We know it.
-and that the principles of Orangemen are far above those held by my hon. friend. His principles are far to small to even measurably approach those of the members, of the Orange body.
How many of them are
I expected to have heard
better things from some hon. gentlemen opposite. There is a little instrument over there that they call a " cannon." I have listened to it with a great deal of pleasure very often but there is no harm in it. It only gives utterance to bombast, and we do not pay any attention to it. What the "cannon" says would not hurt one anyway because it does not amount to very much. But there is one thing I do object to. I had a great deal of respect for my hon. friend over there, but I shall never have
the same respect for him again because he has done his best to create hard feeling in this Canada of ours. As a resident of this country, who knows the French fairly well, I have a very good opinion of them. But for that hon. gentleman to stand up in this House and try to create divisions between the two races is something I never expected him to do. Something has been said about the late Sir John Macdonald. I knew Sir John Macdonald very well, and I used to hear him on the hustings talking about the French. I heard him say that they had a lot of good habits " but," he says, " you cannot trust them."
I would not rise at this la'te hour to say even a word or two had it not been for some remarks made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve *(Mr. Lemieux).
Non, monsieur. The remarks of that hon. gentleman led me to the thought that he has put the proposition on a totally different ground from that on which it was put by all the other members on that side who have spoken. We have been listening to what has been practically a bombardment by many hon. gentlemen opposite based on what they conceive to be the right which exists under the constitution. The hon. gentleman has waived that entirely to one side by claiming that the principle upon which he advocated that the proclamations should be published in French was following what he conceived to be a natural right that was implied, under all the legislation of the past from the Treaty of Paris down. Now in that way the hon. gentleman has really fallen in line with the argument-eited by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards)-laid down by Mr. Belcourt, a member I think of the Senate, and a prominent lawyer who has delivered himself at length upon that subject and in no unmistakable way. I only deal with that argument in the hope that it may do some good in the case of the younger members of the House who take issue with constitutional lawyers, men of long experience, and who set up a different construction of the law from what these men of experience adopt. Hon. gentlemen opposite outside of the argument as to the constitutional right have tried to put an interpretation upon section 133 which I do not think the section is capable of bearing. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) particularly, and I think the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon)
and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) and others, have tried to interpret section 133 in their own way so far as regards the words:
-and both languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve followed that argument to some extent; but none of these gentlemen have tried for a moment to put what would be the reasonable meaning upon these words. Now that seems to be the crux of the point and the only argument that is left to hon. gentlemen opposite, because it is conceded here that there is no legal right outside of the limits of section 133, and I think the House is pretty well agreed upon the territorial limits within which that territorial right can be exercised. There only remains then the question of the meaning of these words " Records and Journals of the House." I hold in my hand one of the Journals of this House, the official volume 55 for the year 1919-taken at random-which bears the caption "Journals of- the House of Commons of Canada." That is what is intended to be meant by the words of the section
Journals of the House of Commons of Canada This Journal has been printed since Confederation, and every copy can be found in the custody of the proper official of the House printed in both French and English. That is the Journal of the House of Commons.
Now the other question to be ascertained is what constitutes a " Record." We know what the Journal contains. It contains the minutiae of the daily proceedings of the House, everything that takes place from prayers at the opening right through the sitting, and everything that is tabled, is set forth in the Journals of the House.
My hon. friend knows
that there are certain things in the form of returns that are tabled and that are not included in the Journals of the House. Does he claim that these do not form part of the records of the House?
There is nothing that
is tabled that is not noted in the Journals of the House as having been laid upon the Table.
Even when it is not
There is a complete daily record in the Journals of the House of what takes place in the House.
But they are not printed.
They are printed.
Except by order of the House.
Everything is printed
especially when ordered by the House to be printed. When printed they form part of the records of the House, to a certain extent, and are shown in the Journals. The records consist of the sessional papers laid on the Table and these are most important. If ordered to be printed they are to be printed in French and English. The Hansard is also part of the records of the House being a record of everything that takes place viva voce in the Chamber. The stenographic notes are taken and then transcribed in French and English and are published through the medium of Hansard. The Bills are also part of the records of the House. The Bills that are introduced and passed, together with all their retspective changes-from the time of introduction to the final reading; to the stage when they receive their final assent in the Senate-are all noted and form part of the records of the House; and any hon. gentleman, if he desires, can go back to the earliest times-so far as this House is concerned-and in half an hour he can get any original document that is filed as of record in this Parliament from the custodian of those papers. These are the records.
Now the peculiarity is that the original of every Bill that gets the assent is engrossed on parchment in duplicate, one part in French and the other in English, and signed by the Governor in Council or the official acting for him in absentia; these are records also. And if we take the language of the section we shall find that the records and journals of the House are limited to what takes place in this House in the regular parliamentary way under parliamentary practice as detailed in the journals and files of record.
Let us look at the proclamation. The form, as far as the printed bill is concerned, becomes a record because it is in the Bill in draft form with blanks; but the proclamation that is issued by the electoral officer-under the old Act by the returning officer-never was in this Chamber, and under the election law as set forth in this Act never will be in this Chamber unless under souft remarkable and unusual circumstances, in which event it would be
tabled and in the custody of the House. Then it would become a record of the House and would be printed in French and English because it was a record long after the election based on the proclamation had been held.
Let us see how far a little further argument along that line will bring us. Hon. gentlemen opposite argue that because it is ordered by the House therefore it is a record of the House. As I have already shown, it never was in the House, it never had an entity, it never was a paper tabled, it never had any meaning as being in the House in the form published. The returning officer has to keep the results of his election after sending in his return, and the only thing that is of record in the House is the return sent in by that officer of the election or of the return of a member. That is read by the Speaker from the Chair, it is taken down by Hansard, and the return is taken note of for the dally journal of the House. But the returning officer has to keep all the papers-I am speaking in a general way and from mem-ory-for one year, and in the case of a contested election as I read the Act for another year if that year be about expired, or for a year from the time the protest was lodged. I asked the hon. member for Three *Rivers (Mr. Bureau) to-night what would become of those papers then? He replied: Why, he could destroy them if he liked. Is the hon. gentleman serious in suggesting that an official authorized to perform certain functions can of his own will destroy records of this House? No! He destroys them because they never were records of this House and never were intended to be; they are in his custody to do what he likes with after the statutory period has expired.
What about during the statutory period?
During the statutory
period the returning officer is to keep possession of these papers-that is what the law says. That is long after the election is held, long after the publication of the proclamation, and the operations of the Act have been fulfilled by the publication of the proclamation followed by the election of the returned member. So it is absolutely futile to argue that a mere proclamation is a part of the journals or records of this House.
Let me go a step further. There is a protest, and incidental to the protest, we will assume for the moment, the returning officer was compelled under a subpoena duces
tecem to produce the proclamation to the rota of judges trying the election petition. Being so produced it becomes a part of the records of the court. Since when has it been recognized that the records of Parliament may be handled under a subpoena duces tecem through the medium of a man who is not appointed as an official of this House to take under his control documents of that kind? The returning officer producing that paper, the moment that the trial is over, may by virtue of his right say to the court: The exhibit I filed belongs to me.
I have a statutory duty to keep it for a year. He may make application for the return of the exhibit, which the court may or may not grant according to the circumstances. But assuming he is allowed to take it off the files of the court, he takes that paper back, and probably there may be some reason why in the strict observance of his duties he must keep it a s'till longer time until the statutory period is ended.
May I be permitted a remark? I do not know what the practice of the Ontario Courts is, but before our courts in Quebec never in my experience has the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery parted With the possession of the documents in connection with an election. He produces them before the court, but he keeps them in his possession.