Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:

In the Mail

and Empire's report of the nomination proceedings for the Local Legislature which took place yesterday in the county of Peel, Mr. Fallis, a gentleman whose name the House is familiar with in connection with

certain horse deals in that county, and who is a candidate for re-election, is reported as having said:

That following the investigation he had met Mr. Thompson, K.C., who had conducted the investigation for the Government, and Mr. Thompson had assured him that the investigation had been a full and frank one, and that there was no possibility of legal action against Mr. Fallis. All that any person could say was that as a member he was injudicious in having anything to do with the matter.

I know Mr. Thompson personally, and have a very high regard for him; and, knowing him as I do, I cannot believe that he would give any such statement in advance of the commissioner's opinion. I think the House and the country have a right to know whether he is correctly reported, and I would therefore ask the minister who has to do with this matter to make inquiries, so as to be able to advise us whether or not Mr. Thompson made such a statement.

Sir SAM HUGHES:

If the hon. gentleman is referring to me, I do not know that I have any right to ask Mr. Thompson any such a question. Mr. Thompson is a private practising lawyer, and has just as much right to express his opinions as the hon. member for Pictou has. He is a free lawyer, just the same as my hon. friend.

Mr. MACDONALD:

The minister cannot disown Mr. Thompson; or, if he can, the Minister of Justice cannot. Mr. Thompson was the public official who was employed for the purpose of conducting the investigations before the Davidson Commission. He and I are not in the same position at all. I am here as a representative of the people, and have a right to ask this question. Mr. Thompson was the servant of the people and of the Government, and the Government have a right to inquire whether he prejudged the case.

Sir SAM HUGHES:

Mr. Thompson has been doing the legal work in connection with the inquiry, and doing it gratuitously. While he is not " employed," strictly speaking, I should imagine he is at perfect liberty to express his views. It is not part of my business to go running around after newspaper reports; when that report comes to this House, we shall be able to deal with it.

Mr. MACDONALD:

I should like to know what the Minister of Justice has to say as to the irresponsibility of Mr. Thompson in prejudging this matter. I suppose the Minister of Justice has something to do with this matter.

Hon. O. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :

As I have not had the advantage of hearing what the matter was about, I cannot very well say anything in regard to it. I may say, however, that Mr. Thompson was selected by the commissioner to aid him in carrying on his investigation. I may say that that investigation is carried on by the commissioner upon his responsibility to the public of Canada, and that the Minister of Justice would consider he was going very far out of his way if he tried in any manner to interfere with the v ork of the commissioner, who is charged to carry on an absolutely impartial investigation.

Mr. MACDONALD:

He was appointed

upon your recommendation.

Mr. DOHERTY:

The commission was appointed upon my recommendation, and I have no reason to be otherwise than proud of that recommendation; furthermore, I am satisfied that the public of Canada, both now and after the report is made, will join with me in the opinion that no better man could have been chosen to make that investigation than Sir Charles Davidson.

Mr. MACDONALD:

I was not speaking about Sir Charles Davidson at all. The Minister of Justice cannot disclaim responsibility for the counsel who was appointed to represent the people in this investigation. If the high ideals which my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce very properly placed before the Canadian people last night are to be denied by his colleagues within twenty-four hours, it is just as well for us to know. I want to tell the Minister of Justice that as a lawyer he cannot tell me or any other lawyer in this country that, as the advisor of the Crown who recommended the appointment of this commission, he has nothing whatever to do with Mr. Thompson, the counsel, who, according to the Mail and Empire's report, has prejudged this case, by saying what could or could not be done with Mr. Fallis.

Mr. DOHERTY:

I have pointed out how Mr. Thompson came to be the counsel to the commission. I have no desire to say anything else than that I thoroughly agree in the opinion which the commissioner evidently entertained of Mr. Thompson when he retained him as counsel.

Mr. MACDONALD:

I am not blaming Mr. Thompson at all.

Mr. DOHERTY:

Who is the hon. gentleman blaming?

Mr. MACDONALD:

My bon. friend did not wait to hear what I was going to say.

I say I know Mr. Thompson very well, and believe him to be a gentleman of rectitude. According to the Mail and Empire* the statement was made yesterday by Mr. Fallis, at the nomination proceedings in the county of Peel, that after the investigation, Mr. Thompson had assured him that the investigation had been full and frank; that there was no possibility of any legal action against Mr. Fallis, and that all that any person could say was that perhaps as a member he was injudicious in having anything to do with the matter. From what I know of Mr. Thompson I have every confidence in him, and I cannot believe that he prejudged the case. He would certainly be considered as having been lax in his duties if he did so. If possible, I want to. find out if my bon. friend can ascertain if it is true that Mr. Thompson did prejudge the case -as Mr. Fallis said he did.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. The hon. minister may make his apswer; but I think I should -say that this discussion is in my opinion absolutely out of order. I see in Bourinot that, when the Orders of the Day are called questions may be asked "relative to the state of public business, or other matters of public interest; but no discussion should be allowed when a minister has replied to a question, nor after a member has made his personal explanation." Perhaps the answer given by the minister was, in -the h-on. member's opinion, insufficient.

Mr. MACDONALD:

It was quite evident that the Minister of Justice did not hear my remarks; in fact, he said so, -and I rose again -only for the purpose of putting the question to him as I desired it to be put. 1 awiait his answer.. .