[Stage Direction]
prevented the hon. member from resigning, if he felt so disposed, the constituency of Gaspe, with regard to which no protest whatever was entered, and it seems to me that, if the hon. member felt perfectly safe in regard to any action taken to unseat him in the other constituency, he could, if he had been so disposed, have resigned the constituency of Gaspe and allowed that seat to have a representative in this House.
In the past there have been occasions when members have been elected for two constituencies. In 1873, Hon. Edward Blake was elected for Durham and for Bruce, but he announced his choice within fifteen days of the meeting of the session. In 1896, Mr. Dalton McCarthy was elected for Brandon and also for Simcoe, but he made his choice seven days after the session opened. In 1904, the present hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe was elected for the two constituencies of Nicolet and Gaspe, and he did not resign the Nicolet seat until December 3, 1906. I am not certain as to the fact, but I am under the impression that no protest was entered against the hon. gentleman at that time.
Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to bring to the attention of this House what I cannot but regard as a serious breach of the privileges of Parliament. May, on page 73, says that:
Wilful disobedience to orders, within its jurisdiction, is a contempt of any court, and desobedience to the orders and rules of Parliament in the exercise of its constitutional functions, is treated as a breach of privilege.
It appears to me that there has been an infringement of rule 79, which, with your permission, I will quote. Rule 79 reads:
All members who are returned for two or more electoral districts shall make their election for which of the districts they will serve within twenty days after it shall appear that there is no question upon the return for either district.
One of the members of this House was elected at the last general election for the constituencies of Gaspe and Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). It appears that protests were filed in regard to the election of that hon. member for the constituency of Maisonneuve on March 15 or 16, 1918. That would be about two days before the opening of the session of Parliament in that year. I understand that that is given as the reason why the hon. member who sits for these two constituencies has not made his choice. As I understand rule 79, which I have read, I can see nothing in it to have


Mr. LEMIEUX:: There was.


John Wesley Edwards: I accept the hon. member's statement. In the session of the fall of 1919, when this House was taking action in regard to limiting to six months the time in which a constituency would be vacant, this matter of the hon. member sitting for two seats came before the House. It was brought up by the hon. member for Perth North (Mr. Morphy), and in order to fortify myself in the position which I am going to take in asking this House to support the motion which I will move, I wish to quote a few words uttered on that occasion by the hon. gentleman who is directly interested. The hon. member said:
... am not more interested than any one else in this matter. I wish to obey the law and I have always obeyed it. . .1 must say that personally
V. ,Pot thmk tllat any member of the House should monopolize two seats.
With that, I am in entire agreement with the hon. gentleman. He continued:
I would not have sat for both seats last session had I not been protested at the last election. There is a protest against my election in the constituency of Maisonneuve, and I am awaiting the result of that protest before electing for which constituency I shall sit in the House.
I again say that it occurred to me that there was nothing to prevent the hon. gentleman from resigning the constituency of

Gaspe if he felt certain of his ground that he could hold the seat of Maison-neuve against the protest. Let me quote the hon. member further:
For my part, I have more regard for the sanctity of the rules of the House, and when a rule says that -within a certain period the member who happens to represent two constituencies must elect which he shall sit for, I consider there is an obligation, at least a moral obligation, on him to obey that rule, and I stand ready to obey it as soon as the protest against my election in the county of Maisonneuve has been disposed of. In all sincerity, however, I say that although it is a great honour to represent two constituencies, I do not believe the principle is democratic. We should give each constituency in the country the opportunity of having its own representative, and though a member may be able to serve the interests of two constituencies, the principle is undemocratic and should not prevail.
Those words struck me as so cogent, so forcible, that I felt I could not say anything better in the way of an argument in support of the motion which I intend to present. I might, however, call attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman who declares that the principle of sitting for two constituencies is undemocratic and should not prevail, is one who has been undemocratic, if I may say so, in that regard at least, on several occasions. In 1904, he ran for two constituencies. In 1908, he took his chance like the rest of us with only one. In 1911 he again listened to the appeals of party exigencies, and ran for two constituencies, Gaspe and Rouville. I might say in that connection that the hon. gentleman was defeated by 570 in Gaspe, but elected by 278 in Rouville, so on that occasion he did not Rave the worry of making a selection; the people decided that for him. In the last election, in 1917, he ran for these two constituencies. Now if the hon. gentleman is sincere in regarding it as undemocratic for a member to sit in this House for two constituencies, it seems to me he should have avoided the possibility of such a breach of democracy occurring by not running for these two constituencies, as he has done on several occasions.
I want to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to some reasons which I think should weigh with us in considering this matter. The hon. gentleman has said that the only thing which has prevented him from electing which seat he will sit for was the fact that a protest had been entered against his election in Maisonneuve. I, of course, must accept the word of the hon. gentleman, for Brutus is an honourable man, and I have no desire whatever to do otherwise; but I may be permitted in all
courtesy to call his attention to some things which create a doubt in my mind, and which, I think, justify me in asking that the Privileges and Elections Committee should deal with this particular case.
In the first place, I call attention to this fact; by section 19 of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, as enacted by chapter 13 of the statutes of 1915, my hon. friend had fifteen days in which to file an answer to that protest. Section 19 A of that Act reads as follows:
After the expiration of fifteen days after the service of the petition, whether an answer is filed or served or not, the petition shall be held at issue and the court may at any time thereafter, upon the application of either party, fix some convenient time and place for the trial of the petition.
I am not a lawyer, and there may be some loophole in that which I as a layman cannot see, but it would appear to me, Mr. Speaker, from reading that section that the hon. gentleman had an opportunity there to show his regard for democracy, to show that he was sincere in believing that a man should not sit for two seats in this House, and show the sincerity of his statement regarding the sanctity of the rules of Parliament. You will note that the section provides:
The petition shall be held at issue and the court may at any time thereafter, upon the application of either party, fix some convenient time and place for the trial of the petition.
Now the two parties would be the petitioner and the respondent. My hon. friend cannot be held responsible if the petitioner did not make application, but what has he got to say about his own delinquency? The section provides for action upon the application of either party. I put this question to my hon. friend: Did he avail himself of the opportunity provided in that section of the statute, and make an application which would have brought this thing to a settlement?
I go a little further. That was one opportunity which the hon. gentleman had of proving to us that he is, as he has said on more than one occasion, not only a democrat, but "a democrat to the hilt," whatever that may mean. It seems to me there was an opportunity for him to show his high regard for democracy, but he failed to do so. However, he had another opportunity. Section 39 of the same Act provides:
As soon after the expiration of thirty days from the filing of the petition as may be practicable, unless a day has already been appointed for the trial-

That is, under the previous clause.
-the Clerk of the Court shall apply to the Court to appoint and the Court shall appoint a day for the trial of the petitioner.
Let me stop there just for a moment. My hon. friend may say: Yes, but the clerk of the court did not do that; that is his fault and not mine.
Now I will give the rest of the section:
Notice of the date, time and place, when and where such application is to he made shall be given by the Clerk of the Court to the petitioner and to the respondent at least five days before such application is made.
My hon. friend might say that the clerk did not do that; that is his fault, and not mine. Very well. But "if the petitioner does not appear at the time or place so fixed, the court shall forthwith dismiss the petition."
Now, Mr. Speaker, I argue this: in the first place, the hon. gentleman had an opportunity under section 19, within the 15 days there provided, to make application to have this thing settled, but apparently he did not do so. My second argument is that having passed over that opportunity, he could have taken advantage of section 39. The Act was passed while he sat here in the House, and if the clerk failed to do his duty in the matter, I would suppose that an hon. gentleman who has declared that he has such a very high regard for the sanctity of the rules of Parliament, and that he ig a democrat of the democrats, "a democrat to the hilt," and who considers it undemocratic for any hon. gentleman to sit for two seats in this House, would have gone to the clerk and said: Here, I have not received any notice from you; why have you not done your duty? All he had to do was to call the Clerk's attention to the fact if he really wanted this thing brought to a settlement.
Mr. Speaker, I object very strongly to the hon. gentleman holding two seats. I think the practice, or rather habit which I am afraid he has formed, of running for two seats is a dangerous one and a menace to this country. I recognize, of course, the hon. gentleman's great ability and his compelling personality; but if the hon. gentleman with his ability and with his compelling personality, led on by his ambition, takes the notion to project his compelling personality into two constituencies, no one can say how far he may carry that practice. He may take it into his head to run for half-a-dozen constituencies in the province of Quebec, and so deprive some hon. gentlemen who grace this chamber with

their presence from having a seat in this House. Who could imagine a greater calamity? Suppose this hon. gentleman with his compelling personality should choose to run for Quebec East, for instance, and deprive this House of the services of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lapointe) who represents that constituency?


Mr. JACOBS:: He might run for Fron-tenae.


John Wesley Edwards: Just so; there is no limit. The hon. gentleman may not confine himself to his own province, and if he chooses to look for a seat in Ontario it would be very natural to suppose that the first constituency upon which his eye would fall would be the one bearing the historic name of Frontenac.
M. ARCHAMBAULT:	What a blessing that would be?


John Wesley Edwards: So I have very strong personal reasons for fearing the lengths to which this hon. gentleman may carry this practice of depriving other hon. gentlemen of the opportunity for a seat in this House.
But there are one or two things that strike me as strange in connection with this matter. My .information is that the petitioner in this case was a gentleman who was very active in the election of 1917 in the constituency of Maisonneuve on behalf of the hon. gentleman whose election is protested, and that the counsel or attorneys for the petitioner are well known political partisans of *ny hon. friend. The hon. member says that his one desire is to obey the law and to prevent any smashing of democratic principles in this country, and that he will take action as soon as an opportunity offers. Well, Mr. Speaker, may I call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that he himself has been responsible for delays in dealing with this matter? May I remind him of the date of January 28, 1921-this very year-when he made application for a change of lawyers, which would necessitate a certain delay? I shall not dwell on that question; but I desire to remind him also of another date, February 21, of this present year, when a motion was made and granted for an extension of time. Who made the motion? Was it the petitioner, the man who was seeking to unseat the hon. gentleman, or who had protested his election? I am informed that that man is not even in Montreal; he has gone out West. Who then made this motion, which unquestionably resulted in

delay and in the hon. gentleman's retaining two seats? Mr. Speaker, the motion was made by the hon. gentleman himself, the respondent. He is the one who, on February 21, according to the records of the court, made a motion causing delay. I mention these facts because, as I said in the beginning, while I am disposed to accept the hon. gentleman's word-"Brutus is an honourable man"-at the same time, certain doubts have crossed my mind which I should like to have dispelled. I have mentioned some of those doubts.
Now, may I just state briefly, before I sit down, the reasons why I think this motion should be carried and why action should be taken? In the first place, every hon. gentleman in this House who supported the Bill that was introduced in the fall session of 1919-and we all supported it,-by which we declared that constituency should not remain vacant longer than six months, is put in a very invidious and illogical position, if we are to fold our arms and sit back and allow a constituency to be unrepresented directly for a period of five years. That is the first point I make. I am informed that the petition for unseating the hon. member for Maisonneuve was served on him and filed in the Supreme Court at Montreal on March 16, 1918, by Jsoeph Albert Gadoua, a gentleman who, I understand, in the election of 1917, was an active partisan and suporter of the hon. member for Maisonneuve. Well, if that is the fact, it is something for the privileges and Elections Committee to inquire into, for it throws a shadow of doubt upon the sincerity of the whole proceeding. No one 'will question that. After the petition was entered, apparently no further proceedings were taken by the petitioner; he took no further steps. I have already said that in my judgment there were steps which the hon. member himself could have taken if he desired to have the matter settled; but neither has the petitioner ever shown any desire to proceed with the case, and he is not now living in Montreal. It is also alleged that the papers forming the record of the case, or, at all events, some of them, have disappeared from the Court House at Montreal. The petitioner apparently does not intend to bring the case to trial, and I say that the privileges of the House are being infringed by what seems to me to be a flagrant violation of Rule 79.
With your permission, Sir, I might add a word further. It has occurred to me that there were political reasons why this petition was not proceeded with, and why the hon. gentleman has not made his choice of the seat he wishes to retain. To make a choice would mean an election in the other constituency, and I conceive reasons why the hon. member and his friends are pursuing their present course. I do not want to say that there is a deliberate attempt to evade the rule; I shall not use that language. But the manner in which the matter has been dealt with creates, in my mind at least, a doubt as to the sincerity of the whole action. I can understand very well indeed why the hon. gentleman would not want to make a choice of the constituency of Maisonneuve and thereby throw open the constituency of Gaspe. He has not forgotten what happened to him in 1911, when there was a definite issue before the country in the constituency of Gaspe, an issue which was raised by the hon. member and his friends in this House just a few days ago, and also in the announcement of their platform some time since. According to the verdict given in Gaspe in 1911, on that issue, the prospects would not be very rosy for the hon. gentleman and his friends if they brought on an election in that constituency. As regards the constituency of Maisonneuve, I leave it to my hon. friend. As every one knows, there is a large body of people interested in industrial employment in that city. There is a very large labour vote, and in 1911, and also in 1908, I think, they elected men who called themselves representatives of labour; and I fear that probably the hon. gentleman would not feel altogether assured of the result if he chose the seat of Gaspe and allowed the election to come on in Maisonneuve. The hon. member may say, and very properly so, that this is all in my imagination. Very well; that may be. He might make that reply; and probably, as some other hon. gentlemen on the other side would do, might laugh at the idea of that side of the House being afraid to open any constituency and contest an election. However, it seems to me that there is something behind the fact that the hon. gentleman hangs on to two seats. I think I have shown clearly that he could have resigned one	of those	seats and
brought on an election had he so desired. He has not chosen to do so. His leader apparently-for no doubt they have conferred in regard to this matter-is of the same mind as he is. The point I want to make before moving my resolution is this: That if my suspicions have any ground at

all, if I have produced any argument which gives a colour to my suspicions that the hon. gentleman is hanging on to these two seats for political reasons, that, I claim, is another reason why this matter should be investigated by the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move:
That the question of whether the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, who was elected for the two electoral districts of Maisonneuve and GaspS, has not infringed the privileges of this House and violated its rules in not electing for which of the said two electoral districts he would serve, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and that the said Committee do inquire into all the facts and circumstances connected therewith, and of the petition for unseating the said hon. member for the electoral district of Maisonneuve and of all matters connected with the said petition, and to report thereon, the said Committee to have power to send for papers, persons and records and to report from time to time.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say only a very few words on this motion. The question of whether it was a good policy that a member should be able to run for two constituencies and to be elected for both is not under discussion to-day. This Parliament two years ago-and I think it was a good decision on its part-enacted a law that from now on no man would be allowed to run for two constituencies. But as a matter of fact it has always been a custom in this country that prominent men in both parties should accept nomination for more than one constituency. Prime Ministers in Canada have done so in the past, and there was nothing wrong or unlawful in their so doing. As I said the wisdom of that policy may be doubted, but there was nothing to prevent it from being done. Prominent men in Parliament have sat for sessions as representing two constituencies. Even in the last Parliament there were members in the House who were sitting for two constituencies. The late Sir Wilfrid Laurier sat during that Parliament for both the constituencies for Quebec East and Soulanges, although I understand he could not elect for either constituency as his election in Soulanges had been protested. Another gentleman on the other side of the House, Sir Rodolphe Forget, sat in this House from 1911 to 1917 for two constituencies-the county of Montmorency and the county of Charlevoix, although his election in neither of the two had been contested, and he occupied a seat alongside my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) without any denunciation from that hon. gentleman. There was

nothing wrong in that procedure then because there was nothing in the law that prevented it. As a matter of fact the law itself does not fix any period within which a member who was elected for two seats had to elect for which one of those seats he would sit, but there is a rule of the House, rule 79, which reads as follows:
All members who are returned for two or more Electoral Districts shall make their election for which of the Districts they will serve, within twenty days after i-t shall appear that there is no question upon the return for either district.
There is no penalty for a violation of that rule. There is nothing there which says how this rule shall be applied, but the rule states that when there is any question upon the return of the member for one of the seats he shall not make the election provided for by rule 79. Bourinot, on page 160, speaking of this rule 79, says:
In Canada the House of Commons Rule No. 79 is supposed to effect the same object but no penalty is prescribed for its violation, and in more than one instance it has been completely ignored. If there is a petition against the return of a member he cannot elect to serve for either until the matter is Anally decided in the courts.
So there is no doubt whatever that when there is a petition against a member for one of the seats for which he was elected, not only is it not his duty to resign from one of the seats but he has no right to do so under the rule of the House and the constitutional authorities. Now, Sir, whatever may be the suspicions of my hon. friend from Frontenac-because he took the trouble to say that he would accept the word of the hon. member for Maisonneuve, but he said that there are circumstances that would give him some doubts- this is not the tribunal to which he should apply under the present circumstances. Under the Dominion Controverted Elections Act any elector of Maisonneuve has the right to see that the petition against my hon. friend is disposed of by the court. The law that was enacted in 1915 has made the matter even clearer. Formerly any one who had the suspicions which my hon. friend from Frontenac appears to entertain could apply to the board and ask to be substituted for the petitioner in order to proceed with the petition. The law enacted in 1915 is still clearer. My hon. friend from Frontenac quoted article 39 as revised:
-the clerk of the court shall apply to the court to appoint and the court shall appoint a day for the trial of the petition. Notice of the date, time and place, when and where such aplication is to be made shall bB given by the clerk of the

court to the petitioner and to the respondent at least five days before such application is made, and i.f the petitioner does not appear at the time or place so fixed, the court shall forthwith dismiss the petition.
It is up to any gentleman to see that the clerk of the court fixes a date for the trial, and if the petitioner does not then appear the petition is dismissed. That should be done, and it is before the Supreme Court of the district of Montreal that proceedings should be taken, not on the floor of this House. So long as the petition stands there-and it does stand according to the word of my hon. friend-the hon. member for Maisonneuve has no right to resign his seat, and he certainly should not be the object of the motion which is now before the Chair.
Under the Dominion Controverted Elections Act the judgment dismissing the petition must be sent to his honour the Speaker who then communicates it to the House. So long as this is not done the petition stands, and my hon. friend has no right to resign his seat. It is up to any citizen to go before the courts in Montreal and take the necessary proceedings to obtain action on the petition, or to have it dismissed if nobody desires to proceed.
I say again; there is nothing to submit to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. There is no doubt that a petition against the election of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve is before the courts in Montreal. This petition has not been disposed of, and the steps that should be taken by those who object to my hon. friend sitting here for both Maisonneuve and Gaspe should be taken before the courts there and not in this Parliament.
' Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer) : Mr. Speaker, in bringing my mind to bear upon the question before the House, I am inevitably invaded by the reflection that in dealing with such matters it is of very great importance, to some gentlemen at any rate, whose ox is gored. We had a question of individual vacancies before this House a few weeks ago, and I cannot remember that at that time my hon. friend from Frontenac was quite so ready as he is to-day to look after the interests of single constituencies in the Dominion. And I am not sure that there is to-day quite the same anxiety on the part of my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) to take the view with regard to the rights of the electors that he displayed on that previous occasion. However, Mr. Speaker, I am happy in that I am able to
agree with the argument that has been put forward by my hon. friend from Quebec East. He based himself first upon custom. Every one of us can recall that this custom of being elected for two ridings has prevailed not only in Canada but across the water in the Old Land. I remember very well Mr. Gladstone being elected for two constituencies in 1880. He won Midlothian in a very keen fight, and he was elected unopposed for the city of Leeds. Of course, in that case he resigned the latter seat, which was filled for thirty years after by his youngest son, now Viscount Gladstone. My hon. friend has justified this part of his argument by abundant references to the political history of our own country.
My hon. friend from Frontenac said that he had a suspicion that my hon. friend from Maisonneuve was guided in his action in this matter by political reasons. Well, Sir, I do not want to detract from the usually unbiased and fair record of my hon. friend from Frontenac, but I do recollect one or two occasions when even an unsuspicious man like myself could hardly avoid doubting whether the hon. gentleman was not actuated by political motives.
My hon. friend from Quebec East, after basing himself quite accurately and justifiably and, I believe, unanswerably, on custom, based himself upon law. I am not a lawyer, but I have considerable confidence in the legal abilities of my hon. friend, and his argument in regard to the law completely convinced me also. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to point out that I am to-day where I was on the question of individual election three or four weeks ago. I stood upon law then, I stand upon it now. So I would say that while it is most undesirable that two seats should be held by one individual, and while it is most undesirable that by-eleations should be deferred beyond a certain time, the proper remedy in both cases is not to bring a personal matter in any particular case before this chamber, but to alter the law.
On these grounds I shall vote against the resolution of my hon. friend from Frontenac.


Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help
sympathizing with my hon. friend from Maisonneuve and Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) as he finds himself sought to be protected by the two defences that have been made upon his behalf. The question that is raised by this motion of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) is not a pure question



of abstract law, still less is it a matter that may be determined by reference to the past existence of a custom without one moment's consideration as to whether the custom was good or bad. There are rules and customs that are much more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and if there be law and if there be custom which would justify the action of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-assuming the statement of facts which have been laid before us to be accurate-in retaining his two seats, when I can only say that he would have been very much more honoured by the breach than by the observance of either that law of that custom. We are not called upon by this motion to determine whether the hon. member for Maisonneuve was right or wrong in this particular matter. What has been put before this House is a statement-I do not want to prejudge the case-but certainly a statement of a nature to cast serious doubt on the	genuineness of the contestation
of this election that is referred to as the justification of the action of the	hon. member for Maisonneuve.
It is true that the rule of the House that imposes an obligation upon an hon. member elected for two seats does make that obligation incumbent upon him only after there is no question upon the return for either district. That creates a situation in which, if there be a question upon the return for either district, the hon. member is certainly not compellable, and probably is not entitled, to resign his seat. But, surely the rules of this House, as the provisions of any law, are to be taken as serious in contemplating certain objects. What does this article say? It does not say that so long as there is a semblance or a shadow of something bearing a faint resemblance to a question about the sitting of a member he shall not be called upon to take option; it says: " when there is question." What is the contention of the hon. member making this motion? What is it that results from the statement of facts that he has made if upon inquiry they be found to be true? The result is, not that there is any question upon the return for either district but that somebody has resorted to forms of law, intending to raise no serious question. It is suggested-I do not say it is the fact; that will be a matter for the Committee on Privileges and Election to look into-it is suggested that the somebody who so resorted to these forms of law did so not for the purpose of raising any serious question as to the return of 
the hon. member for Maisonneuve, but precisely for the purpose of creating this semblance of a question that might serve as an excuse for his retaining the two seats. What has been done has not been the raising of a question with regard to the holding of either of the seats, but the throwing up of a rampart to protect the hon. member in the retention of both seats.
And what is it that this House is asked to do? To pass condemnation upon the hon. member? Not at all. In view of the very serious statements that have been made; in view of the circumstances recited as attendant upon that contestation; I think any fairminded man will admit that a strong prima facie case is made out in support of the proposition that the very institution and maintenance in life of that contestation-if the records as 4 p.m. cited by the hon. member for Frontenac are correct-is the action of the hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe himself. If there is a protest to-day, if the record that has been read to us is correct that contest is not by reason of the action of petition for: it is by reason of the action of the hon. member for Maisonneuve. If it had been a serious attack upon the holding of his seat; if it raised a question as to his right to hold the seat, it lay absolutely in his hands to go before the court and have it rejected and dismissed. That course was open to him; and when he saw the situation that the petitioner had allowed to come into existence, a situation under which the petition was dead, did this hon. gentleman, whose right to his seat was questioned, seek to avail himself of that failure of the petitioner? By no means; he hastened to revive the contestation. An hon. gentleman says "resurrect;" perhaps that is a better word, becaue I think we might even describe the contestation as being both dead and buried-all that was needed was the raising of a monument to it. But my hon. friend thought it wise not to cap the matter by providing the monument, but to have the corpse exhumed. I do not think I need answer the question, why. Could there be any other motive than one? Is it not before us here to-day, the reason why? The revival of that corpse is the defence which the hon. member for Quebec East offers for the retention by the member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe of both these seats.
Now, the hon. member for Quebec East has justified the action taken by reference to custom, and to law, and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) says thi3 is a matter of custom. Nobody is dig-

puting here that under the law as it stood it was open to an hon. gentleman to be elected for two seats. Nobody is finding fault with the hon. member for Maison-neuve and Gaspe because of the fact that he was elected for two seats. Two cases have been cited of members so elected in the past-that of the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and that of the late member for Charlevoix and Montmorency in the last Parliament. In these cases both gentlemen sat through the Parliament and nobody raised a question. It is said that in the case of Sir Wilfrid Laurier there was a protest of one of the two elections. It is said in the case of the other gentleman that there was no protest. If that be true, that second gentleman clearly sat through that Parliament in disobedience of a rule of this House. If the statement in regard to the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier be true, as, in the absence of any knowledge with regard to the subject of that protest,
I have no doubt it is, it is the duty of this House to assume that there was a genuine, bona fide protest. I for one do not want to raise that question. What is set before the House by this motion is that there is not any genuine bona fide protest; that if the facts as set forth be established- and it is for the committee to look into that; I shall not prejudge them-there has been what is nothing more or less than a perfectly transparent attempt to make of a provision of law intended to apply in cases where real question is raised concerning the holding of a seat-to make that a means whereby the purpose of the rule may be defeated.
Now, the hon. member for Quebec East says there is no sanction. Surely that is a defence that my hon. friend from Maison-neuve can hardly be proud to hear made	on	his behalf.	What does
that amount to? There would appear, from the statement of facts made, to have been a deliberate and intentional violation of the rules of this House. The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) might, according to his own defender, be guilty of that deliberate violation and ignoring of the rules of this House; but according to the hon. member for Quebec East, this House has nothing to say about the matter, because it has not prescribed a term of imprisonment or some other punishment to be inflicted upon the hon. gentleman. Surely, that is the weakest of all imaginable defences, completely ignoring as it does the rights of this House to have its rules respected. There is the rule of this House, to which 1471
rule we all of us are amenable, and yet the doctrine is preached that deliberate disobedience to that rule is a matter of no consequence to this House, a matter with which this House is not concerned, the all-sufficient answer being: "Yes, I violate your rules, but you have not had the forethought to provide a punishment for me, and, therefore, I sit here in defiance of your rules." The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), in introducing his observations, quoted, what I do not think it was perhaps necessary for him to quote at all, an authority on Parliamentary procedure who makes the declaration without hesitation that violation of the rules of this Parliament is a contempt of this high court of Parliament. Surely, there is a remedy for that contempt. Surely, at all events, it is within the privileges, it is the duty of this Parliament through its proper committee to inquire into the circumstances of that contempt, and if it be led to the conclusion that there is no remedy and no action that it can take in consequence of that contempt, then I think it clearly will be the duty of this Parliament to make the necessary provisions that we shall not meet with the same situation on another occasion.
As I said, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) said that the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) had made a defence on the ground of law. There is a very old and well established rule of law with which the hon. member for Quebec East is doubtless familiar, and that is that fraud is an exception to all rules. The laws are made for application in good faith. The question that is referred to in the rule bearing on this case, is a question raised in good faith, not a fradulent attempt to create the appearance of a question, to keep alive that appearance of a question, to maintain a semblance of something that does not exist at all, so that dust may be thrown in the eyes of this House when its attention ' is called to the fact that an hon. member is occupying a seat in violation of its rules. It is to be borne in mind that this House, when it legislated for the trial of election questions by the courts, did not divest itself of its own authority over those elections. We have heard it repeatedly in this House, and it is established beyond doubt that the House retains rts own power of supervision over the election of its members, and its own right to inquire with regard to them and to reach its own decision with regard to such questions as it may properly deal

with in connection with them. Why else should we have a Privileges and Elections Committee? I did not come here to-day to speak on this subject; if I had, I would have come armed with a superabundance of authority in support of the proposition. The mere enactment of a statute providing for the trial of controverted election petitions does not divest this House of its supervisory authority and control over all questions pertaining to the elections of members to this House.


