Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):

criminal, naturallly falls into two phases. There are on the one side those seeking to bring home guilt, wrongdoing, irregularity or whatever it may be, while there are on the other side those who endeavour t<5 remove inferences of guilt, that is to say, dn a word, to defend the case. That is the way all trials are conducted. Experience has shown that these divisions inevitaJbly occur; and if counsel are to be employed for the committee, if the committee feels that it cannot undertake the labour-and I can quite understand that there would 'be very much labour entailed in the study of documents, the systematizing of evidence and exhibits, and all that-then surely it would have been in the interests of justice and of tlhe arrival at the truth if the committee had followed the regular course and had one counsel prosecuting the investigation, analogous to prosecution anywhere, and another counsel representing the other side.

I do not think anything in the world can be gained by appointing a common counsel for the committee. It seems to me that the experience of last session, when what was alleged to be counsel for the committee was appointed in the Petersen investigation, should have been a warning to the House not to follow that process on a subsequent occasion. I should very much have preferred had the committee come before us with a request for counsel, the intention being that the regular course should be followed and that counsel on either side be appointed. I do not think that members of the committee are entitled to counsel at all, whether it be those representing us in this end of the chamber, those representing the government, or those representing the Progressive party; members of the committee are no more entitled to counsel than is a judge entitled to legal advice as to what he ought to do. It is the public that is entitled to counsel; the public is interested not only in the bringing out of the facts but in seeing as well that no injustice is done in the elucidation of those facts. The government is justified in employing counsel in the public interests and not, in the interests of the committee nor as specially representative of any members of the committee. I am sorry that this view has not prevailed in the committee, and I apprehend that if what has been stated to me as the decision of the committee in the matter of counsel be followed, and if this motion passes,

the investigation will turn out to be unsatisfactory. Certainly the relation of counsel to the investigation will be unsatisfactory and the public interest will not be served.

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

Is it not true that the members of the committee have concurred in the terms agreed upon?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I understand that they have agreed, but the agreement has come only after the other plan along the lines I have urged was overborne.

Mr. FORKE:

I hardly understand some of the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). The right hon. gentleman speaks about prosecution and defence, but I understood that this was to be a committee of investigation to get at the facts of the case and that there was no suggestion of either prosecution or defence. I think the leader of the opposition has the wrong view.

Mr. EULER:

I listened with a good deal of interest and, at first, with sympathy to what the leader of the opposition said. What struck me as of great force was that the people should be represented, and- it has just occurred to me that the members of the committee really represent the people and for that reason are entitled to counsel. Is not that a fair way of looking at the question?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I thought I had made myself clear. Certainly as members of parliament they represent the people; but a judge, too, represents the people in the exercise of his jurisdiction. Every investigation before a court, whether it be a civil or a criminal case, is an inquiry into facts, just as this investigation is; and every inquiry as to facts is best conducted when one end takes the prosecution and the other the defence. Experience has shown that this is the best course to pursue. Every inquiry, as I have pointed out, falls into these two divisions and it cannot be otherwise; that has been the history of jurisprudence in all countries. Now why should this be different from any other investigation? I am not urging counsel at all, although I know they are good counsel. But if the committee feels that there should be counsel then there is no reason for departing in this investigation from what time has proven to be the right method in all investigations as to facts, whether the facts appertain to a criminal or to a civil dispute.

FEBRUARY 18, 1926 H03

Customs Inquiry Committee

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

How many counsel are to be employed and for whom are they to act?

One.

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

Is there to be any counsel representing the other side?

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Does not the position taken by the leader of the opposition imply that the committee must of necessity divide itself into two parts, one portion of the committee being inclined to assume the role of prosecutors and the other that of defenders? I take it that the committee and the House ought not so to divide. I understand that at least one member of the committee does not occupy any such position and if that gentleman is to be a sort of judge in the matter, then I would say that whether we have counsel representing either prosecution or defence, we should decidedly have counsel to represent as far as possible the interests of the people irrespective of party.

Mr. RYCKMAN:

May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does a judge in a civil or in a criminal trial divide himself into two parts? Well, the committee is the judge.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Decidedly he does

not. That is the very reason why the committee should not so divide itself.

Mr. RYCKMAN:

But there are counsel on each side in any proceeding before a judge, civil or criminal.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I do not want to trespass, Mr. Speaker, but I would suggest the trouble is we are turning a parliamentary committee into a court.

Mr. RYCKMAN:

That is what it is.

Mr. CAHAN:

That is almost inevitable.

Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):

Mr. Speaker, I regret I was not in my seat when this discussion began. Since the committee has been sitting I have reached the conclusion that we ought to have counsel representing the Conservative party, the Liberal party and myself respectively.