Mr. H. H. MILLER (South Grey).

I wish to refer to page 6692 of 'Hansard,' April 7. and to call the attention of the House to the following words that occurred in the speech of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth):

There is just one other thing I ought to say in that regard. My hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) read yesterday a letter I had written to him some two months ago on this subject. I certainly have no objection to his putting the letter on the pages Mr. FRASER.

of ' Hansard ' although I ought to say 1 never expected to see it there, and thought 1 was merely writing to him as one member of the House might write to another what my ideas were with reference to this question.

I shall only occupy probably four minutes of the time of the. House discussing this, and in speaking I am not actuated by any feeling of resentment whatever. I realize that in this matter every man has the right to his own views and I realize quite that those who opposed the Bill had just as good a right to oppose it as I had to vote and work for it. The hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl), the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), and the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) all spoke strongly against the Bill. As far as I am concerned, no feeling of personal friendship will be affected or altered by the action which any man took upon the Bill, nor will I for one moment think of seeking to injure any man politically because he has differed from me in his opinion as to the Bill. While I say that I will not be actuated by any resentment because of any action taken by any other hon. gentleman in what I say; neither will I be restricted in what I say by any party feeling or party affiliation. I do not object to any hon. gentleman differing from me in opinion, but I do like, when I fight a battle, t,o fight it fairly. The Minister of Justice complained that I did a dishonourable thing in making public a letter which it was not intended should be made public. What are the facts? I am sorry that I did not preserve a copy of the letter which I wrote to the Minister of Justice. I presume that he files his correspondence and I think he will have the letter. If he has I would ask him in justice to mvself to produce the letter and read it to the House. I think I stated in the letter that I wrote that a member of the special committee to which the Bill had been referred had requested me to obtain from him his opinion as Minister of Justice as to the jurisdiction of this House in restricting the length of race meetings. At any rate, I remember well that I stated that in conversation to the Minister of Justice. Suppose I did not so speak. I wrote to the Minister of Justice and addressed him as Minister of Justice, and I should also say that the Minister of Justice knew well that I was chairman of the special committee having this matter in hand. Those are the facts and suppose those are the only facts; when I asked the Minister of Justice for his legal opinion, surely the letter I received in reply, not being marked ' personal,' or ' confidential,' was a letter that one might expect to 'use when he was doing what I was, and I would ask, if the opinions of the Minister of Justice, asked for by a member of the

House and given to a member of the House are to be treated as private correspondence, of what value are such opinions? I think I have reason to complain of the reference that the Minister of Justice made in the House. I wish that every statement the Minister of Justice had made to me when I consulted him about this Bill and discussed the Bill with him was, as is this letter, in writing and over his signature. I have a great deal to complain of, I think, as to the treatment of the Minister of Justice in connection with this whole matter. Having discussed.the question with him, as I have discussed it with him and he having made the statements that he did make, and which it would perhaps take too much of the time of the House to discuss, I do say that if I had used the Minister of Justice as he has used me in this matter, I would have thought that I had struck below the belt and that I had not acted either honestly or honourably. That is a plain statement to make, but if the Minister of Justice demands of me. to make the fullest possible detailed explanation of my words I am ready to do so at any time either in this House or outside of it.

Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).

I have only to say that I regret more than I am able to express, the fact that I have not been able to hear what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) has said, and I am sorrv indeed that he feels that he has any grievance or cause of complaint against me, either in regard to the letter he has referred to or in regard to anything I have said out of which this has arisen. I certainly had no idea of imputing to my hon. friend any dishonourable conduct in connection with the reading of the letter he has mentioned. I think the language which I used in speaking about it abundantly shows that no such idea was m my mind. I said at the time in the House that I certainly had no objection to his putting the letter on the pages of ' Hansard,' though I added that I never expected to see it there, nor did I. The hon. gentleman, being a personal friend, saw me repeatedly in friendly conversation in reference to the measure of which he had taken charge. I spoke to him freely with regard to the objects which he desired and I certainly never expected that anything which passed between us in those conversations would be matter of- discussion afterwards in public form. I regarded the letters which passed between us in precisely the same way. I did not consider-I do not consider now- that because I happen to be Minister of Justice I am in any way the legal adviser for the House as a whole or of any member of the House.

I am perfectly willing at any time to talk

with or write to any member of the House who thinks he can have any help from me in connection with any measure in which he is interested, or anything in respect of which he may apply to me. - It was precisely in that way that I understood my hon. friend was either speaking to me or writing to me in connection with this Bill, and all that I have said in reference to this letter is what I am repeating now, that while it was in no sense a private communication, while it was in no sense a breach of confidence that it should be made public, I did not expect that it would be. I was not upbraiding my hon. friend for the course he took, I was not complaining of it in any way.