Ernest Lapointe: Sir John Thompson stated otherwise, and he was a distinguished predecessor of my right hon. friend.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Sir John Thompson was perhaps the most distinguished predecessor I ever had, but I challenge the hon. gentleman's statement. What Sir John Thompson, on the occasion the hon. member has in mind, maintained most clearly was that it could not be disputed that this House retained its supervising power and control, but he argued, very soundly, that, with regard to questions that were then raised, they were questions which it was proper to leave to the adjudication of the courts under the powers conferred upon them by the statute. But he never abandoned the principle, and that is what we have said to us by the hon. member for Quebec East, he did. As I have said before, I am not saying that this matter has been proved, but this is what the committee will look into. The case, if there be a case, rests upon the assertion that the process of the courts is being purely and simply abused; that the hon. member for Maison-neuve is carrying on and maintaining alive an apparent protest that has nobody and no force behind it; that there is no intention anywhere to bring it to trial nor to establish any allegation upon which it could be supported, and that that is merely being used to enable the hon. member to continue to violate the rules of this House. I do not think that I need dwell very much longer on this subject. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) says: "Why, any hon. gentleman, under the provisions of the law which the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) cited, and even before they were enacted, might have gone before the court to take up a petition where a petition has been proceeded with." Why, certainly anybody might have intervened to take up the case of the petitioner, if there was anybody in this wide world that believed that the petitioner had a seri-

ous case, that there was any case to take up. But it is a novel suggestion that somebody might have intervened and come to the court and said: ''I want to be the peti- , tioner, to be substituted for the petitioner, in order that I might get the petitioner's petition dismissed."
Why, the proceeding to which the hon. gentleman refers was a proceeding intended to provide a method whereby when there were serious grounds of contestation, and under cover of a collusive petition they were not being urged, somebody might intervene and bring the matter to a decision. But that implied somebody who wanted to carry on the petition. In this case there was not anybody intervening with that intention. The respondent was seeing to it that the petition never should die. There was not any need of that sort of intervention.
Now, what about the other sort of intervention. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) refers to the Act of 1906 and the subsequent revisions contained in comparatively recent legislation under which the issue is joined and the day of trial fixed after the lapse of fifteen days from the service of the petition, and under which it is the duty of the clerk to see that application is made for dismissal of the petition after a delay of thirty days. The hon. gentleman says: Why, it was up to any hon. gentleman to avail himself of this provision. It is not impossible that somebody might have stepped in and called the attention of the clerk to the fact that he was neglecting his duty. But, if there is a gentleman in this country upon whom it was incumbent to avail himself of those provisions it was the hon. member for Maisonneuve. Surely we need not travel outside of the record in that very case. He being the gentleman directly concerned, it is, in the words of his defender, "up to" him to raise those questions as being a gentlem'an careful of the observance of the rules of Parliament, and waiting anxiously for this obstacle in the way of performing his duty to disappear. Surely it was "up to" him to have the obstacle removed, and it was absolutely in his hands to bring that about. But he fails to do it. More than that, he takes the proceedings necessary to keep the petition alive. I am not going to judge the question of law in this matter any more than the question of fact, but under the general law in the province in which that petition was presented, any process that has hung

for over two years is liable to be declared peremptorily dismissed.


Mr. PROULX:: That does not apply to the statue.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not going to argue whether it applies or not. .


Mr. ETHIER:: Is the right hon. gentleman of opinion that the law of peremption d'instance would apply in such a case as the Controverted Elections Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is good authority for the view that it does. That is one of the questions that the Privileges and Elections Committee could very properly look into. I am not saying it does.


Mr. VIEN:: It does not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If it be not applicable, at all events it illustrates the view of the law of that province.


Thomas Vien: No, no.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think it is fair to infer that my hon. friend was not without suspicion that that law applied to this particular procedure. Because, the time having come about when, if that law did apply, then, entirely outside of the provisions of the Controverted Elections Act the contest was dead-utterly and absolutely dead-he came in, not with a motion to avail himself of that right, but with a motion to substitute three certain gentlemen for three certain other gentlemen, as is reported. That is what is stated in the papers laid before the House;

I am not vouching for the fact, I am arguing that all these facts ought to be submitted for the consideration of the Privileges and Elections Committee, that is all; but these are the facts that are recited. I may mention for the benefit of hon. gentlemen who are so loud in asserting that that law did not apply, that it is significant that that was followed up, not by any proceedings to get rid of the process, but by proceedings to prolong the delay, in other words to keep it alive.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the face of these facts as they are stated, I want to guard myself against preju<|ging this case in any way. We must look at this case as presenting to us the question: Is there matter for this House, through its committee ^n Privileges and Elections, to look into, is there a prima facie case that this House has been played with, and that its rules have been evaded? It does not present itself to-day for our determination whether all these things are absolutely so, but the question is before us: Is there such a case made out that this Parliament owes it to itself and to the hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe to send it to the proper body whose function it is to look into questions of this kind, in order that this House may be enabled, after the careful investigation of that body, and acting upon its report, to do justice to itself and its own dignity, and to do justice to the hon. member for Gaspe and Maisonneuve?


Thomas Vien: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely surprised to hear the right hon. gentleman the Minister of Justice of Canada express such views as we have just heard from him.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: An ex-judge.


Thomas Vien: As suggested by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres, an exjudge.


Edmond Proulx: A retired judge.


Joseph Archambault: Drawing a pension.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Thomas Vien: In the first place, the right hon. gentleman would like to see this Parliament, or a committee of this Parliament, take the place of our organized tribunals of justice in the disposition of controverted elections. And to try to put some plausible reasons behind such a proposition, the right hon. gentleman says that the controverted election of Maisonneuve is being engineered by the hon. member for Gaspe, that when it was dead and buried it was revived by him just for the purpose of retaining both seats. I say that the right hon. gentleman should not put forward such a statement in Parliament unless it is substantiated by facts. There is nothing before you, Sir, which establishes that the hon. gentleman from Gaspe has engineered the revival of the petition in court. The statement is totally unwarranted, and it is not dignified for the right hon. gentleman to make it.
Another amusing feature, Sir, is to see the scruples of the right hon. gentleman in raising points of good faith as to the application of the law. Surely the conscience of the right hon. gentleman was more sensitive to-day than in former days when he was not as much alive to the propriety of the application of the law in other instances. He spoke of the fraudulent application of the law in defence of the position taken by the hon. member for Mai-

sonneuve. Was the right hon. gentleman as sensitive and scrupulous when he took office in 1911, retaining the superannuation of the Judges' Pensions Act? Will the right hon. gentleman say that the spirit of the Superannuation Act for judges was meant to apply to persons holding office and being paid $14,000 by the Crown? The conscience of my right hon. friend is sometimes dead and buried, and there are monuments erected on its grave, those monuments being his portfolio and his salary of $14,000. Those deaden the conscience of my right hon. friend and wipe away all the scruples that he may have on such a delicate matter.
Sir, there has been a principle advocated in this House, a principle underlying the Confederation Act; it is the separation of the legislative power and the executive power from the judicial power. This argument has been constantly and consistently advanced by the Ministers of Justice since Confederation, and on one ocgasion Sir John Thompson was very clear on the subject. He would not intervene; he would not discard the courts of justice and thereby bring Parliament into the fray, removing the question from a tribunal of justice to the arena of the House of Commons. What did he say? Let me quote the words of Sir John Thompson, then Minister of Justice, as spoken in the House of Commons in 1887. They are to be found on page 157 of Hansard of that year:
Since the change which I have referred to, and by which Parliament has renounced its rights to deal with the matter of controverted elections, there has been fully recognized in the various discussions that have taken place in the Imperial House of Commons, this principle, that everything has been transferred to the judiciary in connection with controverted elections, excepting the one question of the disqualification of persons who have been returned to Parliament. As was said by Sir Henry James in 1882, in the case of Michael Davitt, the only question which Parliament has reserved to itself to deal with is the question whether a proper person has been returned in obedience to the writ. As was explained by Lord Coleridge, and Lord Selborne in a previous debate in 1870, that reservation is not in conflict with the Statute which says that the election shall only be contested by an election petition, because the House has to consider whether the writ has been obeyed which commanded the electors of the shire, or the county, to return a suitable person to sit in that House.
Sir, I say that it is not in keeping with the dignity of the Minister of Justice of Canada deliberately to confuse the issue and repudiate the very principle underlying this question; and it is not becoming in a minister to play at petty politics on a matter involving a principle which has

been constantly applied, a principle that has been fully respected in this country since the Confederation of Canada. The right hon. gentleman declared a moment ago that the law of the province of Quebec did maintain the principle that after two years a lawsuit could be taken out of the court and would then die a natural death. He knows better. He did not state the whole truth; for he knows perfectly well that, to obtain pre-emption in the courts of Quebec, the law is that there must have taken place no useful proceedings in those courts during a certain period, while any bit of proceeding, however slight may be its practical use, is sufficient to keep alive before the courts the whole matter under dispute. Now, the right hon. minister did not prove that no useful proceedings had occurred in connection with this matter, and the doctrine which he lays down, when he gives us half of the truth, does not apply in this case. This is not a question of civil procedure before a civil tribunal. The law of controverted elections is a federal law, totally different in principle from any civil procedure under provincial law. The minister knows that, and it is hard to understand by what process of reasoning he seeks to establish any similarity between a case in civil proceedings before our ordinary tribunals and a case under the Controverted Elections Act, the principle and procedure of which have been fixed by Parliament. The right hon. gentleman did not take the trouble to inform the House fully in regard to the nature of the cases he has given as examples, because the fact is that they bear no resemblance to, and are not on all-fours with, the question now under discussion before this House. The minister is much more sensitive on any question in which he thinks that some political gain may accrue to his own party, than he is in matters wherein the interests of Canada as a whole are sometimes at stake, and in connection with which we might fairly criticise the right hon. gentleman for a fraudulent application of a law which was never intended to be applied to a person holding a paid office under the Crown; and yet he took advantage of such a law to secure a superannuation for himself. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman will be more cautious in future before indulging in aspersions on any one. If he is not, he will deserve another lesson, and I am sure he will get it willingly at the hands of hon. gentlemen sitting on both sides of the House.
The only question which has been raised by the motion of the member for Frontenac

(Mr. Edwards), is this: should the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux), retain two seats as representing two constituencies? This House has been informed of the facts by a declaration of an hon. member, which cannot be denied nor even questioned. There is a petition for the contest of the election of the hon. member for Maisonneuve, and this petition is still being contested in the courts of justice in the city of Montreal. This is a fact, and it would be against the sound principles which have been constantly applied since Confederation in Canada, and which have always been respected since the foundation of constitutional government in Great Britain, if we took this matter from the courts of justice and brought it into the parliamentary arena. For my part, I will leave it to the courts of my country to determine the question, and when it has been settled definitely, when we know whether the hon. member has the right to sit for both seats, then we shall apply the rule of the House, and only then shall I be willing to support a motion such as that moved by the hon.
* member for Frontenac. Until then, I think we had better adhere to the old custom of which my right hon. friend has spoken so lightly to-day. It is not only the written law, but it is a custom of Parliament which is of long standing and which is highly respected. That custom should not be set aside for the sake of some political gain which my right hon. friend might obtain. It is customary both in England and in Canada, to quote precedent and respectable authority to show that things have been done in such-and-such a way; and it was surprising to hear the right hon. gentleman speak lightly of parliamentary usage and custom. I shall assuredly vote against the motion of the mon. member for Frontenac as being premature, until such time as the courts of justice have decided the case, when it will be proper to ask for the application of the rule.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: The words I desire to add to the discussion of this matter will not be many and will not be animated by any personal feeling as regards the hon. member affected thereby, nor indeed by any personal feeling whatever. I quite appreciate, although I cannot expect my words to receive unanimous approval, that the hon. member, in so far as he has to do with this matter and has maintained the position which he has during these years, has been the instrument of his party and, after all, must share equal responsibility with the leader of that party.
Before I go further I want to make one reference to the arguments presented by the hon. member who has just sat down. He set out to crush the legal position taken by the Minister of Justice and to exalt the one taken by himself by comparison therewith. There is no need to answer him in that regard. First, because he himself misstated the position taken by the Minister of Justice in order to be able to refute it; and secondly because the cogency of his reasoning, following his own contention, was not such as to make a comparison necessary.


Thomas Vien: I rise to a point of order. If I misstated the words of the right hon. the Minister of Justice I want to know it. The Minister of Justice was in his seat and did not correct me, yet the Prime Minister is now accusing me of having misstated what his colleague said.
I beg to ask him to withdraw that remark.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is quite willing that I should state wherein the Minister of Justice was misquoted, but he is not prepared to allow the Minister of Justice to make a statement himself.


Samuel William Jacobs: There is a point of order before the House.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman thinks that is a point of order I am afraid he will soon be undeceived. What I stated was correct and I am prepared to substantiate it.


Thomas Vien: My point of order is that the Prime Minister has no right to accuse me of making a misstatement.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: It is not in order for one hon. member to say that another hon. member deliberately made a misstatement to the House. In this case the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) has not been charged with a deliberate attempt to mislead the House but he draws attention to the fact that he has been accused of making a misstatement. The right hon. the Prime Minister certainly has the right to give, and should give, an explanation of what he considers to be the misstatement made by the hon. member.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman declares that I said-


Thomas Vien: I rise to a point of order. The ruling has just been given that I have the right to obtain from the Prime Min-

ister who now has the floo?, a substantiation of the statement that he has made. My right hon. friend says that I have made a false statement, that I have misstated the words of the Minister of Justice. I now want to know from the Prime Minister in what way I made such a misstatement, and the Minister of Justice has no right to take the floor and give any explanation; he has exhausted his right to speak.


Arthur Meighen: ,As the Minister of Justice has just stated to me, his position was misstated from start to finish, but what I had reference to in my remarks was this: the hon. gentleman stated that the Minister of Justice has asserted as a fact certain things recited by the hon. member for Frontenac. The Minister of Justice distinctly took no such position. He merely said that those things had been asserted and were matters of investigation as to fact-that is the position he clearly took.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Speaker, I never- Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: I want to correct-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon.
member has only the right to state a point of order.


Thomas Vien: I rise to a point of order.
I never said such a thing.


Georges Henri Boivin: A denial is not a point of order. No one knows that better than the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Thomas Vien: I never said such a thing. Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.


Arthur Meighen: I am not responsible for the hon. gentleman's appreciation of a point of order.


Thomas Vien: There are other things you. are not responsible for either.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Arthur Meighen: 
Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: The rule of Parliament refers to twenty days. This matter has been allowed to go on for nearly four years before this question was raised.


Arthur Meighen: That is true, but because this motion could have been made
with much less force three years ago, is that a reason why it should not be made now? If the rules of the House are being defied by a member sitting for two seats for a month, is it not infinitely worse that he should sit for two seats for three years?


Samuel William Jacobs: By prescriptive right.


Arthur Meighen: I hear my hon. friend say that he has now got a prescriptive right, just as a man might have to a piece of land by remaining on it for ten years.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is my right hon. friend
aware from his reading of Bourinot, that Bourinot declares that rule 79 has been honoured more in the breech than in the observance ever since it has been on the book?


Arthur Meighen: I may have read that, but I never heard that seriously put forward as a reason for continuing to defy the rule, much less as a reason for evading it.


Samuel William Jacobs: I only wanted to know if my right hon. friend was aware of that.


Arthur Meighen: I had not read that
statement in Bourinot, but I have read in Bourinot that when any question arises respecting the seat of a member, it is the custom for the hon. member affected immediately to state his case and withdraw. I have read that in Bourinot. I was not going to press that, but that is the point which came to my notice first when I looked up Bourinot on this question. I do not wish to press it though. The case is also covered by rule 69 of our own book applicable to this House. Anyway, the question is this:	whether this House can logically
resist a motion which sets out that a rule of this House is being evaded by a fictitious proceeding in the courts. Undoubtedly, if the court had jurisdiction, if it were the duty of the court without an application by either side to put an end to this farce, if it is a farce, why then it would be for the courts to do it; but if the courts have not done so, is it not the duty of this House to see that its rules are carried out? Can this House logically resist a motion made to see that its rules are adhered to, that the facts be investigated; first of all to ascertain whether there is an evasion or violation of the rules, and then, if it turn out that there is, to see that the rules are put into execution? I do not see how the motion can be resisted.
I hope I have at least made it clear to hon. members of this House that this is

not a case of a controverted election and a request to decide it in Parliament. If it were, I would not be found in support of the motion. This is not such a case at all. This is not a case of the House seeking to decide something that the courts have been given jurisdiction to decide. This is a case of the House being called upon to support and stand by its own rules, and inquire whether or not they are being evaded, and evaded in such a way that the courts cannot stop it; that we alone can stop it.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it not competent for any person to appear before the courts and argue along the line my right hon. friend is arguing, that the case is fictitious, and have it disposed of by the courts instead of by a partisan committee?


Arthur Meighen: Where I practised law, in the province of Manitoba, the only man who could appear in a case was a party to the case; he could be added as a third party.


Thomas Vien: He can in Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: Can appear and be heard in argument to show that both parties are merely fictitious parties and that there in no real case? I have never practised in the province of Quebec, but I venture to doubt that.


Thomas Vien: It is the federal law.


Arthur Meighen: Who would assert that it is the duty of any of the parties to the action to go there and, because some one could, if perchance he can, which I very much doubt, say that this House should sit idly by and wait till somebody takes a notion to go ahead and get in between the two parties to the ligitation and say they are both fictitious. I would not like to be found resisting the motion on that ground.
What I assert is this. There is a prima facie ease. The hon. member for Fron-tenac has established it. What do you need to establish a prima facie case that there is no real contention as to the validity of the allegation, more than the fact that the petition is now nearly three-and-a-half years old, and the petitioner has not even suggested the putting forward of a tittle of evidence to support his allegation. After three-and-a-half years, while the law calls, first, for thirty days, not a tittle of evidence has been presented in support of his allegations. That, to my mind, establishes a prima facie case at once. Secondly, if as is alleged by the hon. member, the petitioner is a friend and supporter of the
[Mr. Meighen. 3
member elected, that would seem to me to add circumstantial evidence in support of the allegation. Thirdly, after some two or three years that the petition had lain dead there in the courts, and when it appeared that there would be at least doubt as to whether the law of the land did not automatically declare that it was dead without the intervention of anybody the respondent himself comes in and says: I want to change my lawyers; I do not want this petition dismissed; I do not say that the petitioner has gone out to Manitoba or Alberta; I am not asking to dismiss this petition that has lain dormant for nearly three years, but I would like to change my lawyers; the men I have had have become so exhausted sitting up nights working on this case for three years that they cannot stand it any longer, and I will have to have another set of lawyers to protect me in this fierce and arduous ligitation. So he launches a motion that the firm of coun sel be changed, and I suppose that by reason of that change some further time would be given him in order to get ready his defence against this most dangerous assailant. That would look to me to be very circumstantial and rather forceful evidence in support of the assumption that the whole thing was fictitious from the beginning, intended as an evasion of the rules of the House, intended, indeed, as a contempt of the high court of Parliament. That is what is alleged by the hon. member for Frontenac. Why should he not have permission to establish that, if he can, before the Committee on Privileges and Elections? What is the Committee on Privileges and Elections for? It is not to try controverted elections; we all know that. Can anybody suggest something that the Privileges and Elections Committee can do if this work is to be denied them?


Ernest Lapointe: Give a seat to the
member for Yukon Territory, as it did two years ago.


Arthur Meighen: That was a case precisely similar to this, and the committee acted. Why should it not act now? I know the hon. gentleman was anxious, and many more who were in association with hin were anxious, that votes cast in France-


Thomas Vien: Wave the flag.


Arthur Meighen: -by the soldiers should not be counted in that contest because they would elect the present hon. member for Yukon.


Mr. EINFRET:: Shame.


Thomas Vien: Cheap.


Arthur Meighen: That is the ground
upon which he makes the assertion now. I know it is altogether aside from the argument-


Thomas Vien: Wave the flag.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. members opposite are much more eloquent in their seats, when they cannot very well be heard, than when they get on their feet. .


Thomas Vien: I said, wave the flag.


Mr. RINFRET:: I said, shame.


Thomas Vien: I said, cheap.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member has properly described himself, so I do not see why I should object.


Thomas Vien: That applies to your work.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman surely knows the rule that he is not in order in making remarks from his seat while another hon. member is speaking. The only privilege he has in that respect is to ask a question, with the consent of the hon. member addressing the House.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for Frontenac has made certain statements which so far have not been disputed. The first fact which he has given-that is, what he states to be the fact, and it is not so far disputed-is that a petition was lodged and has lain since shortly after the election until this day without any prosecution whatsoever, without any action to refute the allegation that it is evasive and fictitious. He has given further a statement, which so far I have not heard disputed, if it has been: that the petitioner himself was a supporter of the hon. member and a personal friend of his. This is alleged by the hon. member for Frontenac, and whether it is subsequently disputed or not it constitutes an allegation in support of the charge he makes. The third is that so far from seeking to have this petition disposed of, as might be expected to be the conduct of a respondent, the conduct of the respondent has been consistent rather with the desire on his part to have the petition lie there and perform the service that it is performing now. All these things he has alleged.
If they are true, they undoubt-5 p.m. edly constitute an evasion of the rule of this House, an evasion that does not make it the duty of the courts, apart from the motion of either
party-unless some third party happens to come in, and his power to come in I doubt-to put an end to that sort of proceeding. Therefore I say that these constitute facts which, as they do build a case for evasion, make it impossible for this House to resist an inquiry on the part of an appropriate committee. I submit, therefore, with all deference, that it is the duty of the House to support the motion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I shall be
very brief in my remarks. I wish at once to relieve the mind of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) in connection with his intimation that I should have made a statement at once with regard to this matter and withdraw from the House.
I do not read the rules as my right hon. friend does. Rule 69 says:
If anything shall come In question touching the return or election of any member, he is to withdraw during the time the matter is in debate; and all members returned upon double returns are to withdraw until their returns are determined.
I do not see anything in that rule which would apply in my case as it has been presented to the House this afternoon.
The motion, Mr. Speaker, is a strange one. Is it a charge? The right hon. gentleman a moment ago, referring to the hon. member for Frontenac, used the word "charge." If it is a charge brought against the member for Maisonneuve, the right hon. gentleman knows that there is a proceeding to follow in that regard. If a charge were made against the right hon. gentleman or against the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) or against the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) the member preferring the charge should be ready in that case to put his seat in jeopardy. But I do not take his motion as a charge. True, there is a vague innuendo in the speech delivered by the member for Frontenac, but there is no charge in the motion. If there was, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to apply the well-known rule that no member may prefer a charge against a fellow member without putting his seat in jeopardy in the substantiation of that charge.
I have nothing to complain of so far as the remarks made by the hon. member for Frontenac are concerned. It strikes me, however, that in this matter there is one system of justice for the minority and another for the majority. My right hon. friend the Minister of Justice waxed very eloquent as to the

impropriety of a member evading the law, trampling on the rules of the House by not electing within the specified time for one of the two seats for which he has been elected. I will put a question straight to my right hon. friend. He was on the Bench for nearly twenty years; he is now the Minister of Justice and custodian of at least the Dominion law. He was the Minister of Justice, sworn in as such in 1911, and he sat for six years in the possession of that portfolio and as a member of the House of Commons in Canada. One of his followers, was my late friend and opponent the then member for Charlevoix and Montmorency. Does not the right hon. gentleman know that no protest was lodged against the return of the late Sir Rodolphe Forget? Does he not know that that hon. gentleman sat during six years for both constituencies next to him in the House, and never was the eloquent voice of the right hon. gentleman raised in protest against the presence in the House of the late Sir Rodolphe Forget? Two-ways, Mr. Speaker, of administering justice as understood by the right hon. gentleman.
Now, I will put another question to the right hon. gentleman, because he used the word "fraud." Sir, I resent that expression falling from the lips of the Minister of Justice. No man has ever traduced me; no man has ever accused me of having committed a fraud or participated in a fraudulent act, and I will not allow any man to do so. If it is fraud for the member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe to occupy two seats in the House, is it fraud for a right hon. gentleman whom I am told has affixed his signature to a document settling a number of Dominion election protests? If that is a fact, surely it was a fraud, and it would have been a criminal act. I heard of a certain right hon. gentleman who did that. I lay no charge, but the right hon. gentleman will not with impunity use the word "fraud" with reference to me.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does the hon. gentleman desire an answer to his question? If the hon. gentleman had followed what I said I think he would have perceived that I did not charge him with fraud; that what I,said was that the statements that were made prima facie indicated, gave ground for, belief that there was fraud, and called for inquiry. I was careful throughout my speech, and if I did not succeed in making that clear, I am sorry, I strove to do it-	.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my right hon.
friend withdraw the word "fraud?"


