister's consideration whether it dots not militate against the development of our own resources by Canadians who have money to spare for investment.


Mr. EVANS:: W'ith regard to this proposed reduction, one would think that the income tax, which is almost the only tax by which revenue is raised in a direct way, would be fostered by the government of any country so that it might be paid by those best able to pay. Britain gives us a very good example in this line. She has been long populated to the limit, and she has had to calculate very closely the incidence of taxation. She believes that the place to look for revenue is where the money is, and not to try to collect it from those who are on the verge of penury, as is the case to-day with many of the agriculturists and wage earners of this country. In Britain it is a penny up or a penny down in the

Income War Tax Act
pound, according as the needs and circumstances of the country call for an advance or a reduction in the income tax. The policy of our government, it seems to me, is avowedly to put a line of cleavage more clear and distinct than ever between the idle rich and the wage earners. The same conditions apply at the present time as when the income tax was first imposed. The class for whom the war debt was incurred, that is the war profiteers, is now getting out of paying its just share, while the man who bore the brunt of battle and had to face death in the trenches is still to be taxed on his necessaries in order to furnish tax-free bonds for this same class. Moreover, he must still submit, when he purchases the necessaries of life, to prices above all comparison with those charged in other countries. Nothing is done by the government to lower the cost of living, but a substantial reduction is again made in favour of those who skyrocketed prices during the war.
Agriculture is in bad shape to-day in Canada. The farmers have had to submit to having their products set at about 50 per cent of the value which they should bear in comparison with the prices which were skyrocketed by every other concern producing in Canada during those years of anguish. Those concerns fixed their prices without let or hindrance and ran this country into debt to the tune of about two billions. So bad did the Liberal party consider the profiteering which then took place that in 1915 they insisted upon an investigation by the public accounts committee, and the scandal in connection with horses, surgical supplies, binoculars, bicycles, shovels, motor trucks and so forth, forms the subject of a pamphlet which I think Canada should blush to read at this time. This booklet is entitled "The War Contracts Scandal'' and was published by the central information office of the Canadian Liberal party. It is dated Ottawa, May, 1915. And these very men whose doings were investigated are, in this budget, relieved of the payment of their just share of what I might well term their ill-gotten gain. The supplies were purchased or were not purchased-no one knows. One of the first things complained of was a bill for over 81,000,000 which, without even an order in council, was incurred for goods which were supposed to have been purchased. Those who made these war fortunes are now to be relieved of income tax, while the farmer who had to be content with a set price on wheat during those years is still to be fleeced for the sake of that one class in the country.
Adam Smith once made a statement which will bear repetition to-day:
Ihe subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
This principle cannot be challenged, though it is customarily ignored and violated by governments beholden to the specially privileged for their retention of power.
Even the large daily newspapers have commented upon this feature of the budget and some of them have spoken against this action taken by the government. The organized farmers of western Canada have long advocated the income tax as one of thei means of direct taxation for raising the revenue of the country, and the organ of the United Farmers of Alberta has lately come forward with this statement against such class discrimination :
The reduction of the income tax by a further 10 per cent on personal income and from 9 to 8 per cent on corporations, as announced by the Finance Minister in the House of Commons last week, is a starkly reactionary feature of the budget. . . The reductions in the income tax are discriminatory against the great body of Canadian citizens, and in a special sense in favour of a small body of citizens who are fortunate in having very large incomes-in favour of the class, in fact, who provide most of the campaign funds of the political parties. The estimated revenue from customs dues for the newT fiscal year is $153,600,000; the estimated revenue from income tax $55,300,000. The former duties are paid by every family in the Dominion, not in proportion to their ability to pay, but in proportion to their purchases. The head of an average family in Canada, whether he be farmer, wage worker, or business or professional man of moderate means, pays a far larger sum yearly into the federal treasury through customs duties than in income tax.
This means that every struggling wage earner pays taxes on his necessaries of life, skimping his wife and family of those necessaries in order to swell the coffers of the profiteers, those who are responsible for the great burden of debt which we now have hanging over our head. The policy of this government is not to place a tax on those best able to pay it, but to find the easiest means to filch the earnings of workers in a way in which they hope they may not be caught.
No notice seems to have been taken of the protest from this corner of the house. The government smiles to-day in stoic complacency, born of a feeling of security in the knowledge of the helplessness of the class which we in this comer of the house represent.
Income War Tax Act


Charles Avery Dunning: I rise to a point of
order. The hon. member is evidently reading a set speech.