I understand that my hon. friend has also spoken of the general course which has 'been taken with regard to the measure in which he is interested, as one in which he thinks I have done something unfair, or as he, as I understand, described it, ' struck below the belt.' I can only express my very great regret that any such feeling should he in the mind of my hon. friend, and I must also add some little astonishment, because during the few days which have passed since the occurrences of last week in the House, I have met miyyboni. friend' with 'quite the usual .cordiality which has always existed between us. it was the last idea in my mind that he had any feeling of being hurt with reference to the course of these proceedings. I should like simply to add that from the outset of this matter, from the opening of the session, in any conversations which had taken place between my hon. friend and myself, all of which have been of the most friendly-character, I have never concealed from him in any way that I was entirely opposed to the theory upon which the Bill he had introduced was framed. I have told him quite frankly from the outset that I very greatly preferred the English Bill. I thought that I was not doing any more than was fair to him in saying so, and I have in every way given him, I think perfectly clearly, to understand that I would not introduce such a Bill as the one which he introduced, that I did not approve of the scheme of the Bill, or the attempt which I thought it manifested to call the walking about taking bets the keeping of a betting house or place. That was a feature of the Bill which was essential to it, which was in a word the whole theory upon which it was framed. I regarded that as mere verbal trickery, and I certainly gave my hon. friend to understand thajt, as plainly I thought as any words I could use would enable me to do so. I think these circumstances that my hon. friend is scarcely justified in alluding to the opposition which I openly offered in the House to the mea-

sure which he had introduced, as in any way striking below the belt.

Mr. MILLER.

Just one word. When I obtained the views of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) at any times I distinctly stated to him, at least on one occasion, that whatever opinions I received from him I asked and hoped to receive for the purpose and with the object of making use of those opinions of the hon. the Minister of Justice, and he did not say that he did not desire or wish me to do that, he simply said in reply that when the matter came up to be discussed in the House he would probably have something to say himself.

A word as to what the Minister of Justice has just said. His objection to the Bill was largely because it would interfere with private betting. The Minister of Justice said to me, when I was consulting him about the Bill, as I said before in the House, that it had been very carefully drawn by three clever lawyers, Mr. Raney, Mr. Cartwright of Toronto, and Sir Thomas Taylor, late Chief Justice of Manitoba. The minister said: These are three clever lawyers, they have given a great deal of attention to the drafting of the Bill, and I do not think it can be improved on, and the Minister of Justice said he added the words ' for the purpose for which it was intended,' and if he says he added those words I take it for granted that he did. But I took the care at times to tell the - Minister of iustice that it was not the desire of the promoters of the Bill to in any way interfere with private betting. Knowing that that was not the intention, he suggested that the Bill could not be improved upon for the purpose for which it was intended. I said to .the Minister of Justice: If this Bill, in your opinion, would affect the man who makes a private bet, I would like you to suggest any language that you can suggest that would leave out the private bettor and exempt him. He said: I cannot suggest any language that would be an improvement on the Bill as it is drawn in that respect. Afterwards I myself, fearing the Minister of Justice might make some further objections to the Bill in that regard, that is was interfering with private betting, drafted a clause and submitted it to him, and as he in his own writing amended it in order, as he thought, to fit the case. I said: Will the amendment, as you have changed it, fill the bill, and exempt the private better? He said: I think it will. The Minister of Justice then must have known that that was my intention. The Minister of Justice looked carefully over the Bill. He said that clause 235 did not in any way interfere with the private Mr. AYLESWORTH.

bettor, but that it would with the recording or registering of a private bet.

Mr. SPEAKER.

The hon. member understands that we cannot go over all this ground again. The hon. gentleman's present statement may bring about another statement from the Minister of Justice.

Mr. HUGHES.

Do you not think the hon. gentleman should be allowed to explain himself after the mess he made of it the other night.

Mr. MILLER.

All I say is>

the Minister of Justice has advised me in one way when I consulted him, and has advised the House in an entirely different way.

Mr. MACDONELL.

Is it the intention to proceed with the Insurance Bill this session?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

It is the intention to proceed with the Bill.

Mr. BRADBURY.

I wish to ask the minister in charge of the Fisheries Department a question regarding Lac du Bonnet. I can perhaps, best do so by reading the following letter which I have received:

Lac du Bonnet, April 3.

Dear Sir,-Will you kindly give me some information regarding the Lac du Bonnet fisheries. It is rumoured that the Lac du Bonnet waters are thrown open for commercial fishing for the settlers and residents around Lac du Bonnet, which would be satisfactory to the people as long as the district is not invaded by Indians and foreign fishermen. There is a company preparing to buy the fish and they are telling us _ that they have bought the licenses and paid for them, and the settlers can get no license except through the company who wants an agreement signed which we do not think is right. If you could give ns some information in this matter you would do us a great favour.

Respectfully yours,

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Have the promoters of the Bill looked over the amendments which have been suggested, and come to a conclusion?