Charles Joseph Doherty: I wish to state that I did not charge the hon. gentleman with fraud, nor with anything else.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Thank you.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I may say that I tried to make that clear; but what I sought to put before the House was that, upon the facts as presented to the House, there was a case for inquiry. As the hon. gentleman will remember, I pointed out that I thought that was due, in justice to this House and, in particular, to himself.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thank the right hon. gentleman for his explanation, but I did not like the imputation of fraud which I read through his remarks. I accept the explanation that he has given to me and to the House. Once more, I resent such an insinuation, as I have never been charged with fraud, and I hope to live and die without any such imputation being brought against me.
The right hon. gentleman said a moment ago that he understood, by the motion made by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), that, first, the petitioner was a friend of mine. I declare upon my word of honour that I do not personally know the petitioner who had that petition served upon me. In fact, I am almost certain that he was an opponent of mine. Second, I am not aware that he has disappeared, as was slightly hinted by the hon. member for Frontenac. Third, as it was suggested that some of the documents had disappeared from the record, my answer is that I have seen the record for the first time this morning. I wrote to my attorneys in Montreal for it, and I hold it in my hand. If there are any papers missing from the original record, I have in my private record, copies of all those documents, and I shall be pleased, whenever I am asked, to give duplicates either to the committee or to the Superior Court in Montreal. But, perhaps, the hon. gentleman may have thought that there was some suspicion of a disappearance of documents because, as a matter of fact, there are very few documents in that record. There is the petition; there is my appearance, and there are two or three motions made. That is all.
I wish to say to the House that what I said in 1919, I abide by. I am firmly convinced that it is not sound practice that a member should be returned for two seats.
I came to that conclusion long ago.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a custom which has been followed in the past on both sides of the House-I hear laughter on the other side-it is a custom which was followed by Sir John A. Macdonald. It has been followed, I believe, by the ex-Prime Minister of Canada (Sir Robert Borden). It has been followed by the late Sir Rodolphe Forget, and by many other hon. gentlemen from the other party, since Confederation. It has also been followed by some hon. members of the Liberal party. But I repeat what I said in 1919. We live in a more democratic era and this practise is undemocratic. At the earliest opportunity, when my hands are legally free, I intend to avail myself of the stand I took in 1919. I supported in this House the reform advocated by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), and my sincerity need not be questioned. If a gentleman is sometimes elected for two constituencies, I am human enough to admit that that is due to party exigencies. All the more fortunate for him if he is elected; yet everybody knows that if it is quite a task to represent one constituency, to represent two constituencies is certainly no sinecure.
I wish at once to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Frontenac a moment ago. He said that I was elected in 1904 for the constituencies of Nicolet and Gaspe. That is true. He said that it took me one or two sessions before I made the statutory declaration. That is true. But I was protested.


John Wesley Edwards: I accepted my hon.
friend's statement at the time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I want to emphasize
the fact. I was protested, if I mistake not, by my opponent, Mr. Ball, who for a number of years was member for the constituency of Nicolet. It was only when a judgment of the court dismissed the petition against me that I was in a position, in the early part of the session of 1906, to declare that I elected for the constituency of Gaspe, and then the late Hon. Charles Devlin was elected in the constituency of Nicolet.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) found it strange that so many months had elapsed without any move being taken in the matter. Of course, it would strike popular imagination that, indeed, the process of law was long. It would strike any one that it should have lasted so long,
and, perhaps, some might suggest that the parties in the case are not averse to prolonging the delays.


Michael Clark: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who says, hear, hear?


Michael Clark: I was the guilty party.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I absolve the hon. gentleman. I thought it was my good friend the hon. member for Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer). Let me call the attention of the House to one or two circumstances. The last election took place in 1917; a certain delay elapsed, and a protest was served upon me just prior to the session of 1918. Hon. gentlemen know that all proceedings are stayed during the session, which was a fairly long one. * After the session was over, it happened that the legal holidays were in progress, and no procedure took place. Is there anything very strange in that?-I appeal to my hon. friends, who belong to the legal profession. There is nothing anomalous in that. Then the session of 1919 began, and I was present at that session for only a few days. I leave it to the House to say whether or not, because I had to leave for France early in that session and that I remained away for nearly seven months, I made that trip to evade any legal process. I was away the greater part of the year. I came back towards the end of last session, and then again there-were the legal holidays, so therefore-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who laughs? Is that
true, or is it not? I say that as soon as last session was prorogued, there was the legal holidays. I remained outside of this country for several months, it is true, but no one in this House will dare to say that it was to evade any process of law in the courts of this country. Now, Mr. Speaker, the rule of the House is:
All members who are returned for two or more electoral districts shall make their election for which of the districts they will serve within twenty days after it shall appear that there is no question upon the return for either district.
I am ready to leave this matter to the courts of the land. I am a King's Counsel. In my professional career I have never played any tricks; I have never acted the sharp practitioner before any of the courts of this land. I repudiate with all my might any innuendo or insinuation against

my good faith in this matter, and the best evidence of my good faith, Mr. Speaker, I will give to the House at once.
My hon. friend has made his motion. I could hardly have expected that he would present his case in the manner he did. I expected that he would be less moderate, less judicial, more partisan than he was, because we see eye to eye on hardly any question that comes before the House. But from the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) who is thoroughly conscious of all that the word justice implies, who is an old judge, and who knows me, I could have expected language less sarcastic, less persiflage, a tone more judicial. As I have said, he did not choose to adopt that tone whilst speaking of a fellow-member who has occupied a seat in this House for twenty-five years. I do not complain of that; I am accustomed to the rough-and-tumble of public life. But there are certain amenities which should be maintained in public as well as in private life. I thank my hon. friend from Frontenac for the manner in which he has brought this matter before the House. I might have perhaps expected a longer notice from him before bringing this matter up, but he has presented his case in a gentlemanly way, for which I sincerely thank him. I shall have no difficulty whenever the time comes in dispelling from his mind the cloud of suspicion which evidently over-haiigs it. I shall help him in getting all the papers and witnesses and court officials, and will do everything in my power to dispel the opaque cloud of doubt and suspicion which blurs his conscience. I also invite the moderator of the synod of justice, the custodian of the Dominion law, the fair interpreter of the statutes in the spirit and in the letter, to appear before the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and to follow closely my train and see whether I have been acting fraudulently or not. I might perhaps have occasion then to cross-examine my right hon. friend on some of his own election ventures.
I hope that the House will not divide. I do not care to leave the matter any longer in suspense. Let the Committee on Privileges and Elections make this inquiry, and send for all the papers and witnesses it desires. When that committee, Mr. Speaker, has fully inquired into all the facts of this case, it will be found that the hon. member for Gaspe and Maisonneuve is willing and indeed anxious to live up not only to the letter of rule 79, but to its spirit, because it is the very spirit of the British constitu-

tion and of ours that a man should be elected, for~one seat and one seat only.


Mr. KEEFER:: As the hon. member has mentioned my constituency, may I ask whether according to the practice of his province a respondent can apply to dismiss for want of prosecution?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, certainly.


Francis Henry Keefer: Can he also apply to speed the case?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly.
Mr. KEEFElt: Has that been done?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, not in my case. As I have explained, I could not proceed during the session; I could not proceed during the legal holiday; I could not proceed when I was in Europe. But I am ready to proceed immediately the session is over, and I have given instructions accordingly.


Mr. MORPHY:: I see by the record I have had placed in my hands that the motion for delay on behalf of the respondent, the hon. member for Maisonneuve, was supported by an affidavit. I would like to know who made that affidavit.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have it here. It bears my name. I made the affidavit myself.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Has the hon member any objection to letting me see it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: None at all. I will send it over now.


Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome) :: Mr. Speaker, I have just one observation to make. I listened with some attention to the remarks made by the right hon. the Prime Minister and I gathered from what he said that he thought there was no possibility of getting rid of collusion, if there happened to be collusion, unless the matter was brought before the Privileges and Elections Committee. I would point out that the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, as found in the statutes of 1906, chapter 7, provides by section 39:
If at the expiration of three months after such petition has been presented, the day for trial has not been fixed, any elector may, on application, be substituted for the petitioner on such terms as the court thinks just.


Arthur Meighen: For the petitioner.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: That would not help any.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I understood the argument of my learned and hon. friend to be that the petitioner was a make-believe peti-

tioner, that he was there not for the purpose of proceeding against the respondent, but of preventing other people from proceeding against him. That is my understanding of his argument.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say it was to prevent any one else from proceeding at all. What I argued, or [DOT] rather what the Minister of Justice argued, was that the provision enabling one person to take the place of another who might be a fake petitioner was to enable the petition to proceed and not be dropped. That is not the present case. The present petitioner does not want to have it dropped; he is only too willing to have the matter stand just where it is.


Andrew Ross McMaster: As I understand the objection of hon. members of the other side to this proceeding in Montreal, it is that the court is not functioning, that the proceeding is not proceeding, if I may use that Hibernianism, with apologies to the Minister of Justice. That is what I understand to be the difficulty with my learned and hon. friends opposite. That is a misconception of the law, because if there is any suspicion in the mind of any one in that regard, the Government is able to find one or two friends in Maisonneuve-they must have at least one or two-whom they can get to make application to the court and ask that they be substituted for the petitioner. The question comes to this: whether it is wiser to have judicial questions settled by a court, or by a committee which of necessity must be more or less partisan in its constitution.


Right Hon.   S@: I congratulate my hon.
friend from Maisonneuve and Gaspe (Mt. Lemieux), upon the determination which he has reached. It occurred to me in the early stages of the debate that it would have been well for him then to arise and announce the determination which 'I felt sure he would announce in the end. I have therefore nothing to say on the case that has been presented or the answer that has been, given, but I desire to say a word or two on the general question as to the right of this Parliament to deal with matters affecting the status of members of this House. That particular question really does not arise here, but as so much has been said about it, I should like to remind hon. gentlemen that it was very thoroughly discussed in this House upon a motion which I made in 1899 when I brought to the
attention of Parliament, after the time for filing petitions had passed, certain alleged irregularities respecting the return of members of this House for the constituency of West Huron and the constituency of Brockville in the province of Ontario. The motion I made was based on affidavits indicating that at a certain poll in the riding of West Huron, and also at least one poll in the riding of Brockville, more electors had voted for the Conservative candidate in these ridings than was indicated by the number of ballots actually found in the box afterwards. The motion I made was consented to by the then leader of the Government, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who thought that I had made a fairly strong case with respect to West Huron, but rather a weak one with regard to Brockville; and we entered into a long investigation of the question, under the determination of the House so reached with the consent of both parties. So the rule which has been alluded to by several hon. members in this debate has not quite the limitations which have been suggested by some other hon. gentlemen. Now, so far as the real question in this matter is concerned, it is perfectly true that there is within the reach of the judicial authorities in the province of Quebec a method of determining whether or not this petition is collusive. That is the real test of the case put forward by the member for Prontenac. I am not disposed to accept the conclusion that, because it is competent for the courts of that province to reach such a determination in dealing with that question, therefore this House would be utterly helpless if it were plain that the petition was kept alive through collusion. I am not in the least suggesting, as my hon. friend from Maisonneuve will understand, that there was collusion, because I readily appreciate the fact that we must accept the opposite view until the contrary is determined after fair investigation. But I put to hon. members in this House this question: Suppose it were admitted frankly on the floor of the House that a particular petition had been originated or afterwards maintained through collusion, would any hon. member say that this House would be utterly helpless under those circumstances? It could not be pretended for one moment. I am sure the Committee on Privileges and Elections would determine and report to the House that a collusive petition was no petition at all within the meaning of the rule, and that the House would be in a position to take action just

as if no such petition had been originated or maintained. However, that is purely with regard to the principle which the House ought to accept in dealing with a question of this kind. Fortunately, my hon. friend from Maisonneuve has taken what I conceive to be the proper and manly course in this case, and the whole question raised by the member for Frontenac will be under consideration by the Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: For a good many years I have followed rather closely the enforcement of our election law, and that law, like many another of our federal laws, falls down because we have no federal enforcement of the statutes we pass in this Parliament. In this country there ought to be a federal enforcement of federal laws, and we are gradually coming to an appreciation of the importance of this. They had to come to it in the United States, and I think that when we have laws on our statute books governing elections to this Parliament, and matters of a similar character, we ought to have a federal court for their enforcement. There has been objection to this from a provincial standpoint, and the question has come up time after time; but I think that the mere fact that we have federal laws governing our elections is sufficient warranty for having a federal court for their enforcement. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Borden), at one stage of his career in this House, had some doubt as to the wisdom of this policy, but I was glad to hear him some years ago declare that he was being impressed more and more by the necessity for this Parliament taking this view of the question, and ultimately seeing to it that the interpretation and enforcement of federal laws, and especially of the law that concerns the election of members of this House, their rights, and the rights of the electors, shall lie with a federal court, where, if there were any unnecessary delay or any attempt at a violation of democratic principles, we could rectify it in this House.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I want to draw the attention of the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) to the argument which he made in connection with this matter. It is contended that a process, which must be regular and lawful-the filing of the petition-has been used in this case improperly and illegally as a subterfuge and is therefore, an abuse of the process of the court. Now if there

has been an abuse of the process of any court, where ought you to go to have it rectified? You go before that court whose process has been abused. You give notice of motion that you are going to move to strike out the rule of summons, if it is a rule. If it is a petition that has been filed, you move that the petition be struck off the records of the court. That is the proper course to follow and that has not been done in this ease. A petition has been filed, it stands there yet, it is there to-day, and it must therefore be accepted as proper until it is set aside. Rule 79 that we are dealing with is a conditional rule; there is added to it a condition, and while the condition exists the rule does not apply. It is something like talking about the statute of limitations where we say the statute does not run while the man concerned is out of the country. In this case it is a condition to the application of this rule that there should be no impediment to the election or no objection raised to it. The rule of the House is as follows:	*
All members who are returned for two or more electoral districts shall make their election for which of the districts they will serve, within twenty days after it shall appear that there is no question upon the return for either district.
Well, there is a question here. Will the Minister of Justice or the right hon. member for King's, N.S. say that there is not? A petition has been filed questioning the hon. gentleman's right to the seat and that immediately comes within this rule. There is no obligation upon any member who is returned for two seats, to resign or take any steps until that impediment is removed and the case has been heard. If anybody is holding a seat improperly there is a proceeding well known to the warranto, of this country as a writ of quo warranto. My hon. friend from Frontenac, or some lawyer representing him, could go before the Supreme Court of Canada, or a judge of the Supreme Court of Quebec, and move for an order of the court calling upon the hon. member for Maisonneuve to show cause why he was occupying a seat in this House. The hon. member for Maisonneuve then would have to appear before a properly constituted court and make good his position. That is the law. The right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) smUes.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I smiled, Mr. Speaker, because I never heard before that quo warranto could be used to test the right of a member to sit in Parliament.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If it applies in the case of one public man, where proceedings have been entered in the courts, why should it not apply in the case of another? For example, there is not the slightest difference between the position of a member of Parliament or the position of a member of a municipal council as far as the holding of the seat is concerned. In each case the man is holding office by virtue of an election; he is elected for a certain term and he sits by reason of the course of that election. If you can bring a municipal councillor before the courts to show that he won his seat in that council improperly why cannot you adopt the same procedure in the case of a member of the local Legislature? Let me give an illustration. Supposing the law required that a man should be solvent before he could hold a seat in any legislature of the Dominion? Despite this law a man who has became insolvent nevertheless retains his seat, we will say, in the Legislature of the province of Ontario. Very well, you go before the Supreme Court of that province and summon that man there to show how it is that he, an insolvent, in contravention of the statute, continues to hold the seat. I make that assertion as a common-sense principle in law. That is the way in which you pro*-ceed to attack a man who has been disqualified but is still holding his seat in the Legislature; There is no other way of getting at him so far as I know.
However, I do not wish to wander from the point at issue which is: that while this petition, made in compliance with the law, stands I submit this is not the proper tribunal of the House to decide the matter at issue; the exhibition of partisanship which has been displayed here this afternoon is the best and most conclusive evidence of that. I have always maintained that a partisan parliament-and all parliaments are more or less of that character -is not the judicial, calm and deliberate body which should deal with points of law -the courts are there to decide such questions. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that any person who questions the validity or propriety of this petition should have gone before some judge in the province of Quebec, a proceeding for which there was abundant opportunity, and asked that this petition be dismissed. Once that was done the coast was clear, and if the hon. member for Maisonneuve, my deskmate then continued to occupy his seat in defiance of those proceedings, I would have no fault to find with the Committee on
Privileges and Elections dealing with the case. But while this petition stands we should not make ourselves the judges of what has been done, or is being done, or should be done in the Supreme Court of the province of Quebec. I submit, Sir, that to do as we are asked would be taking a very dangerous step. We should be discharging a duty which should be calmly and deliberately discharged by a judge, and not by a partisan tribunal such as we have in this House.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The debate has lasted a very long time and I have no desire to prolong it. But the hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe having sent me over a copy of the notice of motion in the trial proceedings and of the affidavit supporting it. I think it would be well to put that affidavit on record so as to make the record complete.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not believe there is any document missing, but if there is, I shall be only too pleased- to supply it in order to complete the record. I am ready to give all the information that is desired.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: This document is in
French. I suppose my hon. friend has no objection to my translating it as I proceed so that it may go upon the record in English.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not at all; it is a public document.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Province of Quebec, District of Montreal Superior Court No. 12.
Controverted Elections Act.
In -the matter of the election of a member of the House of Commons of Canada for the electoral district of Maisonneuve, in the judicial district of Montreal, held on November 19, and December 17, 1917, being respectively the days for nomination and voting.
Albert Gadboua, petitioner, vs. the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, respondent.
Motion for prolongation or continuation of delay.	.
Whereas a petition in contestation of election has been presented in this matter on March 15, 1917, and whereas the respondent desires to make a motion for particulars to reply to the said petition such as prescribed by the law and to take all proceedings that he will judge necessary in time and place.
Whereas the delay for taking the said proceedings has expired and the respondent, without a judgment of this court extending the said delay, would be deprived of his right of defending himself and contesting the said petition above mentioned.
Whereas it is necessary that the respondent obtain the said continuation of delay to permit him to contest the said petition as he intends to do.



Whereas the respondent has strong grounds tor promoting this request in his own interest.
And whereas this court has the power to order the continuation of delay asked for by the respondent.
May it please the court to relieve the respondent from all default which could be brought against him under the law and which could be registered against him by the requirements of the order for delay granted by the law for contesting the petition as may be proper, and that the said request shall not commence to run or to count only from the date of the judgment of this honourable court on this present motion, and that it may be allowed to the respondent to contest the said petition, as he intends to do if granted the said delay.
Costs ought to follow the results.
Montreal, February 14, 1921.
Murphy, Gouin and Parent,
Solicitors for the respondent.
Here follows the affidavit:
I the undersigned Rodolphe Lemieux, barrister, of the City of Montreal, Province of Quebec, residing at 265 O'Connor street in the city of Ottawa, being duly sworn, depose and say:
1.	I am the respondent in the above mentioned cause.
2.	All the facts alleged in the above mentioned notice of motion are true to the best of my knowledge, and I have signed.
Rodolphe Lemieux. Sworn before Nathaniel Mills.
Notary Public.
That is the main part of the motion and is all I wish to quote.
There is only one word I have to say in connection with the debate which has been so prolonged. In answer to the hon. member for Maisonneuve, who says that the motion of the hon. member for Frontenac makes no charge. As I understand the motion it makes a deliberate charge of an attempt-a successful one, I think-to evade the rules of this House. That to my mind is a very serious charge if the hon. member for Maisonneuve is guilty of it. It seems to me that there is only one particular hand seen in this-the hand of the hon'. member for Maisonneuve. The hon. member for Lotbiniere to-day said that there was nothing to show that the hon. member for Maisonneuve engineered these delays. Why, he did it himself. He did not require to hire any one to pass on the action of the hon. member himself. The hon. member for Maisonneuve says that he really did not know the man, alleged to be his friend, who filed the petition. He has not told us that he ever tried to find out whether it was a friend or enemy. It is a queer thing that a man who had a petition brought against him and which had been pending for three years would not even today know the name of the pettioner, would not have intimated to the House that he

had made some inquiries to find out who the petitioner was, and on the whole it looks just a little suspicious that if the hon. gentleman did not engineer he at least propagated the attempt to delay the hearing of the petition from time to time by himself for-


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend will
allow me? He says it is rather surprising that I should not know the petitioner, who is one of niy electors. I would put a question to my hon. friend: Does he know each one of his electors?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would know the man
who made the charge. -


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend does
not represent a city constituency of that size. I declare that I do not know the petitioner, I have never seen him.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement. I suppose his solicitors might easily have told him, if he had been very anxious to know, who was the gentleman who ostensibly took this serious proceeding against him. But I do not wish to labour the question. I rose mainly for the purpose of putting on record the affidavit which shows that the application for delay was put upon the court records by the hon. gentleman himself.


Thomas Vien: Will my hon. friend allow
me? Why does he not press the question in court as provided by law? He could appear in court or have some of his friends, for instance, any elector of Maisonneuve, appear in court and owing to the delay ask to be substituted for the petitioner in order to prosecute the petition.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The answer to that question would appeal to me like this, Mr. Speaker. If I were charged with corrupt practices and had a petition hanging over my head, I would be the first man to take advantage of the very rule the hon. gentleman speaks of, to have that petition dismissed on my own motion for want of prosecution. I suppose the hon. gentleman will not say that he could not have done that?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not follow the hon. gentleman. What does he say?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I asked the hon. gentleman if there was anything to prevent him from making a motion to dismiss that petition and have it taken off the files of the courts?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know the
meaning of my hon. friend's question. But if he wants to know from me what intention I have-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No. If my hon. friend will allow me I will repeat my question.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is putting a question to me and trying to make it appear that I do not want to answer it.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to give a straight answer to my hon. friend.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not know how my hon. friend can give a straight answer when he does not understand my question.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is trying to impress the House with the idea that I am trying to evade his question.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I did not say that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That I am trying to evade the process which would put an end to the petition one way or the other. I declare to the hon. gentleman that he is misinformed as to that, and that on the contrary I am anxious to get this petition dismissed. I intend on the morrow of this session to take proper proceedings to put an end to it. If my hon. friend will accept this assurance it may perhaps placate his conscience.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are getting into
very loose methods in this debate. The Chair has not seen fit to intervene and insist on the strict observance of the rules, because this being a question of privilege I thought the good sense of the House might be trusted not to depart too far from the rules. The debate has taken the whole afternoon, and I must now insist on a strict adherence to the rules. The hon. member would not be in order in submitting a question to the hon. member for Maison-neuve or any other hon. member.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wished to answer my hon. friend.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must rule that the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) is not in order in submitting a question to the hon. member for Maisonneuve.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Then I make the assertion that under the practices of all
148J
courts in connection with Dominion elections the respondent has the same right as any elector would have to move for the dismissal of a petition alleging corrupt practices. I say-and I say it advisedly- that if the hon. gentleman was as anxious two years ago to get rid of this process as he professes to be now, he had under the law the right as respondent, in his own behalf to move for the dismissal of the petition from the files of the court.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, the remarks which I have to offer this evening on the motion submitted by the hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards) will be in one respect like the prayers recited at the funeral of Sir John Moore, "few and short". I felt, when listening to my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) this afternoon that he deserved the congratulations of all the members of the House for the moderation with which he introduced his motion. The hon. member has a reputation, at any rate in the province of Quebec, of being a somewhat fiery orator when he works himself up to the proper pitch. It is probable that he did not have the necessary confidence in his case this afternoon and it was that which caused him to speak in the tone he did. Per contra, I cannot offer my felicitations to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) for the manner in which they handled the question when it came before the House.
I propose to call for a vote when the House is ready for the same, on the principle whether we ought to permit a question of this kind to come before the Privileges and Elections Committee or any other committee of Parliament, rather than the courts under the Dominion Controverted Elections Act. There is more reason why this case should be disposed of under that Act than, perhaps, any case of this nature that has been before the House for a considerable time, and that is that it is now before the courts, and we propose by this motion to take the matter out of the hands of the judicial authorities and to cast it into the arena of Parliament. We ought not to take this attitude without careful consideration, because to do so will create a precedent which will work both ways. The principle of sending such

cases before the courts under the Dominion Controverted Elections Act has been enunciated in this House for nearly fifty years. In 1873 the Dominion Controverted Elections Act was passed, and since that time, with one or two exceptions, all matters of the kind now before the House, have been disposed of under that Act, and in this case we were following the precedents set up and established by the Imperial Parliament. The citation of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien), this afternoon, is quite apposite and apropos. He was referring to a statement made by Sir John Thompson in 1887, when a matter of this kind was before the House, and I trust I may be permitted to read that citation once more, because I feel that the crux of the whole matter may be found in the remarks of Sir John Thompson. I am very sorry the Minister of Justice is not in his seat in order to hear the sapient words of his great predecessor in office, a constitutional lawyer of the very highest authority.