John Evans: I am reading only parts of
it which I copied from certain papers. I may inform the hon. gentleman that part of what I have read was copied from War Contract Scandals, a Liberal propagandist paper published in 1915.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: It is a good
book, but this is no time to read it.


John Evans: Another quotation is from
the Journal of the United Farmers of Alberta. The plea that the income tax drives capital from the country is not well founded. In fact, foreign investors to-day find in Canada a very profitable place to invest money. Some of the finest of our natural resources are passing into foreign hands because our own capitalists do not see fit, or have not enterprise enough, to invest in these resources. Indeed, if I were to comment on their attitude towards the north country it seems to me that the Canadian people and the investors themselves are practically victims of their own propaganda in running down that northern country. The result is that we are witnessing to-day the humiliating spectacle of having our natural resources pass into foreign hands. The income tax is the fairest means of raising revenue, and it should be increased rather than diminished at this time. I could not, therefore, let this matter pass without making this protest.


Mr. GLEN:: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


James Allison Glen: Allow me to finish my argument and I will answer the question. Surely that corporation is not afraid of the present taxation in Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would my hon. friend allow me a question now? He is entirely misrepresenting me. Does he not realize that that American corporation, the Flin Flon company, will not pay double taxation, since its stockholders will not pay income tax on a single dollar of its dividends in Canada?


James Allison Glen: I do not say this in respect
of the dividends paid to residents of the United States.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They have the advantage
over us, because they pay one tax while we pay two.


Mr.   ELDER@: If they reside in Canada that argument will not apply.


James Allison Glen: Surely the hon. member does
not say that those persons in receipt of dividends from a corporation located in Canada are not paying income tax in their own country?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Many of them are not.


James Allison Glen: If they are subject to the provisions of the income tax laws of the United States certainly they will have to pay that tax. Apart from that, however, if capital is being driven out of the United States because of taxation, it is coming into Canada and starting large projects, so evidently it is not afraid of
Income War Tax Act

the taxation it is likely to meet in this Dominion. Therefore I say I have no sympathy with the argument of the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George. The man who has an income sufficient to bring him under the provisions of the Income Tax Act certainly should make his contribution. Sometimes it is said that the farmers of the west are protesting against income tax reduction because they do not pay the income tax. There is a mighty good reason why they do not pay income tax; it is because they have not sufficient income to do so. Therefore I am taking this point of view on the general principle of income tax- that any further reductions made by this government, or any government, will be bitterly opposed by the representatives and the members from the west. The whole sentiment of the west is against it. The people out there realize that if that source of revenue is removed and has to be made up again it will certainly be done at their expense. For that reason we are very sorry indeed to see the reduction that has been made, and we do hope that we will get some clear cut expression from the Minister of Finance now while we are on this matter as to what the intentions of the government are for the future.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would like to ask the minister, before this clause passes, whether in its amended form it will impose a tax on the income of the wheat pool. If it will not apply to that organization, why is not the law so amended that the wheat pool, which is one of the most profitable organizations in Canada, will pay its fair share of income tax?


William Daum Euler: The proposed legislation will not make any change with regard to the liability of the wheat pool. What that liability is we are not absolutely certain. As my hon. friend, who is a lawyer, knows, the matter is at present sub judice; it is in the courts.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If there has been any doubt about it in the past why should we not amend the law so as to make it apply clearly and definitely in this case?


