Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State):

Mr. Speaker, following representations that were made to the chief electoral officer by the

Hon. J. G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, and Doctor Carlyle King, of Regina, acting president of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, Saskatchewan section, it was deemed advisable to institute an inquiry under section 70 of the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, into some irregularities which were revealed at the recount proceedings in connection with polling station No. 50 of the electoral district of Melville at the dominion elections of June 11 last.

On August 31, 1945, the chief justice of the court of king's bench of the province of Saskatchewan was appointed, pursuant to the above mentioned statutory provisions, to act as commissioner on the proposed inquiry. The inquiry was opened at Melville on Monday, October 9 last, and the taking of the evidence of the various witnesses lasted four days, from October 9 to October 12 inclusive. The report of the commissioner reached the chief electoral officer on the 19th instant.

I draw to the attention of the house the following conclusions of the commissioner's reiport. The first of these appears on page 29 of the report and reads as follows:

There are other features also which have a bearing on this issue and will be emphasized later in this report, and which serve also to support the conclusion which I have reached, namely that there were 71 ballots marked for Mr. Gardiner at this poll, and twenty-seven ballots for Mr. Benson, and that this count truly expressed the will of the 98 electors who voted at that poll.

I further find that although 12 of the Gardiner ballots had subsequently been tampered with by some person before the date of the recount that person was not Peter Cherneski or anyone who took part in the conduct of the poll. I am glad to state, and feel bound to state in the light of the evidence, and in fairness to these men, that there is no evidence whatever to support such a charge, but on the contrary there is convincing evidence of their innocence.

The second conclusion, appears at pages 27 and 28 of the report, and reads as follows:

The conclusion which forces itself upon me, and which I have reached after a most careful consideration of both documentary and oral evidence, is that the 12 ballots in question originally marked and counted for Mr. Gardiner were extracted from the envelope in which they were placed, while in Mr. Hunt's office; that they were then marked lightly for Mr. Benson and the marks immediately partly erased; that the unscrupulous person who perpetrated the fraud did so not only in order to invalidate these ballots in the recount but that the whole poll with its majority for Mr. Gardiner of 44 votes, might be thrown out and the will of the electors defeated. And let it be said that, from the criminal's point of view it would have the much-desired effect of defeating an outstanding member of the government of Canada a,nd an outstanding leader of the Liberal party in western Canada.

Elections-Irregularities

The third conclusion appears at page 29 of the report, and reads as follows:

The commission of the inquiry calls upon me to inquire in particular . . whether any ballots were marked or defaced subsequent to their being deposited in the ballot boxes on polling day and, if so, to ascertain the person or persons responsible therefor."

I have at great length tried to answer that question, but if it be desirable that I should answer with brevity, my answer to the first part of the question is "yes, unquestionably," and as to the second part of the question, my answer is. "I have not been able to ascertain, and have not the slightest idea as to the identity of the person or persons responsible therefor."

Mr. Speaker, I now lay on the table of the house the commissioner's report of the Melville inquiry. This report was reecived by the chief electoral officer on the 19th instant.

Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :

Mr. Speaker, I suppose at a time such as this, one who is concerned and who has reason to welcome the report should be most magnanimous with those who have been responsible for the necessity for making the report: But I think as a question of privilege, and in the light of the report made by the chief electoral officer, I should call attention to certain statements made reflecting upon my actions as a candidate in the election held on June 11 last, and questioning my right to sit as a member of this house.

On the night of the election my majority was reported to be 554. The official count was made on June 19, when it was reported that through correction of polls between the count on election night, and as a result of the soldier vote, the majority was reduced to 32. The CXJ.F. candidate, Mr. Benson, asked for a recount, and rumours were circulated that this majority could be wiped out through the fact that persons voted who had no right to vote. That recount was held beginning July 16, 1945.

During the recount no irregularities bearing upon the result of the election were discovered except at poll 50. I immediately asked that the chief electoral officer investigate and report. He has now reported, and a copy of his report has been tabled. This report is based upon the findings of Chief Justice Brown of the court of king's bench in Saskatchewan, who was appointed to investigate rumours being circulated to the effect that officials at poll 50 had tampered with the ballots on election day, possibly during the lunch hour when the poll was closed for an hour at the request of the C.C.F. scrutineer, in order that he might go home for lunch and bring his wife to vote. The finding of the judge is that no such tampering with the ballots took place, and that the poll officials were innocent of the charges.

Having listened to the representations of those who conducted the recount on their behalf, and having reviewed all the evidence gathered by an exhaustive search upon which to upset the election, under the Controverted Elections Act, the CbC.F. provincial executive held a meeting in Regina, after which an announcement was made in the Regina Leader of August 30, 1945, by Doctor Carlyle King, acting president. That announcement was as follows:

Since the recount the C.C.F. has been considering taking action under the Controverted Elections Act, as an investigation by the party suggested there was an irregularity in the conducting of the balloting at poll 50 in the riding.