Mr. CURRIE:: That extract, I think, was read this afternoon.


Samuel William Jacobs: It cannot be read too often, because it evidently did not impress itself upon the Minister of Justice. Knowing the mentality of the Minister of Justice as I do-I was a student of his for three or four years-I think it will be advisable to cite it once more, because the matter is good and the Minister of Justice might benefit by giving it second thought. This is what Sir John Thompson says:
Since the change which I have referred to, and by which Parliament has renounced its rights to deal with the matter of controverted elections, there has been fully recognized in the various discussion's that have taken place In the Imperial House of Gammons, this principle-
Mark the words.
-that everything has been transferred to the judiciary in connection with controverted elections, excepting the one question of the disqualification of persons who have been returned to Parliament. As was said by Sir Henry James in 1882, in the case of Michael Havitt, the only question which Parliament has reserved to itself to deal with is the question whether a proper person has been returned in obedience to the writ.
That is the only question with which Parliament now deals.
As was explained by Lord Coleridge and Lord Selborne in a previous debate in 1870, that reservation is not in conflict with the statute which says that the election shall only be contested by an election petition, because the House has to consider whether the writ has been obeyed which commanded the electors of the shire, or the county, to return a suitable

person to sit in that House. The House, therefore, is still seized of the right to decide whether the writ has (been obeyed by the election of a person who is fit and proper to sit in that House.
He continues, and I would draw the attention of hon. gentlemen on the other side to these remarks:
But as soon as the question has been decided as to the qualification of the person so returned, the conduct of the returning officer, or the number of votes which were received, the conduct of the candidates, and every other question connected with the election, or with the conduct of the returning officer, has been relegated to the judiciary, and the House has always declined to exercise its functions and its power to interfere.
That is the practice in England, and it is a practice for which we contended in the Yukon election case which came before the House a couple of years ago. The hon. member for Quebec East in his address before the House on that occasion quoted from May's "Parliamentary Practice" the following:
Before the- year 1770, controverted elections were tried and determined by the whole House of Commons, as mere party questions, upon which the strength of contending factions might be tested.
So you will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the House, in order to obtain precedents for throwing this matter into the Privileges and Elections Committee, is obliged to grope back to the year 1770 and before that. He continues:
In order to prevent so notorious a perversion of justice-
Mark the words.
-the House consented to submit the exercise of its privilege to a tribunal constituted by law, which, though composed of its own members, should be appointed so as to secure impartiality, and the administration of justice according to the laws of the land, and under the sanction of oaths.
That is to say, they formed a Privileges and Elections Committee. Then he goes on:
This principle was maintained, with partial alterations of the means by which it was carried out, until 1868, when the jurisdiction of the House, in the trial of controverted elections was transferred by Statute to the courts of law.
In 1868, the rule was changed whereby all those matters were sent to the courts of law under the Controverted Elections Act. We followed, in 1873, with a somewhat similar statute, the Dominion Controverted Elections Act. Why cannot the courts deal with this question? Why is it necessary that it should be brought be-

fore Parliament? It was pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MeMaster) that section 30, subsection 2, gives any person, an elector in the division of Maisonneuve, the authority and power to proceed with a case where the petitioner refuses or fails to proceed. It is a simple matter for the Government to secure some person in the large electoral division of Maisonneuve to proceed with this petition. I fancy that it would be necessary to obtain some person whose views are favourable to the Government. Possibly the Government feels that it is impossible for it to obtain a single elector in the division of Maisonneuve who is sympathetic to the Government. That is the only reason why the Government is perhaps not proceeding. It is the simplest matter in the world for a petitioner, an ordinary person, an elector, to come before the court with a petition explaining' that he understands that there is collusion; that the case is not being proceeded with for the reasons mentioned in this House to-day, and he thereupon becomes a party to the suit. Why is it not proceeded with thus? In this way a decision would be obtained from a judicial tribunal. We all know what happens before the Privileges and Elections Committee. I am not a prophet, but I am perhaps bold enough to make the claim that I am descended from a race of prophets. I will tell the House what is going to happen. There will he two reports, one by the majority of the committee and the other by the minority. The majority will report along the lines hinted at by the Minister of Justice and by the Prime Minister. The minority will bring in a report-


Andrew Ross McMaster: The right report.


Samuel William Jacobs: The right report, as my
hon. friend from Brome saysi, indicating that the conduct of all parties in connection with this matter is as white as the driven snow. Will that get us anywhere, Mr. Speaker? The public understand these things; the public is not a fool; the public knows, as every one in this House knows, that this incident is brought up merely for the purpose of making political capital out of it, and the report of the committee *will be affected very largely owing to the fact that it is brought in by a partisan majority.
I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not in his seat at the present moment, because I desire to put to him a question as to why Sir Rodolphe Forget was allowed
to sit on the Government benches for six years without any action at all being taken to make him elect for which of two seats he would sit. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and in the case of Sir Rodolphe Forget, mind you, there were no contestation proceedings of any kind. Are hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House aware that during the parliamentary session hon. members need not proceed with their cases; they are not obliged to proceed with their cases while Parliament is in session. Are hon. gentlemen aware that since 1917 this House has been sitting in the aggregate for the best part of two years? In this connection I wish to cite section 39 of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, which provides :
The trial of every election petition shall he commenced within six months from the time when suoh petition has been presented, and shall be proceeded with from day to day until such trial is over; but if, at any time, it appears to the court that the respondent's presence at the trial is necessary, such trial shall not be commenced during any session of Parliament, if the respondent is a member; and in the computation of any time or delay allowed for any step or proceeding in respect of any such trial, or for the commencement thereof as aforesaid, the time occupied by such session of Parliament shall not be included.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve was attending to his parliamentary duties here for nearly two years, when his case could not be proceeded with. Then we know, as he explained this afternoon, that he went to Europe after the session of 1919, and was away for nearly seven months, so that he has practically been away from the court where the case is to be tried for over two years. I submit that the Prime Minister, when he was discussing this question in all its phases this afternoon, and knowing of this provision in the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, must have overlooked the fact that the hon. member for Maisonneuve was not obliged to attend the term of the court during the entire time this House was in session.
I asked the right hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon if he was aware of the citation in Bourinot to the effect that this rule which it is complained is being broken has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Never before in the history of this Parliament, I venture to say, never since Confederation, at any rate, has a question of this kind come before the House. Why, then, is this matter trotted out to-day before the House, and political capital attempted to be made out of it? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is

so obvious that it does not need to be given. We have been told here to-day of several recent cases of hon. gentlemen with a seat in this House with a dual mandate. The ex-Prime Minister of this country, the right hon. gentleman who has just recently retired a few years ago, if I remember well, occupied two seats. - Sir Wilfrid Laurier also occupied two seats, and there are other like cases.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve this afternoon stated that he was perfectly willing to go before the Privileges and Elections Committee, as he had nothing to disguise, and was afraid of nothing that might come up. He felt that his skirts were clear, and he wanted the matter brought before any tribunal whatever as soon as it possibly could be brought. He may be right in that. I suppose he is justified in asking that the Privileges and Elections Committee handle this case forthwith, but personally I shall object to this motion being passed without a vote being-taken even if I should be the only one to vote for allowing this matter to remain with the courts and for depriving the Privileges and Elections Committee of the opportunity of dealing with it. It is because of the principle for which we have been struggling in this country and in this House for many years. It is a principle that was laid down long before many of us were born. It is not a question of whose case is coming-before the House at the present moment. It is a question of principle. Are we prepared to go back to the year 1770, or are we prepared to maintain the principle that in every case arising out of elections, except that of the disqualification of the person returned, the matter must go before the courts?
The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) deplored to-day that we have no federal courts to' deal with this matter. He thought it was somewhat of an anomaly that a federal matter of this sort should not be dealt with by a federal court. I would point qut to the hon. gentleman and to the House that the court before which this case is to be tried is a federal court. It is a court which interprets the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, a federal statute. The judge who sits on that court is a federal judge; he draws his salary from the Dominion treasury, and he sits as a federal judge.
Under all these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see why there is such an insistent demand on the part of the leaders on the Government side that this matter shall be taken before the Privileges
IMr. Jacobs.]
and Elections Committee. As I said before, it will get us nowhere. It will provoke a considerable amount of srife. This case should be settled by the court which is seized of it, and I venture to say that if our friends on the Government side are as anxious as they claim to be to have this seat vacated, if they would see that the machinery provided by the law under the Dominion Controverted Elections, Act was put in motion, they would very soon get what they desire.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :: Mr. Speaker, there may be some excuse for hon. members supporting the Government or the Opposition voting on questions for purely party reasons, but there can be no such excuse for the members of the Progressive party. The country will listen to no such excuse from us. We must vote according to our convictions, or we will be condemned.


Samuel William Jacobs: Convicted.


Levi Thomson: Some may think that
is rather an unfortunate position to be in, but I am rather inclined to think it is the reverse. The hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) has indicated a way in which any person who wishes this matter settled can have it disposed of, but some question has been raised as to the procedure he suggested. There seems to have been no objection raised, however, to the procedure suggested by my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). We must assume therefore that there is no legal objection which can be advanced to the plan suggested by him. It is quite apparent that the speakers on the Government side admit the correctness of his position, because they are offering no objection to it. It has been suggested by the Prime Minister and others that a definite charge or allegation has been made. Well, I listened carefully to my hon. friend from Erontenac (Mr. Edwards), who usually is very easily understood, and I failed to hear from him anything in the nature of a definite accusation or charge at all. It is true he made some suggestion that the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux), was evading the rules of the House, but that is very sweeping; it is like calling a man a thief without formulating any definite charge of theft against him. That, of course, is a common thing in this world, and we do not usually take such insinuations seriously. Not only has there been no definite charge, but the hon. member for Maisonneuve has distinctly

denied that there was any evasion or collusion on his part. That statement was quite decided; it was the most distinct statement we have heard in this debate.
The member for Frontenac, in support of his insinuation that there is something wrong, that there is some collusion, advances several arguments, the principal one upon which he chiefly depends being, apparently, the fact that the hon. member for Maisonneuve, the respondent in the case, has not compelled the prosecutor-in this matter, the petitioner-to proceed, or in default, asked that the case be dismissed. I suppose my hon. friend, although not a lawyer, is perfectly aware that this is the privilege of every defendant; and I wonder, if the member for Frontenac were a lawyer, how often he would advise the adoption of the procedure which he now suggests. The first case I ever had in my life was one in which I followed that procedure, and although it came out all right in the end I never followed it again. I have always followed the policy which every sane lawyer usually follows, that of letting sleeping dogs lie. How many lawyers in this House are in the habit of taking advantage of the right of forcing the prosecution to proceed? I am afraid that such lawyers would not have many clients or for long. This is true in ordinary cases, and it is doubly true in cases of election protests. I wonder if there is a single lawyer in this House who has ever done as my hon. friend suggests. Surely there is not a lawyer living who has ever followed the policy which the hon. member for Frontenac seems to think should be followed. If any lawyer did so, then I think he should immediately be examined by an alienist to decide whether he should practice at the bar, or be removed to a lunatic asylum; the chances would be overwhelmingly in favour of his confinement in an asylum rather than allowing him to continue practising. Any one can understand the reasonableness of this. How many elections are fought in this country when? a man elected, be he ever so honest and honourable, is positively certain that no improper proceeedings have been taken by any one to elect him? I think that most hon. gentlemen in this House won their election, so far as they are personally concerned, quite honestly. I have no doubt at all about that, and I cast no reflections on anyone.


Samuel William Jacobs: Which side of the House?


Levi Thomson: On either side. But how many hon. members are absolutely sure that not a single person connected with their election used improper means during the campaign? In view of the uncertainty of that situation, would not a lawyer he a positive fool to advise such procedure as the member for Frontenac proposes and which he seems to think there is some crookedness in not carrying out? The mere statement of the case shows the absurdity of the hon. member's position. Now, there is an old legal maxim which says that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. Are hon. members who have addressed us from the other side this afternoon coming with clean hands? Did not all those hon. gentlemen in the last Parliament sit along with a man who was guilty of exactly what they suggest that possibly my hon. friend from Maisonneuve may be guilty of? There seems to be no question as to the other gentleman having violated the rule, but I never heard that any objection was taken by hon. gentlemen opposite to his sitting in the House.


John Wesley Edwards: Who was that?


Levi Thomson: Sir Rodolphe Forget, with whom my hon. friend from Frontenac probably sat in this House. Surqly no man can suggest for a moment that men who sat with that gentleman for a whole term, without raising any objection, have the right now to raise such a tremendous row because, in their opinion, there is a possibility that the hon. member for Maisonneuve may be guilty of the same offence which they overlooked in one of their own.


Samuel William Jacobs: They are becoming virtuous before death.


Levi Thomson: Then we shall have to send for the higfh priest. Surely hon. gentlemen opposite cannot pretend that they are coming into court with clean hands. When they winked at what they tacitly admit was a wrong on their own side, they cannot reasonably suggest that there should be a thorough examination of something on the part of the hon. member for Maisonneuve in connection with which there is no definite charge. Now, insinuations were thrown across the House this afternoon, and they have been at other times for that matter, against the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). With those insinuations I do not identify myself, but it has been suggested that the right hon. gentleman has been evading the spirit of the law in

drawing superannuation as well as his pay as a minister and his indemnity as a member of Parliament. I am not saying that he has evaded the law, but that insinuation has been thrown out. Are our hon. friends on the other side suggesting that an investigation into that alleged evasion of the law be instituted and carried out? They are not. Why? Because he sits on that side.


John Wesley Edwards: Do you say it is an evasion of any law?


Levi Thomson: I do not say so, but the suggestion has been made on this side of the House by different members, and it is merely in keeping with the insinuation of my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Edwards), that there is something in connection with the member for Maisonneuve that should be investigated. Personally, I am not saying that the Minister of Justice is guilty of an evasion of the law.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is an invasion of the law.


Levi Thomson: I do say, however,
that if the right hon. gentleman were on the Opposition side there would be suggestions for an investigation, especially if he were in this unfortunate group of Progressives. Now, let hon. members be fair; let them play the game fairly like men and not try to play politics, because this is nothing but party politics. The hon. member for Maisonneuve has stated that he will welcome an investigation. I do not know what action will be taken on the strength of that declaration, but I will say that while I have no serious objection to this matter going to the committee, with the consent of the hon. member for Maisonneuve, if there is to be a vote on the question I cannot see how any man who acts conscientiously according to his convictions, as we should act, can refuse to vote against the proposal.


Mr. L. J. GAUTHIER (St. Hyaeinthe-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, if it is a matter of conscience on the part of my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) to have to take the position that he has taken, I suppose it is the privilege of every other hon. member of the House to pursue the course which he is going to follow for the same reason. The question before the House is a very simple one. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) claims that the privileges of the House have been violated by the fact that an hon. member 
is occupying two seats at the same time. The hon. gentleman in question, who represents the counties of Gaspe and Maisonneuve, claims that he has not violated the privileges of the House. That is all there is to be decided. The hon. member for Frontenac, believing that the privileges of the House have been violated, has asked that this question be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The hon. member for Gaspe and Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), speaking from his place welcomes a reference to that committee. Why? Because in view of the circumstances which surround his position it is an act of justice and of fair play to him to decide whether the charge is well founded. Why should we refuse to accord justice and fair play to one of our colleagues when the issue, according to his own declaration, has been put before the House in a calm and dignified manner and with every apparent desire to reach a just decision?


Samuel William Jacobs: What would happen if
the Committee on Privileges and Elections were to decide that the hon. gentleman has violated the privileges of the House and the court were to decide that he has not?


Louis Joseph Gauthier: If my hon. friend
wants to know in advance what will be the result of the inquiry before the committee and what judgment the court will render, to my mind ihe is not discussing the question at present before the House. The question is this: an hon. member of this House is charged with having violated one of its privileges, and the only way to do him justice is to support the stand that he has taken himself. The hon. gentleman says, "I have never violated any of the privileges of the House. I am willing to go before the committee and explain the stand that I have taken." The hon. gentleman expects that justice will be done him; why then should we refuse to give him the benefit of the position that he has taken? In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would remind those horn gentlemen who, with the best of intentions I am sure, have undertaken the defence of the hon. member who represents the counties of Gasp6 and Maisonneuve-


Rodolphe Lemieux: I require no defence.


Michael Clark: I undertook none.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: If the hon. members who have seen fit to defend the stand taken by the hon. gentleman who represents in this chamber the two counties of Gaspe and Maisonneuve keep on refusing to agree

to this matter being referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections surely, quoting the words of Frederick the Great,
I would say if I were in the position of the hon. gentleman, "The Lord deliver me from my friends. Give me my foes and I will take care of them."


John Wesley Edwards: I suppose the first
words I should utter should be words of appreciation to the hon. member for Gaspe and Maisonneuve for having been good enough to say that I have surprised him by being less partisan and more judicial than he expected. I accept with gratitude this double-headed compliment coming from my hon. friend. I should not pass without notice the appreciative utterance of my genial friend who represents the' constituency of George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) along the same line. That hon. gentleman interpolated the remark when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) was speaking that we were becoming virtuous before death.


Samuel William Jacobs: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: It occurs to us, Mr. Speaker, that even that belated virtue is preferable to none at all. The only inference I could draw from the remark is, that while the hon. gentleman credited us with a desire to be virtuous at some time during our lives he did not hint that such a thing is possible to the members on his own side. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) intimated that in some way I was lacking in appreciation of what was due the House and the country in my attitude with respect to the matter of the by-elections. Well, I was flattering myself that in that matter I had taken the same position as the hon. member himself and what greater honour could a man have, either here or in the country, than to find himself ranged on the same side as the hon. member for Red Deer on any question?1 Yet my hon. friend is not disposed to give me even that morsel of comfort. He spoke on that matter rather caustically, so far as I was concerned, and plumed himself on taking a virtuous and very proper stand, but he is not willing that I should get any credit although I took the same stand as he did.


Michael Clark: Keep it up, though.


John Wesley Edwards: No, Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend from Red Deer that my muscles, and body are such that I cannot attempt-to follow my hon. friend
in his political * career. I do not see how any person could successfully do so unless he had the physical qualities of a snake. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle, speaking as a lawyer, says, "It is ridiculous to suppose that the respondent, or the defendant, in the case would try and press this matter to a conclusion," and he puts this question to me: How often would the member for Frontenac, if he were a lawyer, follow the course which he has intimated should have been followed by the hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe, the respondent in this case? I think I can answer that question, though I am not a lawyer. If I were a lawyer, and a man came to me with a case such as this in which he was the respondent, I would advise him, if I thought he had a weak case, to follow the course of delay. That is just exactly what I think the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said he would advise, and that is what any lawyer would advise unless he was a fool. But if I felt my client had a good case and I could dispose of it successfully for him, then I would advise him to go ahead. I would say to him: "If the petitioner will not press it, you ask to have the case dismissed. That will show your bona tides, and people will know that they must not bring such actions against you in future unless they have a good foundation for them."
Now, Sir, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) confirmed me in the position which I took in asking for support of this resolution, and several of the statements made by that hon. gentleman were repeated by others. He said that any elector could ask for the petition to be proceeded with or to have it dismissed. Well, I think that view was concurred in by several other hon. members, and also by the hon. member for Gaspe and Maisonneuve himself. If any elector could have asked that this case be dismissed because the petitioner had not proceeded as he should have done, then why did not the member who was most interested take that course? Why do hon. gentlemen opposite throw the onus on this side of the House for not instituting proceedings along that line? The man most interested was the respondent. Was there anything to prevent him taking action? He did not take action.
Let me call attention for a moment to one or two other matters. The hon. member for Gaspe and Maisonneuve gave certain reasons why no move was made on his

part to have the petition dismissed because of lack of action on the part of the petitioner. He said that for part of the year he was busy here as a member of Parliament, and that after the session was over there were legal holidays, and that in 1919 he spent a considerable time in Europe. Now, I would immediately absolve my hon. friend in regard to the year 1919. I think I know why he went overseas, and so far as that period is concerned let us leave it out of the question altogether. But in all fairness-and I want to be fair in discussing this matter-let us look at the other years. He had the year 1918, and the year 1920, but he took no action in either of those years. Now, it has been stated that when the House was in session certain restrictions operated against this case being proceeded with. I think I am right in saying that during the session the petitioner could not proceed with the petition, nor could any hon. member. But there was one person to whom that restriction did not apply, and that was the respondent in the case. While I or any person else would be debarred from applying to the court to have the case gone on with or dismissed while the House was in session, because such action would constitute interference with the rights of the hon. member, he himself could have proceeded to have the petition dealt with. But my hon. friend says that his time was pretty well taken up; he is a very busy man. Well, I am willing to accept that statement. However, although he is a very busy man, he is very much concerned in having this matter dealt with. But while he pleads those excuses for not taking steps to have the petition dismissed, he did find time to ask of his own motion on two occasions this year for delay, first, when he engaged other legal advisers, and subsequently, on"*February 21. That action on my hon. friend's part took place just a few days after this session was called, and while by taking those steps he did not prevent himself from proceeding further, he did prevent any person else,from taking up the case. I think my argument is sound and that the hon. gentleman cannot and will not attempt to dispute it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have given reasons why in my estimation this whole matter should be referred to the committee on Privileges and Elections. Hon. gentlemen have adverted to the fact that Sir Ro-dolphe Forget sat for two seats between 1908 and 1911, I think.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Between 1911 and 1917.


John Wesley Edwards: And I think I am right in saying that the late right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier sat for two seats in the same Parliament. No action was taken by members on either side of the House. Well, I do not think that is a very good reason why action should not be taken in this case. Once more let me say this: for many years it was recognized that hon. gentlemen might run for two constituencies. No outcry was made against that practice; it was followed by members on both sides. But in the fall session of 1919 this Parliament took a very definite stand in regard to the filling of vacancies. Prior to that time it had been the custom for the Government to exercise its right to call a by-election whenever it saw fit, and sometimes the by-elections would be held soon after a vacancy, sometimes after considerable delay. That practice, I say, had been followed by both parties from time immemorial. But after a careful study of the question hon. members of this House came to the unanimous conclusion that that was not a right system to follow and an Act was unanimously passed restricting to six months the time within which any vacancy must be filled by by-election. By taking that step we declared that the customs and practices which had prevailed for thirty, forty or fifty years should not continue; therefore it is illogical that we should allow any constituency to remain vacant for a matter of five sessions.


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not think that the law of 1919 was retroactive in its effect.


John Wesley Edwards: It is not a question of merely thinking so; my hon. friend knows that it was not retroactive in its effect. But that had nothing to do with the matter. In 1919 we passed an Act by which it was stated to be wrong for any constituency to be unrepresented in this House for longer than six months, and in which the Government was called upon to take action to see that that sort of think did not occur. In the debate which took place on that occasion the matter of my hon. friend's holding these two seats was brought to his attention by my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy). Even, therefore, if my hon. friend had not prior to that time taken any action to have this ease dealt with, he was given notice at least by one hon. member as to how some felt in regard to his holding two seats. I submit that he has had ample opportunity since the fall session of 1919-to go no further back than

that-to have the question definitely settled and one of these constituencies directly represented in this House.
The position that we are in to-day is entirely different from that which the parties were in prior to the passing of the Act respecting by-elections in the fall session of 1919. At that time we took a definite stand in regard to a definite matter and I contend that that does have a bearing upon the vacancy, if I may call it so, which exists in one of these constituencies at the present time-not a vacancy in the technical sense of the term, but a vacancy nevertheless.
I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend did have an opportunity to bring this case to a settlement. I referred him this afternoon to section 19A of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act which provided that after the expiration of fifteen days upon the application
9 p.m. of either party, the time and place for trial should be fixed.
I pointed out that my hon. friend, for the purposes of this case, is one of the "either parties" referred to, and that he had an opportunity under that section to take action. He has not denied that; he has admitted that he could, had he so chosen, have had this matter brought to trial or have made a move to bring about the dismissal of the petition. He has admitted that; he cannot do otherwise in the face of the facts which have been laid before him. Is he to escape criticism because of his lack of action in that regard, especially in view of his assertion in this House that he regarded the holding of two seats by any member as undemocratic, as something which should not prevail in this country? But the hon. gentleman took no action whatever to put an end to that state of things so far as he was concerned. Again, under section 39 he had an opportunity to bring his case to trial and have it settled, but he took no action under that section either. He cannot, therefore, escape criticism for his lack of action in having this matter disposed of. It is all right enough for my hon. friends to say that it was a simple matter to have it disposed of by the courts; that any person could have asked the court to take action, and so on. If that is so why did not he-the man most interested, the man who felt that the principle of democracy was being violated-why did not he himself take action in regard to the matter?
My hon. friend has said that these long delays do look strange. He admitted that this afternoon; he said:	"I know it looks
strange." Yes, it. does; and who is responsible for its looking strange?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Without the explanation I gave.