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend surely would not want us to amend the law in this case because we had to go to court to establish the validity of the law in some other matter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The minister is amending the law so as to reach a whole class of people who, it is alleged, have escaped taxation in the past. Now if the wheat pool has up to the present escaped taxation, and there is a doubt whether
[Mr. Glen. [
the law applies to them, why not make the necessary amendment, particularly as the minister is dealing with a large class of persons who, it is alleged, are escaping taxation?


Mr. MILLAR:: The wheat pool do not make any profit. They are a group of farmers engaged in selling their own products.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is no corporation in
this country that is making a profit in that sense. The wheat pool makes its profit and distributes it amongst its members. That is exactly what occurs in any organization, whether incorporated or unincorporated.


Robert Gardiner: For several years we
have heard the argument here that the corporation income tax is too high and that it is keeping capital out of the country. I was rather interested in the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Cahan) in that regard. Evid-enly because of the fact that our corporation income tax is lower than it is in the United States, we are getting more capital from that country than our hon. friends seem to want to come in from that source. That is another huge bubble that has burst with a huge crack. I should like to say with regard to the wheat pool that there are no profits made in that organization at all. It consists of a number of farmers who have joined together in a co-operative way to sell the product of their labour, and all they get out of the wheat pool is the price received for the wheat after it has been sold. They make no profit at all. Therefore the wheat pool is not in the same position as a corporation which manufactures goods and makes a profit in its business. Cooperative organizations in the old country have been exempt from income taxation because of the fact that they are nonprofitmaking concerns. Probably the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has not yet had the opportunity of studying how these pools are organized and how they work, but if he has any idea in his head that the wheat pool is liable or should be liable for income taxation, I should like him to inform himself properly on the subject.


Mr. BROWN:: There is a difference
between the United Grain Growers and the wheat pool. The United Grain Growers, handling wheat as they do, make profits and do pay income tax. The wheat pool is an entirely different kind of organization, and handling wheat as it does without any profits it is entirely out of the question that it should be considered as coming within the range of taxation.

Income War Tax Act


Robert Gardiner: I would ask the
minister whether there has been any collection of arrears of income tax during last year, and if so what the amount is?


William Daum Euler: There has been a very considerable collection, and if possible I will ascertain the amount.


Mr. COOTE:: I want to say a word on
behalf of those engaged in farming and ranching in this country in connection with the operation of the income tax as it is at present. These men are engaged in a business the profits from which are largely determined by conditions over which they have no control, very largely climatic conditions. They may incur heavy losses for a period of years, and then the following year may make a profit on which they must pay income tax, although that profit is in no case sufficient to cover the losses they sustained in previous years. I think a good many cases of actual hardship are occuring under the act as it is at present drawn and administered, and I should like to urge the minister to take into serious consideration the question of changing the income tax so that the assessment of profits may be made on the basis of three years operations at least. In connection with the question of income tax, I should like to present to the house a resolution passed at the annual convention of the Western Live Stock Growers. It reads as follows:
Whereas agriculture and its attendant industry of live stock production represent the basic industry of this Dominion and as such require the greatest attention and development and expansion;
And whereas taxation of income under the provisions of the Income War Tax Act is based on annual net profit or gratuity;
And whereas this method of taxation on a yearly return is inequitable and detrimental to the advancement of agriculture and live stock production for the following reasons,-
(a)	That production of live stock as to quantity and quality is dependent upon climatic conditions.
(b)	The annual expense of live stock production is often made excessive by adverse climatic conditions.
fc) The annual profit of production of live stock is controlled largely by climatic as well as by market conditions.
(d)	That an annual conversion of the live
stock product into cash is frequently impossible.	.
(e)	That frequently several years of excessive yearly costs are experienced between the year of production and the year of marketing the live stock product.
(f)	That the profit on conversion of the live stock product into cash in any one year is frequently the result of two or more years of preparation and expenditure.
(g)	That frequently such profit is actually wiped out by the expenditures and costs of preparation of the immediately two or more preceding years.
Therefore be it resolved that the Dominion government be asked to change its present method of determining taxable income so that from the taxable income for any one year there shall be deducted the net loss if any for the immediately preceding three year period.
That resolution is exactly in line with the request which I have already made to the minister.
Before I sit down I should like again to make the suggestion which I made in the debate on the budget, namely, that the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation should be authorized or instructed to inquire very carefully into the proposal which is made by the live stock producers that the assessment of income tax should be based on a period covering three or fouir years' operation. The present method is certainly working a distinct hardship on many men who are engaged in different branches of agriculture. It may be urged that this change should extend to other businesses as well. I am not prepared to express an opinion on that; I am conversant only with the agricultural industry, and I certainly think, so far as it is concerned, a change in the act is highly desirable and would be much more in the interest of the country than this continual reduction year after year in the rates of payment under the Income Tax Act.