Doctor King said further:

Although our investigations in recent weeks have brought to light many irregularities in the holding of the election on June 11, the legal loopholes in the Controverted Elections Act make it unwise for us to risk the thousands of dollars which an appeal under the act would cost.

He added that the C;C.F. eagerly awaits the chief electoral officer's promised inquiry into the conduct of the balloting at poll 50, and stated further:

At that inquiry we will be prepared to present evidence that will show that Mr. Gardiner has no right to the Melville seat.

Chief Justice Brown began his investigations under instructions from the chief electoral officer on October 9, 1945 and made his report November 17. The chief electoral officer made his report to-day. The finding is the reverse of what the C.C.F. claimed they would show. In my opinion the president of the C.C.F. should withdraw the entire charge, which of course in the light of Jhe evidence has been proven to be an untrue charge.

But as a matter of privilege what I desired to draw particularly to the attention of the house was this. The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) is reported in the press of October 29 to have said at Hamilton on October 28:

Even as late as this summer there was dirty work at the polls in Saskatchewan. I maintain that Mr. Gardiner had no right to sit in the House of Commons. We did not have the money to carry it through, but it was proved that ballots had been tampered with.

I need hardly call attention to the impropriety of a member of this house making such a statement, even if it were eventually found to be true, at the very time an investigation concurred in by his party was being held. But since its claims have been found to reflect upon my opponents rather than upon me, the statement is doubly reprehensible.

The hon. member for Yorkton apparently felt he had stated the case a little strongly)

Elections-Irregularities

because when I was leaving the house on the evening of October 29 a page boy rushed to me in the corridor with a note. I read it when I reached my office. In the first place I wish to state that if he had desired to withdraw or correct anything appearing in the press he should have done so on the floor of the house publicly. But I do not wonder that he sent this message in the manner he did. It reads as follows:

October 29

Mr. Gardiner:

The Globe and Mail carries a very irresponsible report of my statement in Hamilton. I never said anything about fraud.

Legally and technically your seat in the house cannot be challenged. No statement of mine could have been construed otherwise.

Sincerely, .

G. H. Castleden.

The only denial registered in this note is that he used the word "fraud". The report in the Globe and Mail does not state that the hon. member for Yorkton used the word "fraud". The heading reads: "Says Gardiner elected through ballot fraud." What was declared by the hon. member for Yorkton and other party members to have happened in Melville certainly would have constituted ballot fraud if it had occurred. If it had been found that twelve ballots originally marked for Benson had been removed from the envelope containing Benson's ballots, the cross marked opposite my name and the ballots deposited in the envelope containing my ballots, which was contended, I certainly should have considered that an attempt had been made to defraud the electors to my advantage, and should have felt called upon to resign my seat. [DOT]

The judge finds that such a thing did not and could not have happened under the circumstances. He finds that there was an attempt made to defraud the electors, and he actually uses the word "fraud". He states this was done by taking twelve ballots from the envelope containing the ballots marked for me, marking [DOT] an "X" opposite Benson's name, rubbing it off, and putting the ballots back in the envelope containing my ballots, from which they had been removed, in an effort to upset the whole poll, where I had a majority of forty-four, and thus elect my opponent at the recount. As a matter of fact that was asked for at the recount.

In my opinion the word "fraud" properly defines what the hon. member for Yorkton charged and properly describes what the judge reports some criminal attempted to do. He very definitely finds that this crime was not %

committed by any of the officials at poll No. 50, but by some one who wished to injure me and, through me, the Liberal party.

The hon. member for Yorkton has notdenied his statement at Hamilton; he hasmerely stated that "legally and technically"my seat in the house cannot be challenged. I would ask him publicly to withdraw the statement made at Hamilton and to admit that legally, technically, morally and in every way I am entitled to sit as a member of this house representing the constituency of

Melville.

I sat through the recount at Melville and helped check every ballot. I am sure I can say without any fear of contradiction by anyone who did likewise that all the parties were agreed that apart from poll No. 50 no criticism could be made of the conduct of the polls in that election. The highest possible praise is due those who took the soldiers' vote, even though I did not get a majority of their votes.

In view of the fact that there were only a few constituencies checked following that vote I think hon. members would expect me to say that I sat as one of those who were making the recount and we checked the ballots polled for the whole constituency. After they had been checked, there were only fourteen ballots that were questioned by anyone, and those fourteen were questioned only on the ground that the men who had cast the ballots had given their addresses as points outside the constituency. All but four of those points were so close to the boundaries of the constituency that it was apparent to everyone that those ten men possibly lived inside the seat but had post office addresses outside the constituency. That was found to be the case.