John Wesley Edwards: eeedings, that is evideriee to me that this is not in the ordinary category of cases of this kind; that this is somewhat peculiar in many of its features, or, as the hon. gentleman himself says, that it looks very strange. Not only does it look strange to me; but the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite looks very strange to me when I remember the attitude of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he arose and worked himself into a state of indignation over the fact that certain constituencies were not represented in this House; that certain by-elections had not been held, thus keeping certain constituencies vacant for a matter of one or two, or possibly three months. What an outrage it was upon the public of the Dominion of Canada that the Government did not bring those by-elections on at once! We all remember how the hon. gentleman went on in this House in regard to that matter. How does my hon. friend's attitude in regard to that look if it is placed alongside his complacent attitude in regard to the hon. gentleman sitting on his immediate right who has deprived one constituency in this country of representation in this House for five sessions? These are things which look strange-I use the word of my hon. friend himself. Having regard to the fact that my hon. friend had it within his power under the statute to move to have this petition dismissed because of non-action on the part of the petitioner, and that he took no action but, on the contrary, made motions to extend the delay, I say that these are things which look suspicious, which cast a shadow of doubt over the bona fide of the whole matter, at least in my mind, and, I believe, in the minds of many.
The hon. gentleman was good enough to say-and he was commended for his words by the former Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden)-that personally he was willing to come before the Privileges and Elections Committee and have the whole matter investigated. That is what I would expect of him, what I would expect of any hon. gentleman in a case of this kind. If he is confident, as his words would lead us to believe, of his position as regards any protest what has he to lose in having this matter brought before the Priviliges and Elections Committee? What has he to gain? No person has questioned my statement that the attitude of the petitioner in this case is most peculiar and has been so from the start. Then I say that the hon. gentleman has something to gain in this House in having this matter investigated by the Privileges and Elections Com-

mittee, by showing the attitude of the petitioner, by exposing his hand, by seeing why he has taken this very peculiar, strange attitude, why he has entered a petition which he apparently has no intention of following up. He must have known, as we all know, that as long as that petition pends, the hon. gentleman occupies two seats in this House.
I take the stand here, as I have taken it before, as I have a right to take it whether I am right in my conception of what will occur or not, that, having regard to the votes polled in those constituencies in 1911 when the issue was what must be the issue to a very large extent in the next election, I believe these hon. gentlemen are afraid to open either of those constituencies and test the public opinion. That is my view, and I cannot help thinking that this whole thing has been worked for the purpose of preventing an election in either of those constituencies. I have been long enough in politics to understand what this would mean. If an election were held in the constituency of Gaspe which gave a majority of 570 against my hon. friend in the election of 1911, a constituency which had been held by his party for years and years, and the election happened to go against this hon. gentleman, some of that prestige in the province of Quebec which the leader of the Opposition prides himself on having, would disappear. My hon. friend is an astute politician, and he does not want to take any chance in the matter. That is how it appears to me, and that is, perhaps, one reason why this petition has not been gone on with and the "petitioner has disregarded it entirely, and the hon member most affected has not availed himself of the opportunity to bring the matter to a conclusion.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend's
motion carries and the committee should make a report, showing that his suspicions were well founded; that there was no bona-fide petition and so on, does he think that would have the effect of dismissing the petition before the court of Montreal, or does he think that the petition would not have to be disposed of before my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) elects for one seat? If the latter be the case, what is the practical effect of my hon friend's motion?


John Wesley Edwards: Certainly, it would not dispose of the matter before the court. The hon. member for Gaspe and Maison-neuve stated in this House this afternoon just before six o'clock, his intention, on the day following the close of this session, to

take steps to bring this matter to a head. If he is willing to do that at the close of this session, why did he not take action along that line at the end of some other session? He could have taken action four times. He has declared that he will take action as soon as this session is over. I do not know whether he is going to do that regardless of legal holiadys or not We have had this matter dragging along and no action being taken in the courts, and we have surrounding it certain very suspicious actions on the part of the petitioner and, I must say, actions on the part of the respondent, that do not satisfy me that he has done all that he could do. At all events, if the Privileges and Elections Committee have an opportunity to go into the facts of this matter we shall have all the facts. My hon. friend says that he has nothing to, fear in a disclosure of the facts. Then he should not oppose this matter going to the committee, and if he is satisfied-and I think he intimated that he was satisfied to have it go there-why should these hon. gentlemen who are taking up the case on his side oppose my motion? For these reasons, I ask that the House register its opinion in favour of my motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. CALDER (President of the Privy Council) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 82, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CALDER:: Under several statutes
now in force members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are entitled to receive a proportion of the fines that are imposed as a result of prosecution. It is believed that that is not a good practice, and the Bill proposes that the proportion of the fines to which the members of the force are so entitled shall be paid into a trust or benefit fund to be administered for the benefit of the members of the force and their families. That is the only provision of the Bill.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. R. A. STEWART*

Mr. BOURASSA:: Is it the intention of the Government to increase the pension of some of the superannuated employees of the government-owned railways on account of the high cost of living.


Hon. Mr. REID:: The matter is under consideration.


MACLEOD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	In respect to the Macleod Judicial District, has an appointment been made to fill the vacancy created by the transfer of Judge McNeil to the Judicial District of Calgary? If not, why?
2.	Have any representations been made by the Attorney General, or Government of the Province of Alberta, that the vacancy should not be filled?
3.	Has it been suggested that the Maclead Judicial District might be amalgamated With another district, or merged in other districts, thereby doing away with the necessity of appointing a judge to succeed Judge McNeil?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 1,	2 and 3. Representations were made by the Attorney General of Alberta to the effect that if a District Court Judge located at a country point were transferred to fill the vacancy at Calgary, an adjustment of the boundaries of the judicial districts might be made which would render the appointment of a new judge unnecessary.
Accordingly Judge McNeil was transferred from the Macleod district to the Calgary district and the vacancy has not been filled.


THE ROUMANIAN LOAN
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	When is the next instalment of interest on the Roumanian loan due?
2.	What are the prospects for its payment?
3.	Who negotiated the Roumanian loan with the Canadian Government?
4.	Was any commission paid hy the Government or by the Canadian beneficiaries of the Roumanian credit to the negotiator of the loan?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	October 1, 1921.
2.	The matter of payments not yet due has not been taken up. Account will be rendered in due course.
3.	Negotiations, on behalf of the Government of Cafiada, were carried on by representatives of the Canadian Mission, London, in conjunction with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The agreement entered into was executed by the Right Honourable Sir George E. Foster, Minister of Trade and Commerce, representing the Dominion Government and Mr. I. I. C. Bratianu, Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs representing the Kingdom of Roumania.
4.	No.


FEDERAL AID TO QUEBEC HIGHWAYS
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	For how many highways in the province of Quebec has a project statement been approved by the Minister of Railways for Federal grants under the Canada Highways Act, chap. 54 of the Statutes of Canada, 1919?
2.	What are the highways in respect to which agreements for Federal aid have been reached between the province of Quebec and the Minister of Railways?
3.	Have any sums been paid to the province of Quebec under the Canada Highways Act?
4.	If so, what is the total amount up to March 31, 1921?
5.	To what road or roads do these payments
apply?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Eleven.
2.	Montreal-Sherbrooke Highway, in respect of subsection A2, Orford, 3.09 miles; sections C and D, Magog, 3.41 miles; subsections E1-E2, Bolton East, 4.55 miles; subsection HI, Shefford, 2.31 miles; subsection Ml, St. Cesaire, 3.305 miles; subsection Ql, St. Marie de Monnoir, 1.2528 mile.	.
Montreal-Quebec Highway, in respect of project No. 1 (from Montreal easterly), 48.13 miles.
Levis-St. Lambert Highway, in respect of subsections B1-B2, St. David, 1.951 mile; subsections C1-C2, St. Telesphore, .893 mile; subsection D3, St. Romuald, 1.66 mile; subsection El, St. Nicholas, 6.818

miles; subsections L1-L3, Deschaillons, 4.12 miles; subsections N1-N2, Contrecoeur, 2 miles; subsections TT1-TT2-TT3, Boucher-ville, 2.684 miles; subsection WW, Lon-gueuil, 2.914 miles.
Caughnawaga-U. S. Boundary Highway (near Malone), in respect of section A, Caughnawaga Reserve, 3.48 miles; subsections D1-D3, Ste. Martine, 4.27 miles.
Beauce Jet.-Sherbrooke Highway, in respect of subsections S1-S3, Marbleton, 3.73 miles; subsections T2-T3-T4, Dudswell, 6.704 miles; subsection A2, L'Enfant Jesus, 1.2 mile; subsections B1-B2, St. Frederic, 4.267 miles; subsection C3, Sacre Coeur de Jesus, 1.121 mile; subsections E1-E3, Sacre Coeur de Marie, 1.051 miles; subsections L1-L3-M2, Disraeli, 1.410 mile; subsections N2-N5-N7, Garthby, 2.589 miles; subsections P1-P2-P4-P6-P8, Weedon, 2.348 miles; subsections Q2-Q4-Q6, Lac Weedon, 2.386 miles; subsections Rl-R3, Weedon Centre, .945 miles.
Levis-Riviere du Loup-Rimouski Highway, in respect of section B, Bienville, .257 mile.
Montreal-Rouses Point Highway, in respect of subsections C2-C3, Laprairie, 2.66 miles; subsection D2, Laprairie, .27 mile.
Levis-Sherbrooke Highway, in respect of subsections Q1-Q2, Stanfold, 7.675 miles.
Montreal-Mt. Laurier Highway, in respect of subsections E2-E4-E6, St. Janvier, 2.144 miles; section F, Ste. Monique, .132 mile; subsections Gl, G3, G4, G5, G7, St. Jerome, 7.627 miles; subsection 11, Shaw-bridge, .833 mile.
Laprairie-Lacolle Highway, in respect of section B, St. Luc Parish, 5.22 miles; section C3, St. Jean Parish, 4.215 miles.
Hull-Aylmer Highway, in respect of section B, Hull Sud, 4.3 miles.
Agreements covering the following sections of projects have been prepared and sent to the province of Quebec for execution :
Montreal-Sherbrooke Highway, in respect of section G, South Stukely, 4.511 miles; subsections Q2-Q3, Ste. Marie de Monnoir, 3.553 miles.
Levis-Riviere du Loup-Rimouski Highway, in respect of section L, Bonsecours, 1.28 mile.
Beauce Jct.-Sherbrooke Highway, in respect of subsection 12, Thetford Mines, 1.398 mile.
3.	Yes.
4.	$56,374.19.
5.	Montreal-Quebec Highway.


FEDERAL AID TO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND HIGHWAYS
Mr. NICHOLSON (Queen's):: 1.	Has the province of Prince Edward Island tatken any action regarding federal grants under the Canada Highways Act, 1919?
2.	If so, for how many highways in Prince Edward Island have project statements been approved by the Minister of Railways?
3.	What are the highways in respeot to which agreements for federal aid have been reached between the province of Prince Edward Island and the Minister of Railways?
4.	Have any sums been paid to the province of Prince Edward Island under the Canada Highways Act? If so, what is the total amount up to March 31, 1921?
5.	To what road or roads do these payments apply?
6.	For what highways in Prince Edward Island have project statements been filed by the Provincial Government, and not yet approved by the Minister of Railways?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Eleven.
3.	Agreements have been fully executed covering the following eight highways: Georgetown Road, from Ten Mile House, in the County of Queens, to the boundary line between Counties of Queens and Kings, 8 miles. Tryon Road, from New Haven to Queens Arms, 8 miles. Irishtown Road, from Kensington to Bryenton's Corners, 3 1-2 miles. Western Road, from O'Leary Road to Mt. Pleasant, 12 miles. Souris Road, from McMahon's Bridge to Elmira Road, 8 1-2 miles. Dundas Road, from Dundas to Rollo Bay, 8 1-2 miles. Johnson's River Road, from Bovyer's Brook to Webster's Corners, 9 miles. Montague Road, from Montague to Cardigan Road, 5 1-2 miles.
Agreements covering the following 3 highway projects have been prepared by the Department and forwarded to the province for execution: Commercial Road, from Murray River to Montague, 10 miles. Cardigan-St Peter's Road, from Cardigan to St. Peter's, 13 miles. St. Peter's Road, from St. Peter's to Lot 40, 8 1-2 miles.
4.	Yes; $40,264.79.
5.	Georgetown Road, from Ten Mile House, in the County of Queens, to the boundary line between Counties of Queens and Kings, 8 miles. Tryon Road, from New Haven to Queens Arms, 8 miles. Irishtown Road from Kensington to Bryenton's Corners, 3 1-2 miles. Western Road, from O'Leary Road to Mt. Pleasant, 12 miles. Souris Road, from McMahon's Bridge to Elmira Road, 8 1-2 miles. Dundas Road, from Dundas to Rollo Bay, 8 1-2 miles. Johnson's River Road, from Bovyer's Brook to Webster's Corners, 9 miles.

6.	The three following have not been approved as they are for the paying of streets within limits of town or city: Water Street, east to west boundary Town of Summerside, paying. Paving Grafton, Queen and Water Streets, Charlottetown, Railway Crossing Hillsborough Bridge Approach and Railway Station. Paving Euston, Queen and Elm Streets, Charlottetown.
The following 9 project statements are being dealt with at present time:	St.
Peter's Road, Charlottetown to St. Peter's Malpeque Road, Charlottetown to Malpeque; Tryon Road, Charlottetown to Tryon; Eel Creek Road, Irishtown to French River; Bedeque Road, Summerside to Borden; Western Road, Summerside to Tignish; Western Road, O'Leary to Bloomfield; Malpeque Road, Charlottetown to Queens Arms. St. Peter's Road, Charlottetown to St. Peter's (Union Road).


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents received from and forwarded to collectors and deputy collectors of Customs and Inland Revenue since March 20, ultimo, up to date, by the Commissioner of Customs and Deputy Minister, in connection with the changes being made into the administration of Inland Revenue Offices and allocation of room to officers in charge of administration of former Inland Revenue Divisions.
TARIFF REVISION On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel William Jacobs: I should like to ascertain from the Government if it is an accepted fact that there is to be no general tariff revision this year?


Arthur Meighen: The answer is, no.


OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. J. A. Calder (Minister of Health) Bill No. 81, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, was read the second time.
James Alexander Calder: I beg to move:
That Bill No. 81, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, be referred to a special committee consisting of Messrs. Blake, McGib-bon (Muskoka), MacKelvie, Calder, Reid (Mackenzie), Chisholm, Fournier and Pedlow, and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Mr J. D. Reid. J

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 80, respecting the Grand Trunk arbitration.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :: I think my right hon. friend will recall that he introduced this Bill yesterday by permission of the House before it was printed. It appears to-day on the list of Bills for the first time, and I doubt if half-a-dozen members of the House have had the opportunity of reading it as yet. It is an important Bill, and perhaps under the circumstances my right hon. friend would consent to its standing until to-morrow.


Arthur Meighen: What the leader of the Opposition says is quite correct. It was only printed in English and French to-day because I pressed very strongly on the Printing Bureau to have that done. I am anxious to get on with the Bill at the earliest possible date, but at the same time I realize that it is a very important Bill, and I do not want to press it in such a way that there will not be time for consideration. In deference, therefore, to the wishes of the leader of the Opposition I shall be content to let it stand.
Motion stands.


LAKE OF THE WOODS CONTROL
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 23 (from the Senate), respecting the Lake of the Woods Control Board, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was last before the committee, clause 1 had been adopted.
On section 2-creation of board:


Francis Henry Keefer: This Bill affects my
riding, and I therefore desire to say a few words upon it. It is creating quite a bit of dissension in certain parts of the district because the subject is not fully understood and the parties are not in complete accord. There are two towns side by side, Kenora and Keewatin. Kenora has been opposing the Bill, while Keewatin supports it. In my opinion there is no doubt as to be advisability of having control by both Governments, the Ontario and the Federal; but I doubt very much, in view of the manner in which the Bill was initiated, whether we shall secure concurrence in it from the

Ontario Legislature if we press the matter now. Three things are asked for; first, the control of the Norman dam, second, the control of the English river, and, third, the control in the province of Ontario of the Winnipeg river. As the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) pointed out when introducing the Bill, there should be no difficulty about the control of the Norman dam, which is a dam that really comes within the purview of the Dominion Government, became it affects navigation. It has never received the Dominion Government's assent, and, if necessary, that Government can at any time step in and take control of it. Control is provided for today under Orders in Council, and the purpose'of this Bill is to make that control by Act of Parliament; and it goes further and assumes control of the English river and of the powers on the Winnipeg river. That is purely a question for the Ontario Government, and if we pass this Bill and the Ontario Government does not pass a similar measure, then the Bill for that reason will be futile. Upon the Winnipeg river-there is a rapid or fall known as the White Dog Rapids for which a lease is about to be issued by the Ontario Government to a Mr. Backus and his associates for a power plant, and that intended lease is responsible for the initiation of this Bill. It is advisable to have control generally. There is control to-day as regards the Norman dam, which affects also international waters, and the matter could be temporarily arranged until all parties can see alike and agree upon all other points. I would suggest that as the Bill is of no virtue whatever unless passed by the Ontario Legislature, where so far it has been held up, it would be wise for us to wait and see what they will do. There is such a thing as being fortiter in re and there is also the suaviter in modo, and people do not like to have anything rammed down their troats. My constituents in Kenora are protesting against the Bill because they do not understand the position, and it would be well if the parties could get together and talk the matter over and see if they could not agree. The Kenora people need control there just as much as anyone else; and Keewatin wants control and should' have it. In regard to the level of the lake, the matter has been the subject of an international reference. It is not the fault of the Government that there is misunderstanding by the Kenora people; it is the fault of the Government officials, who consulted 149
only one side, the interests about which they were concerned, as the landlords, if one may use that term, of the Winnipeg power. They should, and could easily, have consulted the people of Kenora who are also vitally interested. They did not do so until after the Bill had been introduced, then they were called down and they felt angry and disappointed. It is of great importance to Canada, on account of her water powers in Manitoba, and of importance to Ontario and the power interests there, as well as of importance to the English river, to have the water all regulated in the wisest manner; but this can be done only by agreement. You cannot force it upon the people, and in my judgment it would be wiser to allow the Bill to stand with a view to securing that agreement. No harm could be done if the matter had even to be left in abeyance until next session, if _ a unanimous agreement were meanwhile reached.


Ernest Lapointe: Has a similar Bill
been introduced in Ontario?


Francis Henry Keefer: I understand that a
similar Bill was introduced in the Ontario Legislature and given a first reading, but it has been held up. There is another point I want to mention about the Bill. It is only fair that if there be any interference in any way with any person's rights, the Bill should provide for some compensation; otherwise it would simply be confiscation without compensation. The Norman dam is, under this Bill, to be taken charge of by the joint board. The Kenora dam was built by a private concern, the Keewatin Power Company, and has since been sold. It is highly essential that the waters of the lake should be regulated for the benefit of all other interests on the lake. It is not now a satisfactory power site and may never be used as such; but it is unfair, if the dam is to be taken control of and regulated against the will of the owners, that they should not receive some kind of compensation. I have forgotten the details of the matter, but there was some arrangement on the part of one of the governments, either the Ontario Government or the Dominion, by which the sum of $4,000 was paid to secure the right of government control. If that dam were not there one would have to he built; but as it is there and is to be taken over for regulation purposes, I think that if there is any interference with any person's rights, there should be compensation for any damage


Arthur Meighen: While the hon. member (Mr. Keefer), and I see eye to eye on the merits of the Bill-I am not able to discern any difference of opinion on that question-we have not, I must confess, been able to see eye to eye as to the wisdom of the moment for asking for its second reading and adoption by the House. The hon. member, of course, represents his constituency, and I am aware that what he says is correct, that there is a difference of opinion, as to the desirability of this legislation, between the different parts of his constituency. As regards his contention that something might be gained by delay in the way of getting the parties together, all I have to say is that we have already met the various parties to the controversy and have heard, with all eagerness and sincerity, their views upon the matter, and after so hearing them we feel that we can put forward no justification for withdrawing or delaying the legislation now before the House. In answer to the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) some days ago I think I stated, in my review of the case, that a conference had been held between the representatives of the province of Ontario including the Prime Minister, representatives of Manitoba including the Attorney-General, and representatives of the Dominion Government including myself and the Minister of the Interior, accompanied in the several cases by the proper officers concerned, and after the most thorough review this legislation was agreed upon to be introduced concurrently and passed concurrently, if acceptable to the respective legislatures, by Ontario on the one hand and by the Dominion on the other. The legislation has accordingly been introduced in the Ontario Legislature and that some time ago. Its passage has been delayed, however, the Prime Minister of Ontario desiring to give further opportunity for parties disagreeing therewith to be heard. He has, so far as I know, heard all parties and I am not aware that he is now delaying the measure at all. If he is I am not conversant with the reason.

In so far as Canada is concerned, pursuant to the agreement, we introduced a measure a month or more ago, passed it through the Senate and introduced it in this House, and have since not been able to proceed because of the desirability of getting on with Supply. There is nb saying how long the Ontario Legislature will be sitting; it will likely prorogue before long. I do think-and this is my opinion which I submit to the Committee-that it is our duty to consider the measure and deal with it now and not be in the position of having deferred it until the province of Ontario acted, or declined to act, and prorogued. In so far as the Government is concerned we agreed on the legislation. We believe the legislation is necessary, and we think it is in the public interest

we have not the least doubt about it. I gathered from the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer) that in that respect he is at one with us. Consequently I cannot see how we can justify hanging back and saying "It is for you, the Government of Ontario, to pass this and if you do we will go ahead." I think our responsibility is at least equal to theirs; indeed, if there is any difference, I think it is the greater. This legislation on the part of both Houses is, in my judgment, essential, and I do not feel like being a party to a proceeding which seeks to evade any responsibility whatever. I think we ought to go ahead, and, so far as we are concerned, discharge our responsibility. As for the province of Ontario that is not for us to consider; that is their affair. There is no desire in the world to hasten the matter, but inasmuch as the session of the Ontario Legislature is of short duration it would in my judgment be undesirable for this House to let the Bill stand and, as it were, seek to shoulder the primary responsibility on Ontario. In my judgment there is no primary responsibility on them at all-it is just as much on us as on them.
The question then is whether the legislation is necessary. As to that I do not think there should be the least doubt. The control of the Lake of the Woods water system is vital. It is vital that this Government and this country assert and exercise that control to the extent of their interest. It is vital that Ontario assert and exercise it in so far as their interests are concerned. What are our interests and what are theirs? Our interests arise first because it is an international body of water. Shall it be argued for-a minute that it should be left to private interests,-the owners of

the Norman dam for instance at the outlet of the Lake of the Woods,-to have control of the levels that they virtually have to-day and that, they exercising the control, we should be liable for the failure to exercise control in the public interest? We should be liable if, for example, they should so control the level of the Lake of the Woods as to produce flood waters in Minnesota; it is this Parliament and this country that is going to be responsible then. Why therefore should the control of the level of the Lake of the Woods be left to the caprice of private parties? From that source therefore one source of our responsibility arises.
Another is this: our responsibility is not only centrally and exclusively our own but it is paramount in relation to navigation, and the question of maintaining the levels properly for the purposes of navigation is our responsibility and our responsibility alone. Hitherto it has been exercised by some joint arrangement between the province of Ontario and the Keewatin Power Company, now the property of Mr. Backus, the owners of the Norman dam. It surely is not becoming that this Parliament, having imposed upon it by the constitution a distinct jurisdiction and duty should leave to the province of Ontario and Mr. Backus, or the Keewatin Power Company, the carrying out of that duty? That is ours and we cannot fail to exercise it.
I have stated to the committee what is the interest of Canada federally in this matter. The interest of Ontario arises because they are the owners of the power properties of the water in that province We are the owners and administrators of the power properties farther down in Manitoba; that is still a third derivation of our duties in the matter. But Ontario is the owner so far as its interests are concerned; consequently it is not right that the exercise of this control should be carried on without reference to that province. That is where the joint legislation is necessary. It may be asked: " Why is it we are coming in now, and now only, to exercise it?" The reason is that for many years the control of the Norman dam, and through it of the level of the Lake of the Woods, was exercised by some sort of agreement between the Keewatin Power Company an ;1 the province of Ontario. During the continuance of this agreement-and remember neither party to that agreement had any constitutional jurisdiction at all to regulate the levels of the Lake of the Woods- but during this agreement the International Joint Commission sat and deliberated upon
149J
the question as to how the whole problem -power, navigation, navigable streams, all phases of it-should be taken care of. They have made a report. Canada accedes to that report. The United States, as yet, has not wholly acceded to it. They take some minor objections but substantially they are in accord with Canada. Now all this Bill seeks to do is to take care of the situation in the meantime in accordance with the finding of the report, to take care of the levels of the Lake of the Woods for the purposes of navigation and power in a manner wholly consonant with the verdict of the International Joint Commission, and in this respect not in any way dissented from by the United States of America. But up to now for the space of about two years this has been done by the Lake of the Woods Control Board, half of whom were nominated by Ontario and half by the Dominion. But that board derived its jurisdiction wholly by Order in Council, and it is doubtful whether that jurisdiction is legally well founded or not. At all events the board has appealed to place its jurisdiction on a more secure foundation, and the purpose of this Bill is to place -that authority on that secure and indisputable foundation, and further to more specifically declare just what its authority is.
Now I have sought to uphold the principle of the measure and its terms generally, although I know those are not disputed by the hon. member for Rainy River. I have laid before the committee, though, as well, my reasons for believing that this House would not be justified in merely standing aside and waiting for action on the part of the province of Ontario. In my judgment-and I speak in this respect for the Government generally -it is of first importance that having come to this arrangement in the public interest, we should go right ahead and carry it out and seek to establish the board upon the secure foundation which it will be established upon if this legislation is passed, and then leave it to the province of Ontario to go on with their side of the arrangement or not, as they may see fit.
I hope I am not wrong when I express the belief that they will not fail to go ahead and carry out the arrangement as originally devised and agreed upon; I do not think they will. I earnestly trust that they will continue to agree with the view of this Government, that the control of the level and of the outlet of the Lake of the Woods and of all the powers as well as the navigation interests depending there-

on must be a matter of governmental jurisdiction in the interests of all the people of the Dominion generally, and of Manitoba and Ontario particularly, and that no private interest must be permitted to assert that it is in a position to exercise any control, derivable from purchase or otherwise, because such control necessarily must be a prerogative of government, and of government alone.