Robert Gardiner: Before the clause carries, will the minister give me an answer to my question?


William Daum Euler: I have not been able to get the information. The hon. member's question was as to what amount of arrears of income tax was collected in the last year. I cannot give the exact figure but it has been a substantial amount, This might throw some light on the matter, but it is not at all conclusive: Last year the Income Tax branch collected about $9,000,000 more than in the year before, although there was, as the committee knows, a reduction of ten per cent in the tax. That amount is not- all attributable, of course, to the collection of arrears, although some of it is. I am sorry I have not the information. but I will get it.


Robert Gardiner: I would ask the minister to have that information available when his estimates come before the house, because it is rather important. I should be glad if he could give us the amount of arrears collected in the last three years and any information with regard to the reasons why these amounts were in arrears.
Income War Tax Act
COMMONS [DOT]


George Gibson Coote: What is the rate of income tax on corporations in Great Britain?


William Daum Euler: Four shillings in the pound. The hon. member suggested a few minutes ago that in Canada we adopt the plan of averaging the profits of three years. That plan was in operation in Great Britain but it was abandoned. It was found not to be as workable as might appear at first glance.


Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: Has
there been any assessment of the wheat pools, and if so, what is the amount?


Mr. ROBB:: As regards the amount, the hon. member knows that under the act this is absolutely secret; that the minister is not permitted to say what the assessment would be on the wheat pool any more than on the income of any individual.


William Daum Euler: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. I am not giving the amount, but an assessment has been made.
'Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Depletion between lessor and lessee.


Mr. HANSON:: I think this is a very fair clause, as I read it, but in the case of mines where the crown in the right of the province is the lessor, will the lessee suffer any loss in relation to the matter of depletion or exhaustion?


William Daum Euler: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the allowance all go to the lessee? This is important in New Brunswick where all mines belong to the crown and are operated on a royalty basis. Of course the operators are given a depletion allowance.


William Daum Euler: It will all go to the lessee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Information to be given as to payments.
Richard Burpee Hanson: We ought to have an
elaborate explanation of this clause from the minister. I have read it with care, and I am afraid the minister is going to have a great deal of trouble in carrying it out. I have some sjunpathy with the object he has in view; but if he is after the holder of bearer bonds, for instance, the man who cashes coupons of bearer bonds, he is going to have difficulty in collecting or even in getting information. Furthermore he is going to put

a terrible burden on companies which have bond issues outstanding, all of which in the first instance are issued to bearer. They may be registered as to principal and it would be easy to make a return on that, but it is manifestly impossible for a municipality whose bonds are always issued to bearer to give the department any information.


William Daum Euler: I quite agree with the hon.
member's statement that there will be great difficulty, in obtaining all the information we would like to have. But by this we intend to get the power to make these inquiries and to secure information so far as we can. As the act stands now, in the case of dividends or salaries paid to employees that information must be given to the department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And very exact information.