I want to say that it is to the credit of the officers who conducted the vote of the overseas men, and it is to the credit of the overseas men themselves, that although a vote could be cast over an area extending from that constituency east and west for thousands of miles, when the votes were brought back and recounted nothing could be found which was detrimental to those who had conducted that election in that particular way.

The judge has now found that even poll No. 50 was conducted in a manner which gave a correct expression of the intent of the voters. Therefore I think I am justified in saying that the whole election was conducted in a proper manner.

There was one question which was raised and which I think should be mentioned. It was contended at one stage that a sufficient number of Indians had voted to make it possible to

Elections-Irregularities

upset the election if their rotes were disallowed. In other words, it was contended) that those votes, along with some others, might have made a total of thirty-two, and if thirty-two Indian votes had been cast, then the election might be upset. This was to my personal knowledge investigated by both the Liberals and the C.C.E., and I presume they found what we found, namely first, that there were not enough Indian votes to change the results of the election, even if they had all been cast for me and been disallowed. Second, it was found that as many Indians were brought to the polls by C.C.F. workers as by Liberals. Third, these particular Indians are the wives of returhed men of the first great war, and have been voting with their husbands ever since the last war without objection, on [DOT] the part of anyone. I think that will be agreed to by everyone. I think if we denied them the vote it would be deeply resented by all their friends of every party. So the matter was dropped. In my opinion the elections act should be amended to give them the legal right to vote. These women in the west-I do not know about the east-have been, voting in both provincial and, federal elections. They come to the polls with their husbands, and to my knowledge no one has ever objected seriously to their voting. They did vote on this occasion, but there were not enough of them to make a difference in the election, no matter how they voted.

There were n.o other irregularities that were even rumoured, to my knowledge. Therefore, I submit that it was not a lack of funds but a lack of evidence to substantiate reckless, unscrupulous and untrue charges which caused the C.C.F. to decide not to take action under the Controverted Elections Act. If they wish to have the respect of reasonable people I think they should be chivalrous enough to say so I think the election was properly conducted, and while the majority was not as great as I should have liked to have it, I am sure that they have done sufficient to assure that it will be greater the next time.

Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):

Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, since my name has been connected with this matter, may I say that the word "fraud" used in the caption of the report by the Globe and Mail was never uttered by me in, my statement at Hamilton, nor was it an expression of my own opinion. It was not properly stated by the Globe and Mail. I have no intention of going around denying reports made by irresponsible editors when they do not report the truth.

With regard to the decision of the court, the decision has been handed down and we accept it.

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, may I say just a word as the national president of the C.C.F.? I merely wish to say that I am glad the charges have not been proved. I am glad the report casts no reflection, upon the people of Melville or upon the minister.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I would direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that I cannot permit a debate on this question. The minister has made a statement and hon. members know it is not debatable. The minister raised a question of privilege, but I could not permit a debate.

Mr. COLDWELL:

The minister requested that- if there were people chivalrous enough in the C.C.F. they might do something, and I tried to do that. I want to say that I am glad that this matter has been cleared up, that the minister's name has been cleared and that he takes his seat in this house without question.

Mr. GARDINER:

I have in my hand the report of the Globe and Mail. I am not satisfied with the statement made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Yorkton. What the Globe and Mail says in its lead is this:

Says Gardiner elected through ballot fraud.

Mr. CASTLEDEN:

I did not say that.

Mr. GARDINER:

It does not say the hon. member said that. It goes on to say this:

Mr. Castleden, emphasizing the importance of having alert, experienced scrutineers for election time, declared-

Then follow some words in quotation marks, and it is what is in those quotation marks that I refer to when I say I should like the hon. member for Yorkton to State whether he used those words or not. If he did use those words, I should like him to withdraw them; if he did not, I should like him to state definitely that he did not.

Mr. CASTLEDEN:

I have already Stated that.

Mr. GARDINER:

These are the words in the quotation:

"Even as late as this summer there was dirty work at the polls in Saskatchewan. I maintain that Mr. Gardiner has no right to sit in the House of Commons. We did not have the money to carry it through, but it was proved that ballots had been tampered with."

Questions

That last statement is true now, but it was not true then. It has been proved that ballots were tampered with, but it has not been proved that those ballots were tampered with in my interest.. It is the very opposite. What I would like to know is whether the hon. member for Yorkton made that statement at all, and if he did make it I would ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. CASTLEDEN:

I will repeat what I said before. I did not make that statement, and I have no intention of withdrawing statements that I did not make.