Francis Henry Keefer: In order to make it
perfectly clear, no one contends or has contended that control of the Lake of the Woods should or would be in private hands. That would be a most serious mistake. There is not that private control there now. The Dominion Government has always power to step in and exercise control, but subject to compensation, I suppose. We do need the co-operation of the province of Ontario so far as the English river is concerned, which is a branch of the Winnipeg river that does not flow into the Lake of the Woods and is below the Norman dam. We cannot step in there alone and take control. We do need also their co-operation on the Winnipeg river below the Norman dam, and for that reason we should endeavour to get this arrangement worked out amicably. But I would like again to make it perfectly clear that no person I know of has ever advocated that the control of the Lake of the Woods should be in the hands of private persons. The town of Kenora, which is directly interested in this matter, does not advocate private control. There should be Government control, even federal control alone if necessary; but there should also be federal and provincial control of the other two branches, the English river and the Winnipeg river.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-purposes:
Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Meighen moves
to amend clause 3 by inserting after the word "secure" in the first line thereof the words "severally and", and by adding at the end of the clause the words, "save and excepting the operation and control of all dams and regulating works extending across the international boundary, and the dam and regulating works across the Canadian channel at Kettle Falls."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-general powers-enfoi cement of orders by rules of court:
£Mr. Meighen.]
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I notice we are giving power to this commission to carry out the effect of any Act that may be passed by the province of Ontario. I can understand that the Legislature of Ontario would have power to say that the Act will be carried out by this board, but I do not quite understand how we can say that our board can carry out the provisions of any Act passed by the legislature.


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. member is probably right, and that so far as this Parliament is concerned the clause has no effect at all. But it has effect so far as Ontario is concerned, arising from the fact that the legislation is concurrent.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I understand that identical legislation has been introduced in the Ontario Legislature?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it has been introduced there.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And also in the Manitoba Legislature?


Arthur Meighen: No, they do not need it, because this Parliament has control of the water powers in Manitoba.


Mr. MOWAT:: I understand that this is an arrangement between the Dominion and the Provincial Governments and is the only feasible way of carrying out what is desirable. But I hope the Government have clearly before them the fact that the Winnipeg river is navigable, and as such the water powers there belong to the Dominion Government. This clause 5, leaving to the Legislature of the province of Ontario full power, ought to be guarded, for the reason that the province no doubt contends that the water powers on these small rivers belong to them. I think the Dominion has given way or silently acquiesced in the appropriation of many water powers which belong to the Dominion. The Niagara river is navigable, although it is not navigable at the great declivity at the Falls, and yet the Dominion is getting no value out of the water powers which really belong to it. This raises a great constitutional question, and if it is the fact that the Dominion has the right to the water powers on this navigable river, no matter how it may be impeded by rapids or rocks, it should be very jealous to keep all these powers to itself. The Ontario Government is getting all the value of the immense water powers on the Niagara river where really the Dominion should have a large

share ol them. We have a great war debt to liquidate, and if we have an asset in these navigable rivers I think it should be jealously guarded.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not want to enter into this highly technical question, but, speaking offhand, I always understood that the only right we have as a Dominion in navigable waters is the right of navigation. It must not interfere with our right to navigate those waters. In other respects, as I understand, the property belongs to the province.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the hon. gentleman's idea is right, but I think he expresses it too strongly. The Dominion has full jurisdiction in respect of navigation. But assuming that the province has full ownership in respect of power, there is this difference between the rights of the two authorities: the right of the Dominion is paramount to all rights of the province in respect of power. That applies peculiarly to this river. The Niagara river is somewhat different; it is an international stream in respect of power. I am not asserting that the Dominion has no more right to power in Niagara that it has in the English river or in the Winnipeg river. There may be a difference in that regard; we do not need to argue it now. But so far as the Winnipeg river and the English river are concerned, both being navigable streams, the right of the Dominion to control for the purposes of navigation-the Dominion being the sole judge as to what are the purposes of navigation-is primary and paramount, and exercisable no matter how it may interfere with provincial properties as respects' water-powers. There is that difference; ours is first, theirs is second. This legislation takes away in no wise from either Dominion or provincial jurisdiction of either; it simply provides a mechanism for conferences in order that the respective jurisdictions of each may be exercised to the best advantage.


Francis Henry Keefer: Has the minister considered what would be the effect of this provision on the power in question if the Federal Government should ultimately be found to be the owner of the power?


Arthur Meighen: I do not see how that
could affect the question. The Dominion cannot by any act of its own either add to or substraet from its jurisdiction.


Francis Henry Keefer: We have given the Ontario Government power to take a plebiscite on the liquor question formerly an exclusively federal matter.


Arthur Meighen: No, the hon. gentleman's view of that is wrong. Certain jurisdiction and authority is given to the Dominion by the British North America Act; to that we cannot add and from it we cannot subtract, whether in regard te liquor or in regard to water. This legislation, therefore, will not have the least effect upon any judgment that may ultimately be given as to the real residency of the authority in respect to water-power.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: The hon. member for
Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer) has said that the Ontario Government is contemplating giving the power rights in the Winnipeg river to E. W. Backus, who, I understand represents very large interests. In my view, that would be the exercising of a control outside the power of the province. If the Dominion has the right to grant water-power rights in the Winnipeg river, those rights should be very closely guarded.


Arthur Meighen: We are not at the
moment asserting any right to grant waterpower rights in the Winnipeg river. We are merely saying that rights granted in respect of water-power by the province must be subject to the paramount right of the Dominion in respect of navigation. Mr. Backus, or the Keewatin Power Company, owns the Norman dam, the key to the control of the levels of the Lake of the Woods but as that control is incident to navigation, Mr. Backus can have no rights in respect of the Norman dam except subject to the paramount rights of the Dominion in respect of navigation.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: The particular instance
cited by my hon. friend was a lease of the power of the White Dog rapids on the Winnipeg river which he said was about to be granted. That is something that we should be very careful about. Of course the question is not now directly before us, but it may become very important. Such questions have gone to the Privy Council over and over again, and if at any time it should come to the fore and the Dominion should be found to be lax in the protection of Dominion rights, we should be prejudiced if we took any position here which would interfere with our making a stubborn fight in the future.


Mr. CRERAR:: I understand that the
level of the Lake of the Woods is subject to international control. I cannot follow my

right hon. friend, therefore, when he states that the control of the levels of that lake is at present under the Dominion of Mr. Backus.


Arthur Meighen: I explained that the
other day when requested to do so by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. 10 p.m. Murphy). The finding of the International Joint Commission is this: as the interest of the United States is an interest in respect of navigation, and as navigation is adequately taken care of if the levels are maintained between 1056 and 1061, it follows that while they are so maintained the United States does not need to come in at all; consequently the control between those levels is Canadian. The commission advise the creation of a board, the Lake of the Woods Control Board, to control the whole matter so long as they keep the high level at 1061 and the low level at 1056.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: And it is between those two that Backus now controls?


Arthur Meighen: It is between those two that it must be kept, and while so kept it is under Canadian control, but if it goes above 1061 on the one hand or below 1056 on the other the jurisdiction of a joint international board arises. All that this Bill says is that this board shall have control while the levels are maintained between the limits fixed by the International Joint Commission of between such other limits as the two countries may agree to-because we have not yet agreed on the report of the commission. When they go beyond the limits fixed, there is no board to act for the present, but if the commission's report is agreed to by the United States there will be an international board to take care of it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What is the extent of
Mr. Backus' control now?


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Backus really has no power to control. He is the owner, as I understand it, of the Keewatin Power Company which owns the Norman dam. The Norman dam controls the outlet of the Lake of the Woods and therefore the level of the Lake of the Woods, and Mr. Backus of the Keewatin Power Company has an agreement of many years' standing with the province of Ontario whereby Ontario exercises some authority over the Norman dam. But they have no power to exercise that authority; it is solely a Dominion authority, because it has to do with navigation and the Lake of the Woods. Now What we say is: follow out the reooimmenda-

tions of the International Joint Commission, in so far at least as they are not dissented from by the United States; pass this Bill and thereby establish a board which will be able to control, for the purposes both of navigation and of power, the levels of the Lake of the Woods. Its jurisdiction will be exercisable only if they keep the water between 1061 and 1056. That is all that we ask. The United States does not object to that. Therefore, the province of Ontario and the Dominion have come together, and they agree on this legislation in order that by this board the two jurisdictions may be exercised by Ontario and by the Dominion in conjunction and to the best advantage of both.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The board cannot order Backus, for instance, to raise or lower the level of the dam.


Arthur Meighen: It takes away that power, or rather it asserts on our part that he never had it.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: The Prime Minister's explanation is satisfactory so far as it goes, and I notice from the last clause of this Bill that it is only brought into effect by Order in Council. In the meantime these matters can be looked into; but it seems to me that before we finally conclude an arrangement with the province of Ontario, which seems to be rather keen on asserting its rights to water-powers on navigable rivers, as the Dominion has rather let go its powers in the past, there should be a perfect understanding that this agreement is without prejudice to any rights that belong to the Dominion over navigable waters and water-powers that exist in navigable waters. As regard the St. Lawrence, I do not think anybody can say otherwise than that there is a dispute between the Dominion and the province. The province asserts its rights to water-powers in the St. Lawrence for its hydro-electric system. It is true that it is an international river, but I do not see that the principle is different. The Dominion is also asserting its right to those powers which are of enormous value. If the province is about to grant to a private person the water-power rights in the Winnipeg river, as is said by my right hon. friend, it may do so in other cases wherever there are rapids. Nothing should be done without the Dominion interest being protected in this respect.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 6,-enforcement of orders by taking possession of property.
Francis Henry Keefer: Has the Prime Minister given any consideration to the reasonableness of allowing any compensation for taking over the dam? This dam has been built for the purpose of general navigation. The request came from the United States to have better water, and in some way or another-I do not now know why it was that Ontario had to do with the matter- the dam was built by agreement with Ontario at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars. The dam is for the benefit of all the powers on that lake. If it is to be taken control of absolutely, to the detriment of the owners, no matter whether it was built without the absolute concurrence of the Dominion Government and the expenditure having been made and the dam being in use, the owners ought to have some reasonable opportunity, whatever it may be, to make a claim for whatever is proper in the way of compensation. I would like it to be understood that, in raising this protest, I *am not holding any brief for any of the parties; but I want to see the Bill as fair as possible, and a provision should be inserted so that reasonable compensation may be given in cases where we override the ordinary common law and by this legislation step in and take something from any person or corporation.


Arthur Meighen: Firstly, I do not think this Bill is any step at all in the direction of confiscating or abolishing a claim for compensation; if any just claim exists, I think it could be established after the Bill passes, just as well as before. But at the same time, I want to say this, secondly, that in respect of a structure that interferes with navigation, in respect of a structure erected or existing in defiance of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, a Dominion statute whose provisions are unimpaired by this legislation, it does not seem to me that there is any claim for compensation.


Francis Henry Keefer: Supposing to-morrow
the dam is blown out or washed out, we as a Government would have to rebuild it, would we not? Therefore, if we make use of it, should we not do something in the way of compensation?


Arthur Meighen: That is another question. But if a party erects, in a navigable stream, an obstruction and if it is found afterwards necessary to remove that abstruction or to impair its value, that
party, in my opinion as now advised, cannot make a claim for compensation. I do not remember the name of the case, but in the Chandler water-power case, tried in the Supreme Court of the United States, the verdict was to this effect, that as a power structure affecting navigation had been erected at the American Soo, and as it was necessary wholly to remove that structure for the purposes of the navigation of the Soo, although the company owned for the purposes of the power, the bed of the river, the riparian right and all, they had no claim whatever for compensation. Compensation to the extent, I think, of half a million dollars was given to them by the trial courts, but the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision and held that there was no claim. As at present advised, I am of opinion that any claim in connection with the Norman dam would be on all fours with that.


Francis Henry Keefer: 
Arthur Meighen: If the Norman dam is used for Dominion purposes, then there may be a claim for compensation, having regard to its value; but if such a claim exists, this Bill does not take it away.


Francis Henry Keefer: I want that made perfectly clear.


Arthur Meighen: At the same time, I want to emphasize the fact that, with a Navigable Waters Protection Act existing, asserting and providing for the administration of the rights of this Dominion as regards navigation, as this dam is built, not primarily to control the level of the lake of the Woods, but for the purpose of the development of power, I do not think there is a very strong claim for compensation on the part of the owners of the dam; that is, unless property which is theirs is used for Dominion purposes and is on that account of no use to the owners of the property. In any event, all I need to say at this point is that, whatever rights they have, it seems to me they will be just as good after this Bill passes as before.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does this last clause not confer power upon the commission to take possession of mills, dams and other obstructions?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Supposing, in taking possession, they break up the dam, they are doing it by right of this statute, and that puts an end to the right of any court to give the owners compensation unless compensation is provided for. When the owners got into court, the defence would be raised, that what was done was done by virtue of a statute, and the court would say: "There are no damages." If we are to give extraordinary powers to this commission to go in and take possession, for the general good, of a man's property,'in whatever shape it may be, there should be some provision to compensate that man for impairment done to his property.


Arthur Meighen: That is not what the hon. member for Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer) is asking for. I think he agrees -that if this is an obstruction to navigation which, in the judgment of the Dominion authorities, must be removed, there is no claim for compensation, because the man never had any right to put the obstruction there. That was decided in the Chandler case in the Supreme Court of the United States. All that the hon. member for Port Arthur and Kenora is asking for is that, if instead of this being an obstruction, it is of real use in the control of the level of the water, and we go in and use it, we should pay something for it, and that if we did not do so, we would have to build another to use in its place. If this man has a claim, the door is not barred by this legislation. Whatever rights he has now, he would have still.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the purpose
of giving this power to a body to go in and take possession of dams and other structures as they may think proper? That is conferring a new power which does not exist until this Act is passed.


Arthur Meighen: For the reason that they must have it to be able to carry out their duties. The Government has this power to-day, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Under that Act the Dominion can take the Norman dam and clean it out from the bottom to the top, and pay no compensation whatever. All that this Act does is to confer that power which is ours upon the board, subject, of course, to such conditions as the Act imposes.


Francis Henry Keefer: This particular clause gives power to go in and take over that dam-to take it, and use it. As a matter of fact, anyone with local knowledge of

the situation knows that the dam must always be kept as a regulating dam, and that if the dam was taken out you would have to put another one in. It cannot be used for the purposes of a power plant. It is perfectly clear that the operation of that dam will have to be taken into the government's hands. It is essential in the international interests, and for the cotrol of the water powers that are there, but it is unfair to take and use that dam and allow no compensation for it. That is the point I want to make.


Arthur Meighen: That is quite a different point from that taken by the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria. I see the force of it, but I do not think the hon. member would argue that the passing of this Bill has anything to do with the question of compensation. I do not sge why there would not be the same power to compensate even though the Bill passes. There would be the same power to compensate as there is to-day. There would have to be an estimate introduced in the House, and it would have to be approved by Parliament.


Francis Henry Keefer: We are giving power
under this clause to step in and take the dam and use it.


Arthur Meighen: We have that power
to-day. All we do by this Bill is to delegate that power. We could send our officer out to-morrow.


Francis Henry Keefer: But you would have to compensate.


Arthur Meighen: If we would have to, we would have to to-day. We do not take away any rights that now exist in that respect.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Our position as a legislative body is entirely different from that of a court. A court has to administer the law as it finds it. It might be obliged to *say that a man had a very fine piece of property, but that as far as the court was concerned, it could not allow him any compensation at all. We are in a different position. The man has built this dam I understand under the authority of a license granted by the province of Ontario. The province was acting by right of the Crown in the right of the province, and this man built his dam in good faith. Everything was perfectly in order. Possibly the dam was built before Confederation, I do not know; at all events, it was built in compliance with the conditions that then existed, and under the authority of the Gov-

ernment, who thought they had power to allow him to do that.


Arthur Meighen: But they had not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The man built the dam in good faith. Now we are proposing to change the conditions. Does anybody say that it would be fair, after this man had built the dam in compliance with the conditions imposed, and had operated it in good faith for many years, that just because the general interests of the country required it, we should step in and take that dam and give him no compensation at all?
I do not think it would be the big thing for Canada to step in and destroy a man's property, which he had built in good faith, and say to him: We have the right to take that away, and you get nothing for it. I do not think that is how we should act.


John Allister Currie: I do not think it is the intention of this legislation to take this dam away from the man, but rather to exercise the right to regulate the flow of water in accordance with the treaty arrangement between this country and the United States. The question of compensation is one that has not been clearly explained as yet to the House. The position taken by the hon. member for Port Arthur is that the legislation should provide for compensation in the event of the dam being taken over at any time in the future. This House does not legislate to cover remote contingencies of that kind. We are not here to legislate with regard to anything that may happen 20 or 25 years from now. The hon. member for Port Arthur is trying to have inserted in this legislation the basis of a claim, which the parties who own the dam would immediately try to enforce. For that reason, I think the best thing we can do is to pass the Bill as drafted, and leave alone this question of compensation which may arise in the future. The international commission which was established to regulate waterways and navigation along the international boundary, in the course of their examination of matters pertaining to the Lake of the Woods ascertained that a man had built a dam at the outlet of the lake. That dam might be used to flood the surrounding lands; there might be excess water there, or the man might let all the water away, and then there would be no navigation at all. I think this very same matter was the subject of a tremendous fight between the Ontario Government and the Dominion Government, as to who controlled the outlet
of the lake. For these reasons I do not think it would be wise to insert in the legislation anything that would make it possible for the parties interested in the dam to turn around in six months or a year and say: The Government will have to take over this dam, and pay me a couple of million dollars to regulate it. This legislation only re-as-serts the right of the Government, and turns the matter of the regulation of the dam over to a hoard which it names. I think we ought to pass the legislation as drafted, without inserting any regulations pertaining to compensation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Of course, I am not so familiar as my hon. friend from Port Arthur with the local situation. I take it for granted, however, that this dam and the land there belong to this man, Backus. Now we have an Expropriation Act, which provides for compensation where land is expropriated. The Expropriation Act provides what steps shall be taken to ascertain the value of the property. Why is there any necessity for bringing in new legislation of this kind? There seem to be new powers taken here in addition to the powers of expropriation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Immunity from actions.
Andrew Ross McMaster: Just at this stage, before this section is carried, would it not be well, unless there is some general law covering the matter, to have a clause in the Bill providing that the Board shall make a report annually within a certain number of days after the opening of the session in order that Parliament might keep a check on that?


Arthur Meighen: I see no objection to that suggestion except that this is concurrent legislation and I do not like including an amendment that has not been agreed upon. The two amendments I have suggested have been agreed to by the Premier of Ontario. There is no doubt the board will make a report; they do through the department regularly. I would not object to the suggestion of the hon. member, but I should not like to include in the Bill anything that was not agreed upon.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When shall the Bill be read the third time?


Arthur Meighen: At the next sitting.



House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Miscellaneous-To provide for Canada's contribution towards the maintenance of the permanent Secretariat of the League of Nations, $200,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my right hon. friend will explain how Canada's contribution has been arranged for?


Arthur Meighen: The contribution last year was $200,000 and this year the same amount is asked for. The original basis of computation and distribution of the expenses of the League, as agreed upon, was the Universal Postal Union's basis, which placed Canada in the same rank as a first-class power and fixed its share on that dimension. At the last meeting of the League, a financial committee was appointed to consider the whole subject of the budget of the League and its- distribution, and one of the Canadian representatives, the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), was, I believe, the most active member of the committee. The committee made a report, and I understand it is quite confidently expected that as a result thereof a new basis of distribution will be arrived at. I think it would be well, in order to save time, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell), who is equally familiar with the situation, to explain the finances of the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let them
toss a coin to see who shall speak.


Arthur Meighen: Or the Minister of Justice.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Since the others are bashful, and I am not, I suppose I may take it upon myself to make the explanation. Article 6 of the Covenant of the League arranges for the expenses of the League, and it adopted as the basis upon which the different members of the League should make their contributions the basis which had been adopted by the Universal Postal Union. The Universal Postal Union's expenses were limited to 125,000 francs, and that sum being very small, it made very little comparative difference as to whether the nations belonged to the first class or not. The Postal Union divided its national members into seven classes. The first class nations paid the largest amount and the lowest class the smallest; and in putting in their claims to be considered as first class or any other class nations, 
some of the smaller countries were ambitious and put in their names in the first rank. As I say, it made very little difference when the total amount to be allocated could not exceed 125,000 francs; that divided amongst twenty, or thirty or forty nations represented a very small sum for each one. When the basis of contribution was settled at the Peace Conference, after debating the question they decided upon the Universal Postal Union's basis of allocation and adopted it for the League of Nations. Consequently, the members of the League of Nations, based upon that allocation, took the same elass of nationality as they did in the Universal Postal Union. So it happened, to make it clear, that South Africa, for instance, that has a white population of only a million and a half, having been rated as a first class nation in the Universal Postal Union became rated as a first class nation in the League of Nations, and as the amount to be paid in the gross was very much more, the allocation attributed to her is exactly the same as is attributed to France, to Great Britain, and to the United States of America. Canada also elected to be called a first class nation in the Universal Postal Union and she, in the same way, on that basis of allocation, has to contribute as a first class nation. So you find South Africa and Canada-not to go any further-paying exactly the same amounts under that basis as those that are paid by the first class powers. Now that is manifestly unfair, but that basis of allocation was settled in the Treaty itself. It is in the Convenant, and it can only be rearranged and another basis adopted by an amendment of the constitution, so to speak. There is one other way in which it might be done. The Swiss Confederation at Geneva, which is the supervising authority of the Postal Union, may take up the basis of allocation for that Union, and may so arrange it that it will become a reasonable basis upon which the nations that belong to the League of Nations may make their contributions with fair and reasonable relation one to another. That is being sought to be done and a committee for the purpose was appointed at the first Assembly. That committee is working in connection with the Geneva supervising power to bring about, if possible, a change in the basis of allocation under the Universal Postal Union's basis for contribution. If that can be done and is satisfactory to the Council and to the League of Nations then the matter will be settled. If it cannot be

done then it has to be rearranged by the next Assembly which will meet in September. I do not myself believe that it will be possible before the first of July to make that arrangement with the Universal Postal Union. If that is not done the allocation this year to all the nations will be upon the same basis as last year's allocation, but it is agreed by resolution-which was introduced and passed in the committee and reported to the Assembly and approved by them-that the reasonable basis of allocation which shall be arranged and settled by the Assembly at its next session will be taken into account in the allocations made in 1921 and in 1922. The basis shall be the basis settled by the next Assembly and if Canada, for instance, now pays as a first class power an amount equal to what Great Britain pays, we will say, she will in 1922 have the allocation placed much lower compared with what it would have been under the past allocation and a country which has paid less than the allocation to be arranged for 1922 will pay more. So that as between the two years 1921 and 1922 the allocations will be upon a reasonable basis and the adjustments will be made in the way that I state. I think that is as clear an explanation as I can give.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: The
right hon. gentleman told us that Canada was rated as a first class nation. Are all the nations in the League rated as first class nations?