William Daum Euler: Very good; but we also
suspect, in fact we know that in many cases incomes are received by way of, we will say, interest or annuities, or something of that sort, which are never reported to the department. As the law stands now we have no authority to compel people to disclose information which might enable us to collect the tax, and we are taking the authority to enable us to oblige people to give us such information as we may desire. If the department suspects that in certain quarters the information is not being supplied as it should be, this will at least give us the power to secure that information if it is at all possible to get it. The hon. member will admit that, while this will not enable us to get all sources of income we might like to get, we shall at least have some power and authority to get something more than we are getting now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a confession of
weakness at the start.


William Daum Euler: If the hon. member can
suggest some other method of making the clause more complete and certain, I should be glad to have it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The first part of subsection 5 of section 7 reads:
All persons in whatever capacity acting, making payment of -interest, royalties, rents, annuities, compensation, remuneration or other fixed or determinable amounts, such as interest upon bonds, mortgages, deeds of trust or other similar obligations-
-shall be compelled to make a return. But the second part provides that:
All persons in whatever capacity acting-

Income War Tax Act
And so on.
-making	payments under contracts,
whether written or verbal, relating to the buying and selling and otherwise dealing in stocks, bonds, debentures, mortgages, hypothecs, and other similar securities-
-shall also make a return. Does that mean that every stockbroker who buys or sells stocks under a verbal or written order shall report to the government all such purchases and sales?


William Daum Euler: No.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I admit that the language
must perhaps be broad in order to cover all the minister has in mind, but I should like him to tell us what he has in mind.


William Daum Euler: Generally speaking, what we are endeavouring to obtain is this. In the case of brokers dealing in stocks and bonds and who are making, as we know, profits which we have not been able to get at, who have a systematic scheme of making profits, we shall have authority to go in and obtain the information to tax them. It is not intended that they shall make a report of every individual sale or purchase they make. There might be a hundred or more a day, and it would be impossible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are we to infer that the
bond dealers are not making proper returns of their incomes?


William Daum Euler: No, it is the bond dealer's
customer who may be in the business of buying and selling stocks through a broker until it has become practically his vocation, his main source of income. It is not the man who just makes an occasional profit by buying and selling of stock and bonds.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: Would the minister
kindly elucidate the reporting which is required under the first part of this clause? How far would he put that into effect? As the Minister knows, there are already in vogue two systems of reporting, one in England, where the payor deducts a given rate of income tax, and the other in the United States, where the report is made by the payor to the government and income tax assessed on that by the government. In Canada there seems to be no reporting except in the case of salaries, dividends, directors' fees, and that sort of thing, which are easily ascertainable. It occurs to me that the minister is broadening this clause so that all income will have to be reported. Will the minister kindly elucidate that?


William Daum Euler: It is intended to give the
minister fairly wide powers. I do not think * it is the intention to make everybody report.
The clause says, "on such forms and at such times as the minister may prescribe." The minister is not going to be unreasonable in this matter, but where he has reason to think that it is advisable in the interests of the revenue, he can demand these returns. He might perhaps fix a certain amount. This clause at least gives the minister power to demand these returns, but of course, it is not intended to use that power in any unreasonable wray.


Robert Charles Matthews: The difficulty with the Canadian income tax is that it is not enforced. I think if the minister is going to make a provision for reporting, it should be watertight and everybody who makes payments should have to report, or else leave it alone; and the same in regard to bond coupons; the reporting should be complete, or leave it alone.	.


William Daum Euler: Is the hon. member advocating that in every instance the department should insist upon these reports being made? He speaks of making it watertight. Does he mean that we should exercise no discretion whatever in the matter, but insist upon every one of the persons here indicated making a report? I am simply trying to get the idea of the hon. member.


Robert Charles Matthews: I am asking the minister what is in his mind. If I make a payment to a man, and it involves a profit, am I to report it? If so, has every payment of the kind to be reported. I think we are letting ourselves in for a great deal of trouble here. The enforcement of the income tax is the greatest problem relating to the income tax to-day. I do not think we should criticize very much the reduction in the income tax, if that reduction results in an increase in income, but when you come to thJ reporting I think you should either adopt it completely or leave it alone.


