Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Finance Minister) presented further Supplementary Estimates required for the public service for the year ending March 31, 1921, which were referred to the Committee of Supply.
Hon. Mr. SPINNEY presented the third and final report of the Special Committee to which was referred Bill No. 122, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918.
Mr. BUREAU:
Have any amendments been made to the Bill by the committee?
Mr. SPINNEY:
Yes, there are some amendments to the Bill.
Mr. FIELDING:
I presume that the Bill will be reprinted as amended.
Mr. MEIGHEN:
Yes.
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice):
I beg leave, subject to the approval of the House, to introduce a Bill, and I ask the House to waive the requirement of previous notice. The purpose of the Bill is to ratify and confirm certain proceedings in connection with plebiscites that have taken place under part 4 of the Canada Temperance Act. As the House is doubtless aware, there is pending presently before the Supreme Court an action in which the proceedings in the province of Alberta are attacked. Numerous constitutional grounds are invoked, and of course with those this Bill is not concerned. But I understand, that it is further claimed that there was an irregularity in the original proclamation ordering the plebiscite, the alleged irregularity consisting in the fact that that proclamation did not state a specific day on which the prohibition would come into effect if the vote of the people was favourable to it. The proclamation stated that the prohibition would come into effect, in the event of the vote being favourable, on a day to be fixed by a subsequent Order in Council. Our law officers were then, and still are, of opinion that the proclamation in its present form is sufficient; but in view of the obvious, I think I may say, prejudice to the general public interests if the case should be de-
termined upon this mere question of regularity, and determined in a sense adverse to the validity of the election, it seems to us wise that that minor question should be removed subject to such conditions, of course, as will do no injustice to the parties ' in the case whatever be the event of the judgment. The Bill contains two clauses. The first clause deals with this particular question of the proclamation, and the second clause is one of general application analogous to a clause already existing in the general Elections Act, substantially providing that no mere defect of form shall invalidate any order given under the Canada Temperance Act pursuant to a plebiscite, unless it appears that the result of the vote has been, by reason of the irregularity complained of, materially altered. This last clause, as I say, is analogous although not in identical words, to a similar clause, proceeding upon the same principle contained in the general Elections Act, and I think it is a clause which will commend itself to the judgment of the members of this House. Taking this particular instance, should it happen that the result of the present proceedings should be a judgment setting aside all that has been done upon the ground of what is claimed to be an irregularity, the country would find itself in this position, that it would be necessary to begin all over again; incur the entire expense of the plebiscite, and furthermore with the prospect-more than the prospect, I think one might say the certainty-that we would have, in connection with the constitutional question involved, the now pending action, which has now reached the Supreme Court, to be gone all over again. All this would entail considerable expense to the parties, and more especially to the country, and would attain no substantial advantage or benefit for any one. It is not, from what we can ascertain, probable that a judgment will be rendered before Parliament prorogues, and if a judgment comes after prorogation, and resting upon this alleged irregularity, there would be no opportunity to take any action for a long period of months, and there would certainly be no opportunity then, by any action that would be taken, to obtain a judgment upon the constitutional questions in the present case. We would then find ourselves with an interregnum of indecision. We might possibly ratify the plebiscite at that time, but it would still be subject to attack upon the . constitutional grounds that are invoked. From every point of view it seems to be desirable that the matter should be dealt with upon these important constitutional points, and that we should run no risk of its going off upon a mere question of formality, and of a judgment being rendered which, if it rests solely upon that question of formality, will leave all the parties interested, and the country, in the position I have indicated, and subject both to very heavy costs.
Mr. FIELDING:
Mr. Speaker-
Mr. SPEAKER:
Unless the right hon gentleman gets the unanimous consent ol the House he cannot proceed. Is it the pleasure of the House that the right hon. gentleman should have unanimous consent to introduce this Bill?
Mr. FIELDING:
I ask the privilege of
putting a question. Is it the intention of the right hon. gentleman to legislate people out of court?
Mr. DOHERTY:
We propose not to legislate them out of court, but the effect of our legislation would be to determine that particular question.
Mr. FIELDING:
Instead of the court
determining it?
Mr. DOHERTY:
The court would decide what is regular under the existing law, the effect of the Bill would be to modify the law so as to obviate the necessity of deciding that question. So far as the particular parties in the case are concerned, their one interest in its being done now or later is in regard to the costs they have incurred, and the Bill specially provides that the court shall determine, whatever may be its ultimate decision, as to the question of costs.
Mr. BUREAU:
Does that apply to
pending cases?
Mr. DOHERTY:
It does not say so in
express words.