George Green Foster: I was speaking of the rating of the nations in the Universal Postal Union which was adopted as the, basis of contributions for the members of the League of Nations. Canada being rated as a first class nation in the Postal Union became thereby obliged to pay her contribution according to that rating.


John Howard Sinclair: My
right hon. friend admits that that basis is not satisfactory. Did that question come up at the time the matter was being dealt with, and if so was there any attempt to find a solution of the difficulty then?


George Green Foster: The question certainly came up because it was settled in the Covenant at the Peace Conference. There had to be contributions and the question was on what basis those contributions were to be allocated. Different bases were discussed but it seemed then that the best way and the quickest way to settle it was to take what was agreed upon by the
nations in the Universal Postal Union. But when it came to be worked out the injustice of it began to be felt. So long as the contribution in toto was confined, as it is in the Universal Postal Union, it made so little difference that no nation felt there was a grievance.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand our contribution is two hundred thousand a year?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: We pay a pretty high price to be considered a first class nation.


George Green Foster: Well, when it is rectified we will have the solace of paying a little less.


Samuel William Jacobs: Could we demand a rebate or refund when we are put in class 2?


George Green Foster: We obtain a rebate-yes.


Ernest Lapointe: I see that my hon. friend from Durham (Mr. Rowell) intends to address the Committee. Before he does so I would like to call attention to the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other night when he said that all this talk about a change of status, and so on, was good for young men like my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) and myself, but there was nothing to it. I would like to hear from the hon. member from Durham as to that, and learn whether he shares the opinion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that all such talk is pure nonsence.


George Green Foster: I do not want my hon. friend from Quebec East to mislead my young friend from Durham-I would not have that for the world. My hon. friends opposite were indulging in a little pleasant badinage at our expense and I made the mild suggestion that if it pleased them it did not hurt us, but to let it be confined to the younger and friskier members on that side of the House.


Ernest Lapointe: And my hon. friend from Durham is one of those "younger and friskier members".


George Green Foster: But he is not on that side.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is why the hon. member for Durham has resigned from the Government.


Mr. ROWELL:: I was not going to address the committee, but rather to ask a question of the minister, and for the time being my hon. friend will perhaps pardon

my not answering his question. The minister will recall that a substantial amount in the Budget relates to the work of the technical organizations which have been established to carry out certain of-the functions of the league. He will further recall that at Geneva the assembly approved of the holding of a conference to consider certain international conventions relating to international transportation and communications. I understand that Canada was not represented at the Barcelona conference held in March. I do not know whether the Government has been advised of the decisions arrived at by that conference, and I am only speaking from the Times' report of the proceedings, but if that report be correct, it would appear that one of the steps taken was the creation of an organization relating to international communications and transit in the form of a technical advisory committee and body of delegates that would meet from time to time.' The question I wish to put to the minister is whether there was any discussion in the Finance Committee of the assembly as to limiting the costs of these technical organizations to the states that actually participate in them, or whether it was assumed that all states, members of the league, would contribute their quota?


George Green Foster: I do not recollect the matter having been discussed along the line of a limitation of the expenses of any one of these technical organizations to the countries which would be chiefly benefited by them. I think the general line taken was that the expenses which were authorized should be met by the league as a whole. At the same time there was a limit as to the maximum expenditure, and the impression left on my mind was that as far as possible it should be kept within limits in order that the proposals and methods of work of these technical organizations might be reviewed by the assembly before they became permanent organizations and embarked upon more or less extensive operations. That I know with respect to three or four of them was absolutely made a part of the resolutions which were passed by the several commissions. The allocation of expenses is to be found in Article XIII of the resolutions which were passed first by the commissions and then reported to the assembly, and I find on looking at it that it is practically along the same lines as I have explained to the committee.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The reports of the Barcelona conference which have appeared in the Times rather lead one to the conclusion that in the absence of Canada the conference proceeded to do the very thing which at the instance of Canada the assembly decided not to do, namely, to set up a permanent organization to deal with international communications and transit. If this has been done, they have acted contrary to what I think we all agree was the decision of the assembly. One cannot but recognize that there may be real force in the argument that these permanent organizations are required to meet the needs of European countries, but it may be that upon giving the matter full consideration we will come to the conclusion, particularly if the United States should not enter the league, that we should not join in the conventions or take part in the organizations which have been recommended. I would draw the attention of the Government to the fact that at a meeting of the Council held during the latter part of 1920, when certain special committees were appointed to investigate particular matters, the question of whether the expenses of these special committees should be charged upon the general funds of the league or against the nations that were particularly interested in the work was discussed, and it was decided that in regard to the specific matters which they then had before them the expenses should be charged against the nations that were directly concerned. I would submit to the Government that this matter should be kept in view at the next assembly when the report is received from the Barcelona conference, and that if it should be decided that Canada should not join in the proposed conventions or be a party to these organizations, we should not be called upon to contribute to their expense but the expenses should be borne by the states that are pressing for their creation and will benefit from their activities.
I take this position because I am interested in the success of the league; I fear that if new organizations are set up to meet European conditions which involve a substantial increase in the general expense of the league, the non-European states will feel that they are being saddled with an unnecessary burden for the benefit of states and in respect of matters that are purely European. I simply want to direct the attention of the Government to the matter because it would appear from the press despatches that our friends who

gather together in that meeting proceeded to do the thing which the Assembly at Geneva, on Canada's instance, decided should not be done, namely, set up a permanent organization in connection with communications and transit.
My colleagues who were present at Geneva will recall the point that was taken by Canada in connection with all these technical organizations, namely, that the right to take action under article 23 of the covenant was predicted upon the existence of an international convention either already entered into or thereafter to be agreed upon. Some of the delegates present, I think, did not agree with that view. I submit, however, that it is only necessary to read the article to see the force of it. I gather that the Barcelona conference was proceeding to set up this organization without the existence of such a treaty or convention.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Was Canada represented at this Barcelona conference?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I understand that Canada had no representative there.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What was the purpose of the Barcelona conference?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It was called pursuant
to a decision of the Assembly to consider certain matters relating to international communication and transit. It was understood that there would be laid before this conference certain draft conventions which had been worked out by a committee on communications and transit for the consideration of the states, members of the league. There can be no question as to the importance of the gathering; no question as to the importance of the conventions. General , freedom of international communication undoubtedly is a desirable thing, both on land and on sea. But these conventions involve very substantial obligations upon the states that do enter into them to provide freedom of transit upon land and sea, so far as they control it, to international trade and traffic; and they set up a superior authority-that is, a technical committee which is to be constituted as part of the organization to determine questions in dispute. From that authority there may be an appeal to the Permanent Court of International Justice when established. Now, nothing has been done there which binds Canada unless we decide to assent to it. My point in regard to these matters is two-fold: first, in case Canada should decide not to assent, to the
conventions because having regard to our conditions we do not feel that we should enter into these conventions, then I do not feel it is right that we should be called upon to contribute towards the expenses on the same basis as states that are parties to these conventions. That is point number one. Number two is this: I think that for the sake of the future the Government of Canada should make its position quite clear that we do not think any organization can be created under Article 23 except under a convention entered into in accordance with the provisions of that article.
There is another point to which I wish to direct attention in the hope that the Government will take it up with the council of the league. It relates to the question of mandates, a matter on which the Minister of Justice is specially informed and in which he took a very special interest at the Assembly. I am sure every member of the House will most heartily con. cur in the statement he made
11 p.m. of Canada's position in the Assembly in reference to these mandates. But at that time we did not have the mandates before us. The council, for reasons which seemed to it good, did not submit the mandates to the Assembly. It was therefore impossible to make any suggestions at the Assembly in regard to the form of the mandates. The mandates have now been published in the London Times and have been the subject of debate in the British House of Commons. They are, therefore, public property, and it is consequently open to any one to make comment or suggestion with regard to them. I concur in the view presented by the Minister of Justice that the world may judge of the good faith of the Council of the league and of the nations who are mandatories by the spirit in which they carry out the trust expressed in the mandates and the covenant of the league. I wish to point out in my humble judgment the form of the mandates as published in the Times for the Central African group is not in accordance with the terms of the covenant in one important respect. Article 22 deals with the mandates. The first clause is:
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the states which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

Provision is then made for the appointment of the mandatories of it is declared that this tutelage should be exercised by them as mandatories on behalf of the League." As a member of the League we are necessarily interested in the matter. This is the provision in reference to the Central African group:
Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must he responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications of military and naval bases, etc.
These provisions also apply to the C mandates, which cover the islands in the Pacific. The C mandates were issued and published while we were at Geneva. These mandates/ contain provisions prohibiting the slave trade and the liquor traffic so far as it relates to the natives residing in the territories. But when we come to the B mandates, those relating to Central Africa, in respect of which there is this express provision in the Covenant, the mandates provide for the regulation rather than the prohibition of the liquor traffic; they prohibit the slave trade but simply regulate the liquor traffic.
May I draw to the attention of the Government what was stated in the British House of Commons, viz: That Germany derived a substantial part of her revenue in administering East Africa by the sale of gin to the natives, and it was asked if it was contemplated that part of the revenue for the administration of this territory should be secured in that way. I am not at present concerned with the question whether the provision in the Covenant is wise or unwise, although I take it that the best authorities are agreed that the sale of intoxicating liquor among the native races is wrong and should be prohibited. But I say, in respect of this particular matter, where there is the express provision in the Covenant that the traffic should be prohibited, there is no justification for departing from the terms of the Covenant. As we are interested in the matter and it is now before the Council of the League, the Government, if it agrees with the view I have presented-and it is for the Government to consider that- should draw to the attention of the Council that, in our view, the mandate is not in accordance with the terms of the Covenant

and that, before it is approved by the Council, it should be brought into harmony with the terms of the Covenant.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: As one of the very few that are not enthusiastic with regard to the League of Nations, I want to make one or two observations while the Estimates for the League are under discussion. I agree with a remark that was made from the other side a moment ago, and I think the hon. member for Durham also agreed with it, that we should not go into this in a financial way to too great a degree at the present time. It appears to me that the salaries that have been mentioned in connection with members of the League are out of all proportion to those that should be paid to men of such high ideals as are expressed with regard to the League of Nations. A list furnished to the House a few days ago shows that these gentlemen get from $15,000 to $40,000 apiece per annum, and such salaries appear to me, in times like these and in an idealistic cause, to be in excess of what is required for the work. This country is trying to be of a saving turn at the present time.
Personally, I do not look upon the League of Nations as an immediate asset to this country. I may be wrong; I know the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) thinks that it will stop all military expenditure; but I am not a believer in that, nor do I think in its present chaotic shape, it should * stop military expenditure by a single dollar, because the League of Nations is at present no bulwark with regard to the peace of the world. Wars are raging in many countries, and only to-night we read in the Montreal Star that Britain has sent a strong protest to Italy with regard to her co-operation with Turkey against Greece, in connection with contentions that have arisen as regards the possession of certain territory. If that is correct, it only goes to show that the League of Nations, while it probably represents one of the highest ideals that has ever been launched, is at present in a very academic state; it has not been able to function up to the present so far as keeping the peace of the vcorld is concerned, and I would be very sorry to see my good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) carried away too much with the idea that the League of Nations is going to be, in the immediate future, a settlement of the wrongs of the world. For myself I cannot see that that will be the case. The ideal, as I have said, as propounded by ex-

President Wilson, was no doubt a very fine theory; but I am one of those who believe that all good ends have to be accomplished by the divine right and the divine law that have been laid down from the foundation of the world up to the present time as the guide for men and for nations.
I understand that the constitution of the League of Nations will more or less sap the vitality of our loyalty to our own country and Empire, and to all the countries and all the empires that are concerned in that great body. I cannot see that a super-force set up to rule the world can have the loyalty of all given to it in an unqualified sense, and at the same time that we should retain all the loyalty that we originally had in connection with our own country and Empire. I foresee that, while the League of Nations may succeed in drawing a certain amount of loyalty to itself, that will be more or less at the expense of the diminution of our loyalty to our own country and Empire. That is a consummation that I cannot view with equanimity. I have always relied upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce as being one of the pillars of the Empire. I hope that this vision that has come to him in these late days will not wean him away from loyalty to the old Empire that.he has supported so well and in which support we have been so proud to follow him. I do not say this in a jocular sense; I mean what I say in that respect. There is a real danger, and I cannot contemplate our giving our loyalty to that League if it is going to sap our loyalty to our own institutions, our country and our Empire.
Internationality is not a new idea. I heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) defining a Canadian national lately, and that has been one of the outcomes of the League of Nations. But the idea of having all the world composing one nation is not new. It is a very old idea; it was tried out some 6,000 years ago, and I would like to refer my good friend from Durham (Mr. Rowell) particularly to the eleventh chapter of the book of Genesis. I hope he will read the first fifteen verses of that chapter, where he will see what came to the world when the world was all one nation and all men of the world were speaking one language.


Samuel William Jacobs: What is the reference? I want to look it up.


William Foster Cockshutt: The eleventh chapter of Genesis, the first fifteen verses. I know that one of the patriarchs is speaking to me, but I thought he would know the book of Genesis as well as myself. In another discussion this evening he told us that he came from a race of prophets.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am merely a descendant of the patriarchs.


William Foster Cockshutt: The eleventh chapter of Genesis sets out what was the fact in the early days. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, a few weeks ago, told us that the nations of the world came together in that League speaking 47 different languages, if I remember aright, and that they went away speaking two. That is a consummation, perhaps, devoutly to be wished, but difficulties may arise when all speak one language. Read that eleventh chapter of Genesis to which I have referred, and you will see that the Lord God Almighty Himself came down to earth in order to see what all the people were doing. They were all speaking one language, and they were all apparently actuated by one idea. What did the Lord find they were doing? We are told that when He came down to earth, He found that they were building a tower of Babel which was to reach unto heaven and by which high tower they would get a short cut from earth to heaven. In other words they were going to attain a spiritual end by material means. The Lord did not approve that. What did He do? He did not send them away speaking one language; but He turned them into chaos by having them speak forty-seven languages in the way the minister told us that the representatives of these nations did when they came to the conference in Europe. These men of old came to build the Tower of Babel, speaking all one tongue, and the Lord was so displeased with them that he said: I want this work stopped, and the way to stop it, is to give the people different tongues so they will not understand one another. And he did so, and from that day on the people were scattered among the countries of the world, each people speaking a different language. So we have pretty high authority for this desire that many nations should exist in the world.
I cannot conceive that we shall find any short-cut to the millennium by bringing all the nations of the world to speak one tongue, or to be called one common people to-day. It is true the scriptures tell us in different places that all people are of one blood and one flesh, and all that, but the fact remains that the nations of the earth were created out of one nation by the will

of the Almighty, because they were attaining spiritual ends by material means and this is being done to a very great extent in many walks of life in a way that should not be. There is no short-cut to the millennium. It is the old good way of living, the spiritual life, and the implanting in the heart of man of good desires and right inclinations, that is going to make him good, and if you are going to make the nations of the earth good, you must build on the old foundation of the scriptures and the doctrines that are taught there. That will be the surest, if not the quickest, road to the millennium.
Therefore, I say that with this League of Nations Canada wants to go fairly slow. I do not want to ask Canada to withdraw from the League, but it appears to me, if the cables brought us correct reports of what the League of Nations did at its last meeting, we were put into a comparatively false position, because Canada appeared to be the king-pin of the whole League. There was more space given to the Dominion of Canada than to all the rest of the nations of the world put together. Now that is out of all proportion to our importance, as anybody can see. It is out of all proportion to our population, and out of all proportion to our means in every respect. While it is well to be always forward in good works, it is not well to take up such an advanced a position that you have not the material strength to maintain it later.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: Is there anything in the scriptures which would be against Canada assuming the position she did assume then?


William Foster Cockshutt: That is rather a
broad and leading question. I cannot say that I know all the verses in the scriptures, but my hon. friend form North Perth, (Mr. Morphy) reminds me that there is a text that runs: He that humbles himself shall be exalted.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is how we came to be exalted.


William Foster Cockshutt: I think it would be better if Canada had humbled herself a bit, and not, immediately the League met, begun to take the leading part among these 47 nations. There may be some nations that know something, and that have power, armies and navies, and that will be able to carry out the mandates of the League when all diplomatic endeavours have come to an end, because I understand that in the last resort there is the appeal to the big

stick, as there always has been, and always likely will be in this world; I cannot see it in any other way. Therefore, I say it is not desirable, to say the least, that Canada should place herself in the front rank of the nations of the world in this particular movement. Nearly all of these 47 nations are more populous than ourselves, and have greater material and financial resources, while man for man they may not be equal to this Dominion. I am willing to admit that the three gentlemen sitting in the front benches tonight were probably the three brightest men at the League of Nations-yet I think my hon. friends themselves will be the first to say that, with their usual modesty, the old tiger of Europe should have a little to say about the matter. It does appear to me that Canada was too prominent in the carrying on of the business of the League at its last meeting. I do not want to throw any cold water upon the efforts of the Canadian representatives.


Samuel William Jacobs: Hot water, just now.


William Foster Cockshutt: I do not want to be too critical. I am confident that they represented Canada to the best of their ability. I am glad to know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has told the committee to-night that the status of Canada has not been materially changed. I did not hear him make the remark myself, but I heard an hon. gentleman on the other side attribute it to him, and as the minister did not disclaim it, I presume that he made it.


George Green Foster: You must be very careful in accepting a statement that way.


William Foster Cockshutt: I know I can hardly rely on quotations from the other side of the House as to what hon. gentlemen on this side say, but as the minister did not deny it, I thought I was justified in accepting it as correct. I did not want to see any change in the status of Canada at the present time. I do not think we have anything to grumble about, and I think it would be a very inopportune time now for Canada to allow any expression of discontent with her position to be sent overseas to Great Britain, which is almost submerged under the tremendous problem of straightening things out after the war.
I have in my hand an article upon a book recently written by the Right Hon.
J.	H. Thomas, entitled "When Labour Rules." Mr. Thomas foreshadows that the

League of Nations is not going to last as a League of Nations. He says that it must be immediately changed to a league of peoples; he draws a distinction between nations and peoples, and he states in his book what is going to happen when Labour rules, presumably in Great Britain. Labour is going to change the whole foreign policy; there are going to be no more treaties made and put in pigeon holes, he says; nothing of that kind will be allowed, but labour will go in for broad internationalism. I believe that there is a first, second, and third international; I do not know whether there are more, but I have seen the third international quoted very frequently lately, so I presume there must be a first and second. But all of these are very much untried experiments, and I would urge my hon. friends on the front bench when they go across to the league next time to be extremely cautious in taking up any advanced position with regard to what Canada is going to do in the League of Nations.
There was one suggestion made, I believe, by the Minister of Justice, a gentleman for whom I have the profoundest respect, for which I do not know whether he had a mandate. If the despatches can be' believed, the Minister of Justice was responsible for the request that Article 10 be removed from the constitution of the League of Nations. Now President Wilson, who perhaps had more to do with the formation of the league than any other one man, said that Article 10 was the backbone of the whole league. Article 10 is the crux of the whole thing. When other means fail, resort can be had to Article 10, which calls upon every nation that is a member of the league to contribute its share of armed forces. I think hon. members will agree that Article 10 is therefore a very substantial entity in the League of Nations, and I question very much the wisdom both from our standpoint and that of the British Empire, of having it removed from the constitution of the league at the present time. I am only a humble layman and cannot hope that my judgment will be accepted for a moment alongside that of the Minister of Justice, who has had a great deal more experience with world affairs than I have, but to make very drastic changes in what we have been told is almost a divine law, to cut out the heart of it so to speak, or, if you prefer to put it another way, to break the backbone of the league and
make it inoperative under certain conditions, is something I cannot view with equanimity. I think it would be well for us to wait until we see whether the nations of the world can live up to the high ideals that are propounded by the league.
The League of Nations is supposed to be a part of the Treaty of Peace. All our discussions, however, have concerned themselves with the League of Nations, and I have heard scarcely a word about the Treaty itself. The Treaty of Peace seems to have been submerged and lost sight of entirely in an ideal that it is supposed is going to work wonders in the future, although it apparently takes no cognizance of what has been done in the past. The primary object of the whole undertaking, in the first place, was to make a treaty ot Peace. When our delegates went from this country over to Europe I understood that their mission was to take part in the framing of a Treaty of Peace, which, of course, was a very desirable thing after a war of the kind we had experienced. It therefore seems strange to me that the Peace Treaty should be lost sight of and that we should, to all intents and purposes, lose practically the whole result of our efforts, in some panacea which is intended to cure all the ills of the future. As I see the situation, we have lost our chance of getting any reparation, indemnity, or anything else, and if the only result of the whole affair is some universal remedy to be applied in the future, without any provision for the ills that should be repaired at this present moment, then I say that we are being robbed. of everything for which we fought and for which the world was drenched in blood. The Treaty of Peace is a matter of profound interest to all the nations that were concerned in the war, but we find to-day that the victors are, if anything, suffering more than the losers; they are taxing themselves to death, bleeding themselves white, to pay for a war that was brought on by an enemy who should be made to pay the piper, so far as they are able to do so. The Treaty of Peace, apparently, does not engage the attention of the League of Nations to any extent, so far as I have been able to judge; at all events, I do not see that many beneficial results will accrue to us by reason of it.
The situation appears to me in this way: We had a tremendous conflagration in the world, against which we held certain insurance, and we deputed certain delegates from Canada, as was done by the Empire generally, and all the other interested



nations, to meet and make a settlement with the people who had caused the damage; and when the report is brought back, when the Treaty of Peace and the Covenant of the League of Nations are presented to us, we find that the insurance policy which we thought was so good is of no avail, the money is not going to be paid, and we are. not to be indemnified. I saw the statement the other day that Britain is not going to receive one shilling in the pound for the losses she sustained in the war. It appears that these representatives, for whom, as I say, I have the profoundest respect, because they no doubt were unable to do anything, although they did not tell us so, instead of bringing back anything substantial in the way of results from the Peace Conference, bring us back a panacea that is going to cure all the ills of the future without making the slightest attempt to secure reparation for the ills we have already suffered through the fault of others. In other words, the insurance is not collected; the buildings have to be reconstructed, and we have to foot the loss.
The panacea proposed to us is this: If you build concrete, steel, iron and other non-combustible structures, you will have buildings that will last against fire for all time. That is practically the proposition that is put up to us. Now, we knew that before; we were perfectly aware, before ever we were told anything about the deliberations of the Peace Conference, that if we built with indestructible materials our buildings would be fireproof, and that if we could possibly bring war to an end it would be a consummation devoutly fo be wished. But we settled the peace without getting results, and we have a remedy that may not prove efficacious in the future.
I hope I have not misinterpreted, nor said anything unkind of, any one, because I have the kindliest feeling towards all those gentlemen who represented us so ably; but I trust sincerely that we shall not run after a rainbow, be it ever so bright and alluring, or chase after a pot of gold in the shape of good resolutions and high ideals, without securing any material advantage to ourselves and the other nations that were concerned in the rack and ruin which this great world war has caused.
I certainly do not contemplate that I shall live to see the day when all the nations of the world will become one vast brotherhood and one people. I should like to see it.


Samuel William Jacobs: When swords shall be
turned into ploughshares.


William Foster Cockshutt: That certainly would be the millennium, but I do not expect it in my generation, nor in the near future, and I have no hesitation in saying that I do not think the League of Nations, even with its lofty ideals and aspirations, will bring us any nearer to that ideal. I believe that all good ends must be obtained by good means, and the good means are laid down, as rules, in the word of the Almighty Himself; and we feeble men upon the earth cannot upset, by any short-cut system, those foundation principles that have existed since the world was created. I hope we shall not lose sight of these things, and chase after what I fear will prove to be a disappointment to all those who place too much of their resources in this one basket. I say, therefore, on questions of finance and the expenditures of the League, and on the question of our taking up too advanced a position on idealistic proposals, we had better be very careful, not only on our own account, but lest we mislead others. I trust I have not said anything harsh about any one, and my hope is that these remarks will be accepted in the spirit of kindliness in which I have endeavoured to give them.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It was said of the late Lord Palmerston that he once attended a church on a certain Sunday and came out with expressions of considerable annoyance regarding the sermon. Why, said he, that preacher speaks as though religion were a matter for every day in the week. I must say that I was reminded of that anecdote after listening to the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Cockshutt.) Religion, it seems, is an excellent thing but it is far too idealistic, far too impracticable to be introduced into the world affairs or into any endeavour to get rid of wars. The divine law, according to the hon. member for Brantford, is to keep people apart, and to have them speak different languages. The destruction of the tower of Babel, according to him, if I understand correctly his theological references-and I have not had the early pulpit experience which he has had to enable him to do justice to the situation-was a punishment for people who were trying to speak a common language. According to my hon. friend, it is better to speak different languages; and I was therefore surprised, on inquiry of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), to find that the hon. member for Brantford had voted against the Lapointe resolution which advocated the teaching of French in Ontario some years ago.


William Foster Cockshutt: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow me-I do not think he wishes to misrepresent what I said. I did not say that it was a punishment on the nations because they all spoke one language; I said it was a punishment upon them because they were building the tower of Babel to get into Heaven. Instead of following in the scriptural way by implanting the grace of God in their hearts, they were trying to attain a spiritual end by material means.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would have thought -and I speak with all reverence-that perhaps the words "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall inherit the kingdom of Heaven*' should be our motto.


William Foster Cockshutt: No, the true reading is "for they shall be called the children of God."


John Allister Currie: Do not misquote the
scriptures.