William Daum Euler: Something is left to the
discretion of the minister, and if he does not insist on as complete a system of reporting as the house thinks there should be, I have no doubt that he will be subjected to criticism at the next session.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is not the objection of the hon. member for Toronto East Centre this, that you are placing it in the control of the minister to discriminate as between those who will make returns? This clause allows the minister or the officers of his department to select a certain few. They may take the men on a certain list and enforce the provision as against them, while it is not generally enforced. It seems to me that the burden
Income War Tax Act

of the complaint of the member for Toronto East Centre is that you should state specifically the nature of the returns you require, and from whom they are required, and then make every person of that class make such a return, and make it applicable throughout the whole country to similar classes or persons. This section is not to apply to the broker at all, as explained by the minister. It is not to get at the broker who is escaping making a proper return. As far as the brokerage firms in this country are concerned, the minister has power now to make a thorough examination of all the books of these firms, and I have known it done time and again in the city of Montreal. What the minister is asking for here is for a return of all payments, "under contracts, whether written or verbal, relating to the buying and selling and otherwise dealing in stocks, bonds, debentures, mortgages, hypothecs, and other similar securities." I do not see why that should apply to the buying and selling of securities, any more than it should apply to the buying and selling of land, or the buying and selling of wheat, or any other commodity, but if the provision is to be that every contract relating to the buying and selling of these classes of stocks and securities shall be reported to the minister, then make the provision general so that every person who enters into contracts of that kind shall make a report, and do not allow the minister to prescribe the forms in his own discretion, and to select the people whom he is going to compel to make these returns and pay a tax on the contracts to which reference is made in this section.


James Alexander Robb: May I point out to my hon.
friend that the minister now has those powers which he objects to. He has power to demand, for instance, that all salaries be reported, but he does not ask my hon. friend to report the salaries of the employees of his household. He exacts, under the power he has, the information from the large employers of labour.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I make a return for my
employees.


James Alexander Robb: The most satisfactory source
of collection as regards income tax is from the salaries, because under the act the large employers of labour are compelled to report the salaries they are paying, and companies paying dividends are compelled to report the dividends they are paying, and the department has power to audit the books to see that a

proper return is made. But a certain latitude is allowed the minister because he must use reasonable discretion and not go after small employers of labour, for instance, and small concerns. This is intended to get after those who, we are satisfied from experience, are evading taxation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What class of people are you getting after?


James Alexander Robb: From time to time the attention of the department may be directed to the fact that systematic attempt is being made to evade the income tax. We have had no complaint with regard to the powers the minister now has to demand information as to salaries, which powers are as wide as those now sought.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it the intention of the minister under this clause to exact from small mortgagors returns of the interest payments they make? A firm of solicitors may be handling a thousand mortgages for perhaps fifty clients, involving periodical payments. Is it the intention to require everyone of those mortgagors to make out a return? If so, I see a little rebellion in some parts of the country.


William Daum Euler: I do not care to make any definite commitment in regard to it, but I would say that in a general way it is not the intention to persecute people. In the case of many of these small amounts the chances are that we would not ask for any information at all. We might perhaps fix a minimum amount to be reported. I admit, Mr. Chairman, that we are asking that the minister be given fairly wide discretionary powers, and that you have to trust him to use those powers in a wise way. He has similar powers under several other statutes. I think it is perfectly proper that these discretionary powers should be given to him.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. ROBB moved the third reading of the bill.
Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Robert Gardiner: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried on division?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No

Income War Tax Act


George Halsey Perley: I have a permanent pair with the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil), on the understanding that we will not vote unless we are both in the house. If I had voted, I would have voted in the affirmative.


Mr. MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville):: I
was paired with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. YALLANCE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I was paired with
the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren). If I had voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Odette). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters). Had I voted I would have voted in the affirmative.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Durham (Mr. Bowen). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 30, 1928