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friend from Brome has not got it right.


Andrew Ross McMaster: However, I can take it as a motto for the men who after all, whether they are completely successful or not, are trying to develop a new world order. The old world order, of which the member for Brantford is such a splendid exponent, has proved itself a ghastly failure and a horrible mistake. Those who have trusted to the sword have sulfered through the sword; and although we may find, and no doubt will find, many faults in the organization of the League of Nations-doubtless we will be able to see many defects in it-I would think that all who had aspirations for the betterment of mankind could spend their time to better advantage than trying to depreciate the very idea of endeavouring to arrange some other system of settling international disputes than by the sacrifice of the youth of all nations such as we have seen in the last few years. I am afraid the hon. member who has just taken his seat has not quite realized the object of the League of Nations. As I understand it, the object is not to set up a super-state to overpower all other states. To the League of Nations the nations of the world will give that consideration and concurrence which any reasonable man gives to, let us say, the municipal organization under which he lives. It will not sap our loyalty. I am sure the member for Brantford is no less fond of those immediately near to him
because he has affection for the town which he represents, or the province in which he lives, or the Dominion under whose flag he exists. I am sure that does not lessen his affection for those nearest and dearest to him; and the appreciation of, and the devotion to, the great ideal which is found in the League of Nations will not sap people's individual patriotism for their respective countries, but will rather enhance it. After all there is something greater than the country we live in, there is something greater than the flag which flies over us, and that is the consideration we should have for the whole of humanity. The divine law is not that the people should be divided into hostile camps, one portion of humanity warring against another, but the divine law, I believe, is that we should recognize the universal brotherhood of man. The member who just took his seat was complaining that there had not been any reparations collected. Did the hon. member ever think that it would be possible to make Germany pay for the war?


An hon. MEMBER:: Surely.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Some one says
"surely." I remember the Minister of Finance some years ago, Sir Thomas White-I can refer to him now by name because he is no longer a member of the House-stating in his Budget speech, I think in June, 1919, that in his calculation of Canada's financial position he was not considering the possibility of reparation. I think if Germany can be forced to repair the material damage done to France, and the material damage done to individuals who have suffered through the war-I believe if she can be forced to do that-and I understand she has offered to repair the damages in Northern France herself-I do not know whether we can expect to get, or whether we will ever get, very much more. I would remind the member for Brantford, who, after all, I think is one of the most distinguished and outstanding protectionists in this House, that a debtor nation can only pay an indemnity in goods, and I do not think that a more eloquent or more vociferous voice than his will be raised in this House against any proposal to allow the Canadian market to be flooded, as my hon. friend would express it, with German goods. And if you do not allow the goods of Germany, in payment for reparation, let us say, to come into your own market, they must find some neutral market where they will compete with the goods manufactured by Great Britain and

by other nations. As a matter of fact I do not think there is any other way in which reparations can be made unless Germany is allowed to go into France and to repair to some extent the material damage that she has caused.


John Allister Currie: What about payment in gold?


Andrew Ross McMaster: There is not in Germany a one-hundreth part of the gold to enable them to pay.


John Allister Currie: You are altogether mistaken.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am not altogether mistaken. The trouble is that our protectionist friends have the idea that international commerce is carried on on the same principles as obtain in a corner grocery; they think that cash passes with every transaction. They do not seem to realize-although you would think their experience as business men would have taught them differently-that most international transactions-in fact most transactions of any size-are merely a question of bookkeeping, and that the cry of keeping your money at home is absolutely unsound in economies.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Would my hon. friend leave Belgium entirely out of the reparations and confine the payments to France? The hon. gentleman said that.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Oh, no, Sir, not for a moment. I alluded to France as an illustration. Of course, Belgium should receive the same treatment. I am sure the hon. member would not think I would desire to overlook Belgium. [DOT]


John Allister Currie: Does the hon. gentleman not know that the Belgium indemnities are to be paid in German bonds which are to be cashed by the United States?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I had not heard that, but unless the Yankee has lost his proverbial sharpness I should think they would be taken at a very considerable discount. However, that is not the principal question in regard to which I rose to my feet. I would endorse the words of the hon. member for Durham, and also the words of the hon. member for Brantford, that we should observe economy in every possible way, but I believe that the Government in this regard is quite in sympathy with the views which we are now expressing. I do not believe that the Minister of Trade and Commerce who so

long criticised-I will not say in harsh but certainly in energetic terms-the exepndi-tures of the Liberal Government between 1896 and 1911, would lay his economical principles altogether aside. The poet has said:
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: And those who have loved and not lost I am glad to see are most vociferous in applauding that sentiment. But, Mr. Chairman, it would be infinitely better for the honour of Canada and for the honour of humanity that we tried to make this League of Nations work, even if our attempts should fail, than not to have tried at all. But, after all, we are faced with this situation, are we not? The past organization of international society has proved an awful failure, it has brought humanity to a position where a great part of the civilized world is on the verge of bankruptcy and hei civilization is absolutely demoralized. Now. that being the case, is it not wise to give another organization of society a chance: It is true we need faith and we need1 cooperation, and it is true that there are many things to discourage us, but if the ideal is right it is worth while for a nation like Canada, which has some idealism in its make-up, to endeavour to do what it can to make this League a success.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairnrian, I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with the principle of the League of Na-. tions, for it has been accepted by every hon. member except my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). I absolutely agree with my hon. friend from Durham that no part of the money contributed by Canada should go to defray the expenses of technical or other commissions in the proceedings of which we have no share and upon which we are not represented. The principle of no taxation without representation applies to the League of Nations as to any other constitutional body.
There is another question to which I wish to refer-the question mentioned by my hon. friend from Brantford. Of course, I absolutely disagree with him-


William Foster Cockshutt: You always do.


Ernest Lapointe: -as to article X in the League of Nations Covenant. That is the only part of the covenant that my hon. friend is in love with, because the application of force is implied in that article.


William Foster Cockshutt: Somebody else
thought so when he put it in.


Ernest Lapointe: When the Peace treaty was discussed in this House some of us on this side took a strong stand against Article X, and we were harshly criticized by our friends opposite and by the press supporting the Government. It was a surprise to many of us last summer to read that my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) had asked for the repeal of that article, and it was a greater surprise to learn that at the Peace Conference the right hon. member for King's, N.S., (Sir Robert Borden) who was then Prime Minister, opposed the article. Why should we have been kept in ignorance of that when the Peace treaty was under discussion in this House? Why was it that the policy of secrecy prevailed and we were not then told that our representatives were in accord with the views expressed on this side of the House? I desire to know exactly what view my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice expressed at the last assembly of the League with respect to Article X.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. gentleman should be under the impression that there is any endeavour to withhold any information as to the position of the Government in respect to Article X or to the treaty as a whole. If the hon. gentleman will look at what was said on behalf of the Government when this House was asked to ratify the treaty, he will see in the first place that when the right hon. member for King's, N.S., then Prime Minister, introduced his resolution for the ratification of the treaty, he expressly pointed out that he did not ask the House to adopt that resolution-I do not pretend to give his exact words, but I am satisfied I am giving their substance - because the treaty was just the treaty that we would have made had we had the making of it all alone, nor because all the provisions of that treaty, taking each one by itself, was to be approved and commended, but that he submitted the treaty as being the result that had been achieved in face of the fact that you had to get the assent of all these various nations, which made it necessary for each one to accept something that differed from what it would have thought was the best provision possible. So much for the treaty in general.
With respect to Article X of the Covenant, if the hon. gentleman will do me the
honour to refer to the debate upon that same resolution, he will find that in so many words I expressly said that I did not contend that we ought to have assumed all of the obligations that were contained in Article X. I was dealing with an amendment proposed from the other side of the House. I did take the view, which I still entertain, that that article did not involve the danger that was sought to be guarded against by that particular amendment, and to that I addressed myself. When I ask the hon. gentleman to go through my speech, it is not a mere formal request. Not only did I make the statement to which I have already referred, but I repeated it in a different form, and when I asked the House to join with us in ratifying that Covenant, I pointed out precisely my reasons for doing so. Those reasons were, not that all of the provisions of the Covenant were such as I thought Canada ought permanently to adopt, but that among those provisions was one making it possible to amend that Covenant. What I asked the House to do-in as much as we were unanimously agreed, as the hon. gentleman has himself said, that the principle of the League of Nations was right-was not to reject the Covenant because at the first attempt to frame the constitution of that league success in our judgment had not been attained in every provision. I pointed out that what I still think is obviously true, that if Canada had then chosen, because she did not like Article X or did not like some other provision in that Covenant, to have said, "No, we will not ratify this Covenant," what the consequence would have been of such refusal. Our position in that regard differed very materially from the position of the United States; our adhesion had not the same importance for the League which the adhesion of the United States had. Notwithstanding the observations of my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) we did not claim at the Assembly of the League of Nations to represent the most powerful nation in the world. May I 12 m. point out to him the true and at the same time the scriptural explanation of how we came to be so greatly exalted there? The hon. gentleman pointed out that the scripture said that those who humbleth themselves should be exalted. Now, as to our being so highly exalted at Geneva, does he not find the explanation in the very text that he himself gave us? But that is only by way of

parenthesis. What I did point out to the House was that Canada, while she did not approve of certain provisions of the Covenant, was placed in the position where, if she believed in the principle and wanted improvements in particular provisions, her only course was to ratify them. If she failed to do so she was on the outside, voiceless and powerless to bring about any improvement. If she did so, then she placed herself within the League of Nations, and, as I pointed out then, entitled herself to representation in the forum where she could effectively appeal for amendment to the Government, for the disappearance of those clauses to which she objected, for the improvement of those clauses which she thought susceptible of improvement. Following that statement which I made to the House, when I found myself, as a consequence of the ratification by Parliament of the treaty, in the forum to which I had been looking forward, I proceeded on Canada's behalf to ask for what seemed to us the most important amendment called for by the Covenant.
Now, the hon. gentleman has asserted that we had opposed that clause in Paris. That is perfectly true; we did oppose it. The hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) wrote a memorandum on the subject; I myself wrote some memoranda on it.
I do not know that I would be violating any confidence at this time if I said that we came within an ace of succeeding in Paris.
I think it is a fairly open secret to-day, if it ever was a secret, that the insertion of Article 10 was really the work of one great power. Now, I do not know that I can add anything further by way of explanation. I think that the hon. member for Quebec East and members of the House generally, if they will do me the honour of re-reading the speech in which I asked them to ratify the covenant, will see that I never represented to them that I was asking them to do it because I myself approved of every clause in that covenant. With regard to Article 10 in particular they will find my express declaration that I was not even prepared to say that we should be bound by or that we should ever have accepted the particular obligations involved in that article.
Now, it is not pertinent to the question that the hon. member asks me-and it would lead us, I think, into too long a discussion at this hour-if I were to enter into the reasons why I think that Article 10 should not have been included in the Covenant; why I thought at Geneva and 
still think it ought to be eliminated. Some other occasion may present itself for my doing so, if hon. gentlemen are interested in hearing the reasons. I believe that they are conclusive. They were looked upon as so conclusive that, as I have said, we came within an ace of succeeding in striking out Article 10 ( at Paris. While the motion which I made at Geneva for the elimination of Article 10 was not passed then and there, I may say that neither was any adverse opinion expressed with regard to it upon the substance of the motion itself. It shared the fate that befell all proposed amendments; that is to say, it was determined that before proceeding to amend the Covenant there should be careful study by a commission-I think we would call it a committee over here; at all events they called them "commissions" there; I believe there is a distinction between the French "commission" and our "committee"-there should be a careful study of the proposed amendments by a commission appointed by the Council, the fruit of that study to be placed before the next meetings of the Assembly and any action deemed necessary upon the proposed amendments to be taken at that time. I may venture to add this much: that I did not make my proposal without feeling my way a little and ascertaining something of the disposition of the greater and smaller powers upon the subject. Without going into the details, I must say that because of the strength of the reasons which may be invoked in support of the proposal and from the views expressed to me by representatives of different countries, I feel that we may look forward with confidence to bringing about that very great improvement in the Covenant, which, in my judgment at all events, would result from the elimination of Article 10. I should be glad to have an opportunity at some time to explain, particularly for the benefit of my hon. friend from Brantford, the reason why I entertin so different a view regarding Article 10 from that which he entertains. It look to me as if he misapprehends Article 10, its purpose and its effect. Of course, it may be I who misapprehend it. Apart from objections of a general nature there are very special objections relating to a country situated as ours is.
I did not intend to take up so much time, but I did think it was fair that I should answer the question put to me by the hon. member for Quebec East. I hope I have made it clear to him at all events that there was no intentional misleading on my part.

I am sure that if he will re-read my speech he will find that there is no inconsistency between what I said in that speech and the action which I took at Geneva; that on the contrary the action which I took at Geneva was the natural and logical outcome of the reasons for which I asked the House to ratify the Covenant.


Samuel William Jacobs: It was suggested in the press during the Geneva conference last winter that the elimination of Article 10 from the treaty was mooted in order to obtain some success in inducing the United States to enter the League. Can the hon. gentleman tell us anything about that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That formed no part of the motive that brought about our making the proposal. The proposal was made carrying out the views, as I have said, which had been entertained by Canada's representatives from the time of the adoption of the Covenant. I am quite prepared to add that I have no doubt that all of the nations who formed part of the League of Nations would welcome with open arms the incoming of the United States. I think Canada would join in extending that welcome, and it would be an additional reason why we would feel that we had done good work in bringing about the elimination of that article, if we should succeed in bringing that about, if it should transpire that that elimination should prove to be an important factor in determining the United States to enter the League of Nations. But we made our motion at the time of its proposal in Paris, for the reasons which led us to object to the article, reasons based upon considerations of general interest and reasons based in a special way upon consideration to countries situated as our country is.


John Allister Currie: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but I do not wish to allow the opportunity to pass because of some remarks made by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) with reference to the German indemnities. In the first place, the Germans signed a Treaty of Peace, by which they agreed to make certain pay* ments in gold, and that is an obligation on them which they have refused to carry out from the time they signed that treaty. They knew at that time whether they could pay in gold or in articles such as coal and one thing or another of that kind, but they certainly agreed to pay a certain amount of the indemnity in gold, and so far they have failed to do so. If the Germans would pay in gold that portion of the
indemnity which they agreed to pay in gold, the position of the Allies would be immediately relieved. The Allies owe the United States something like eleven billion dollars, on which no interest has been paid ever since the war started or since they got the loan. If the Germans paid up part even of the cash indemnity which they have already agreed to pay, the money would be handed over to the United States, and Great Britain, France, Belgium and the other nations would be relieved of the necessity of paying cash to the United States to that amount.


George Green Foster: _ I think my hon. friend is wrong in saying that Great Britain has not paid her interest.


John Allister Currie: By agreement she has
not. I know that as a fact, because I was reading the statements made by the Secretary of the Treasury only last week. On a certain part of the loan, she has not paid any interest. France and Italy have not paid any. If Germany had paid her indemnity, the whole situation would be relieved. The mission of Yiviani to the United States a short time ago was for the purpose of discussing that question with the new United States Government, and the latter are recognizing the fairness of the proposition; they have stated distinctly that Germany must pay. Many hon. gentlemen, like the hon. member for Brome, have taken the position:	"Oh, let England
pay up to the United States and let the Germans off."


Andrew Ross McMaster: I must not allow the
hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Currie) to misinterpret my remarks or to misquote me in this House. I never suggested that the Germans should be let off paying. What I said was that the Germans, when they came to pay, would have to pay in goods; that that would cause great economic disturbance in the world and that I did not believe the Germans would be able to pay the indemnity placed upon them. I may be wrong. That is my idea.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman is
trying to square himself.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Not a bit.


John Allister Currie: His attitude to the House was that he would squeal if the Germans had to pay, even in goods. As a matter of fact, there are three methods by which the Germans can pay. I would ask the hon. member for Brome to get a primer on political economy and learn something about business or at least, international

business. Germany can pay by goods. Of course, we could not absorb all those goods at once. She can pay by gold, which is the method by which international exchanges are balanced. She can pay by bonds and other securities. As a matter of fact, within the last two or three weeks, the announcement has been made that the Belgian indemnities are to ibe paid by German bonds which are to be handed over to the United States, and the United States agree to accept them and to finance Belgium. That was not generally known, but the fact has been made public. How did France pay her indemnity? She paid it partly out of the gold which the nation held; but she made an issue of bonds which were sold internationally, and from that she got the cash for the indemnity which was paid in 1870.


Andrew Ross McMaster: She had the credit.


John Allister Currie: 
Michael Clark: Does my hon. friend think that this will be all right by May 1?


John Allister Currie: Yes. There is enough
money standing to the credit of Germans and Germany in the United States to pay one-half of the eleven billion dollars that they owe-


Michael Clark: That would
be a great relief to us.


John Allister Currie: -and there is enough
gold in Germany to pay one-half the indemnity. The German bank statements will 
show that. The cry of the Germans that they are not able to pay is only an excuse which they have in order to try to build up their country as long as they can. While the Allies are bleeding, the Germans are holding their money; they are exploiting their workmen; they are running their factories full-steam, and they are in ten times better position than this country is to-day, just because they have not had to pay one cent. So much for that.
As regards the Germans paying in goods, I believe this country should put a surtax on German goods. The German workman is working for 24 cents a day, and thousands of them are glad to get work at that in their factories. Their factories are working overtime. In Canada, what are our factories doing? We have factories closed to-day that have not been closed for thirty years. -Why? If this country and Great Britain had been relieved by the payment of the indemnities in cash, the exchanges would have been straightened right away, and we and the Empire and everybody else would have been far better off. The trouble with business to-day is that Germany's promise to pay is no good. If she had not promised to pay-and I have in my hand the Treaty with her signature to it, and she is now breaking faith with everybody in the whole world-we might excuse her, if she said: "I will not agree to pay anything until I see how my business affairs are." Germany was not destroyed by the war; she carried on the war entirely herself on paper; she jdid not borrow gold from anybody, and she does not owe anybody except her own people. That is the situation in Germany. Unfortunately, owing to the fact that the United States did not come into the war at the same time as we did, large engagements were made with the United States for money for munitions, and now everybody owes everybody else. Great Britain owes us large sums of money to-day, which could be paid if the Germans would only pay up their gold.


Michael Clark: How can everybody owe everybody else? Does my hon. friend mean that England owes France and France owes England?


John Allister Currie: France owes England.
Mr. CLARK How can everybody owe everybody else?


John Allister Currie: Perhaps not everybody everybody else. The hon. gentleman poses as one of the economic critics of this House,

and I think with his great knowledge he ought to know that France, Italy and all our European Allies owe Great Britain, and Great Britain owes to the United States. The ultimate debt owing to the Unied States is eleven billion dollars.


Michael Clark: Now I understand.


John Allister Currie: As a matter of fact, the only nation that does not owe anything is the United States, but even she owes to her own people. The debt is carried by the people of the United States. That is owing, and will be paid.


Mr. POWER:: So the United States won the war after all? They paid for it anyway.


John Allister Currie: They paid for it any way. The preposition that was advanced by the pro-German element who are anxious to get out of paying their fair share to relieve Germany was that the United States should relieve Great Britain and the Allies from the payment of their debt; in other words, tljat the United States should take over the debts and the indemnities the Germans should pay for this war. I glory in the spunk of the United States in not accepting that proposition. If they had accepted it, it would have meant that all the cost of the war would have been saddled on the United States taxpayers. I am very glad that the United States took the position they did and said that Germany must pay for the war. Germany has ample money and can get ample credit from the Allies, to pay for this war just the same as France paid for the war of 1870.
Another thing I wish to refer to is the position taken by our delegates at the last meeting of the League of Nations. It is extremely unfortunate that our delegates took the position they did. We had accepted the Treaty in this House, and many of us did not go to the trouble of even reading it. We accepted it because Great Britain, France, and our Allies had accepted it, and we accepted it just as any person will take charge from an honest grocer. After we had accepted it, we did not expect that our delegates, when they went over there, would take any other position than the pure British position. I certainly did not. The Covenant of the League of Nations is very clear. There is not a single paragraph in the Covenant that a boy in the fourth book in any public school cannot understand. It is couched in the most simple language. For centuries
efforts have been made to devise methods whereby nations could submit their disputes to arbitration. I unfortunately have not with me the speeches of Cobden and Palmerston, but my hon. friend from Red Deer is so well posted on these matters that he will recall that at on time Cobden introduced a resolution in the British House in favour of arbitration, and that on that occasion Palmerston made one of his greatest speeches. He said that the idea was splendid, that he quite agreed with the theory of arbitration, but the difficulty of the whole thing was that after you had had arbitration, what could you do if the nation that was found in the wrong would not accept the award? In any provision for arbitration he said, there must be a clause providing for the ultimate use of force. Now in the Covenant of the League of Nations every possible method was provided whereby the nations of the world could bring their disputes before a proper tribunal. Those of us who have been at war realize its horrors perhaps more vividly than those who have not. The fact is there is nothing so terrible as war, and for centuries nations and peoples have been anxious to find a way of avoiding war. When this last war, the greatest in the history of the world, was over the nations that had won decided to try and form a league to try and prevent war. They all agreed upon a Covenant, and signed Article 10, except the United States. Article 10 is very short. I will read it:
The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
What does that mean? It means, not aggression, but protection. It means that every nation that signed the covenant of the League, when its territory is threathened by any other nation, wiil have behind it all the other members of the League. What does that mean to us? We have a very long boundary. The United States has always been friendly, and we hope it always will be, but the United States would not stand for that clause, and they refused to accept the Treaty on account of it. The only country whose territory might be threatened would be ours; let us be frank about it. Japan has signed the Treaty, but suppose Japan got into trouble with the United States and undertook to occupy our territory. That

would be breaking the rules of the Covenant, because no member of the League can go to war with any other country within the League or outside until all the peaceful resources of the League have first been exhausted. But suppose Japan waived aside the League, went to war with the United States, and attempted to use Canada as a base. Under article 10 all the other nations of the League would immediately come to our assistance. Now what has happened in the United States? All the pro-Germans there, and all the journals and people opposed to Great Britain, made a great cry at the last election against the signing of article 10 by the United States. If the United States had accepted the Covenant there would be no question about the security of the League and all the things contained therein, but unfortunately the League was made a political question in the United States and it was defeated. I am satisfied, however, that the good sense of the United States sooner or later will come to the rescue, and that country become a member of the League. Now if the Covenant is going to be of any value, it should not be touched, to my mind, for at least 10 years. If no attempts are made to change it for that length of time it will stand, and we will have world peace for another 100 years. There is tio question about that. It will be the same as it was when Confederation was brought about. There was a whole lot of talk about changing this clause and that for a time, and it was made a matter of local politics as to what should be done, but fortunately the Fathers of Confederation and the people of Canada stood by that Act, with the result that it stands to-day, and will no doubt stand as long as the world endures.
I was one of those members who helped to ratify the treaty in this House, and much to our surprise we found that nearly all the nations began to amend the Covenant at that meeting of the League, instead of taking the position that, as the ink on the paper was hardly dry, they would wait at least for a while and see how the Covenant worked out. I say without hesitation that our representatives should have taken the position held by the British; they should have been absolutely behind Great Britain, because, whether Great Britain is right or wrong in international affairs, we have been always with her. The late Sir Wilfrid Laurier laid down the dictum that when Great Britain is at war Canada is at war, and that is the position 
we should take. I am one of those who never dreamed for a moment that our delegates, after having induced this House to ratify the treaty, virtually without any reservation, would go to the Assembly and themselves be the leaders of a movement to have Article X struck out. That Article is the backbone of the whole thing; as has been stated, it is the enacting clause of the Covenant. There are no other clauses that call for armaments or anything of that kind; this is the clause that provides for such matters. If it were aggressive in character, if it called for any sort of aggression towards any nations outside of the League, then I could understand why we might be diffident about adopting it; but any one who reads the treaty must know very well that the whole treaty deals with questions of trouble not only as between different members of the League themselves, but also between members of the League and outside nations, and provides that every resource shall be exhausted before Article X can be invoked and war declared. The question has arisen as to the advisability of nations, which are going to send delegates to the League, sending representative delegates instead of delegates appointed by the central government. That question has been raised in all countries except, possibly, Great Britain and Canada. It is suggested that Parliament might elect its delegates to go to the League of Nations and that those delegates should be representative of all parties in the legislative body. I advance that proposition, and possibly it may receive some attention from the members of this House before we take further steps in this matter.	I	repeat,	I am
sorry that our delegates took a stand against Article X. They have given encouragement to those people who are opposed to the British Empire and to France. We all know who in the United States are holding meetings against Article X, and who are tramping upon the British flag in that country to-day. They are not the real Americans; they are not the Americans who were in the war. There are millions of soldiers in the United States to-day who went to the war, and I have yet to hear of one of them who did not speak in the highest terms of Great Britain and her Dominions; and those Americans are the backbone of the friendly portion of the people of the United States. Now, this is the only opportunity we may have for some time of discussing this subject. I trust there may be

some other occasion on which the question will come up, and when that occasion arises, I think our delegates to the League should explain their position somewhat more clearly, if they are going to return to a meeting of the League. Their position on Article X should he considered hy the House and some explanation he given by our delegates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolution reported.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: After allowing this item to go through, I think we might go home.


George Green Foster: Certainly.
On the motion of Right Hon. Sir George Foster the House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Thursday.
Thursday, April 21, 1921.