MR. MILLS: No; I did not say he was a contractor. I said he was disqualified from sitting. SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD said Southey wrote a letter to the Speaker, stating he was not qualified and would not take his seat. The House allowed the thirty days to expire, and then referred the case to privileges and elections. It was not on account of the petition against Southey and Cowan that they refused to sit, but because they were anxious to avoid the penalties. Both wrote saying they were unwilling to subject themselves to penalties, and that they had not been aware that they had rendered themselves lia ble as contractors under the Act. No action was taken upon their application until the thirty days had expired. It was at their own request sent to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and the Committee recommended them not to take their seats, because they would be liable to penalty. He quite agreed there never had been a decision given which did away with the permanent right of the House, by the appointment of a tribunal, but it was in the highest degree advisable to look into the possibility of there being such a case, where the House would decide, by a party vote, whether it could be sent to a tribunal. The only case in point was that of O'Donovan Rossa. The House of Commons was greatly opposed to his admission, as he had been a convicted felon, but his having served his time had the effect of a pardon, and he was elected. His election shocked the common sense of the House of Commons, but there was no legal tribunal which could declare him ineligible, and the House, in virtue of the power inherent in it to protect itself, declared that the writ from the Queen to the returning officer, authorized the election of a fit and discreet man, and that no man who had been a convicted felon could be a fit and discreet man, and, therefore, ainulled his election. He hoped the words would be struck out, which would leave the clause as in the old Act, and thus prevent the difficulty to which they had referred. MR. LAFLAMME said it was immaterial. Section, as amended, agreed to. On Section 4, MR. LAFLAMME moved the insertion of the word "knowingly" before "sell." MR. WOOD said that other clauses of the Bill appeared to be aimed at pensioners and lawyers, and this was directed at the few merchants who had seats in the House. The clause was much too sweeping, and, as it might sometimes be in the interest of the Government, in cases of necessity to purchase goods from firms,one member of which might be a member of Parliament, the clause might be amended s0 as to permit the purchase of a specified amount of goods during a year without unseating a member. MR. BERTRAM said it was desirable that the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister of Justice should be adopted, because it was absurd that the seat of an hon. member who happened to be in a position to sell goods to the Government should be rendered vacant by reason of a Government officer entering his store and purchasing goods without his knowledge. He could not agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Hamilton, because, if a member were permitted to sell goods to the value of one dollar to the Government, he failed to see on what principle they could prevent him from selling $1,000 worth. Section, as amended, agreed to. SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD said they might well suppose that in case a close vote, on which the existence or success of a party depended, a member might run the risk of paying $200, and give his vote, when he would not run the risk of paying $2,000. MR. PALMER said the penalty should be at least $500. SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD: It should be $500, by all means. MR. LAFLAMME: I believe that the amount will be found to be sufficient. MR. MACKENZIE said such a contingency as was suggested was not likely to occur. It was quite clear that $2,000 was not intended to be realized, but this was intended to be a substantial fine that could be collected. If a member thus sat for a single week, the fine would be $1,200, while for a month, or half the Session, it would amount to $6,000 at the very least. MR. MASSON said that the difficulty previously had related to knowing whether a member was so guilty or not; but this offence could only now be committed knowingly and wilfully, and consequently a high penalty should be exacted. The penalty should be more. MR. MILLS said that no Adminis. tration could be sustained in Parliament by a single vote. Such a party would have to remain the whole time, and he would be obliged to pay a fine equal to the whole of the salaries of the members of the Administration. It was not likely that this would occur. MR. PLUMB: The Reform Bill in 1832 was carried by one vote. MR. GUTHRIE said that the words "knowingly and wilfully" only applied to a very small class of cases. These words had been struck out of the second section. Section agreed to. On Section 7, Mr. LAFLAMME moved that after the word "except," in the line before the last, in the 7th clause, there be added the words, "Companies undertaking contracts for the building of public works." MR. TUPPER asked why they should exclude parties who formed a company to construct public works any more than those who did so to do public printing. MR. MILLS: The expenditure is much larger. MR. TUPPER said it might be very convenient for three or four members to form a printing company. MR. LAFLAMME said there must be a limit somewhere. Generally, in corporated companies were not excluded, from the fact that not the stockholders but the directors took contracts without the knowledge of | the stockholders. This principle admitted, they had only to examine such cases as violated the spirit of the law and attempted fraud-corporations formed for the very purpose of violating the law. They could not enact a law so stringent as to reach any possible case of such violation. Touching public works, he believed they met the only cases where parties would be moved to violate the law and form a sham company of five members for the sole purpose of taking money out of the public chest. MR. GUTHRIE said that, if members of Parliament combined to evade the law in the way suggested, the second clause would cover them. He MR. HOLTON said it appeared to him that this clause might open the those which the whole of this legisla door to greater abuses than any of tion was intended to prevent. confessed that he had not given enough attention to the matter to be prepared with any practical suggestions to meet the difficulty. He saw the difficulty very plainly, however. It had occurred to him, and it had been suggested in conversation with friends, that one mode of preventing some of the more obvious dangers of the clause, of the construction of the law upon which the clause was founded, would be to provide that companies must have a certain number of proprietors,-not particular about the number, to bring less than say 10, 15 or 20, he was not them within the exemptions of the law. But it would be a very easy matter, under some of our Provincial legislation at all events, if not under Dominion legislation, for a firm to transform itself into an incorporated company and thus to operate, one member and the principal member holding perhaps a seat in this House, and being open to a very large amount of business with the Government of the nature which, in a very small amount, had necessitated the disqualification of members under the present law. He regarded this clause as in many respects the most important one in the whole Bill, and it should be very carefully considered. He wished he were better prepared to discuss it and offer a practical solution to the difficulty. The House ought to consider the difficulty very carefully before the Bill passed the final stage. SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD said his hon. friend knew that the discussion the other night on the second reading showed that this clause might be made the means of destroying the independence of Parliament altogether. If it was carried as it stood, it would, in fact, be inviting individuals who desired to secure contracts from the Government to form themselves into an incorporated company limited under many existing Acts. And after this discussion, persons desirous of being members of Parliament and of dealing with the Government, could take the necessary steps to do so, and would have been warned as to the way in which to do it. He considered with his hon. friend from Chateauguay that this clause should be carefully considered. He had no doubt but that the Premier would give them another opportunity to discuss it before passing the third reading. MR. LAFLAMME said that the hon. gentleman knew that, in England, ever since the passage of the George the Third Act, it was specially provided that incorporated companies were excepted under the law. MR. HOLTON: In the time of George the Third, these companies were not so easily formed as now. MR. LAFLAMME said it was, moreover, provided that companies having ten members had a right to be composed of members of Parliament, and did not incur liabilities under the Act. Then came an insurmountable difficulty; if they said ten members, five persons could associate together just as well, and give five shares to their clerks, or to cousins, or to members of their families. Do what they pleased, if there was a disposition to evade the law, so long as they did not allow the Courts to investigate such cases, in order to reach those who had conspired in this manner to evade the law- this could be done. He defied any member to construct a clause that could not be evaded in some way. He had thought it reasonable to specify in this clause contracts for public works as coming within the meaning of the Act; but hon. gentlemen might think of a wider category of cases, making the clause a more general one, in order to reach them, only they must, at the same time, be careful not to entrap other people. In MR. SMITH (Westmoreland) said there might be a difficulty in the case of men who banded themselves together to evade the law, but the operation of the Act must stop somewhere. joint-stock companies, where the entire business was managed by a few directors, the great body of shareholders had absolutely nothing to do with the making of contracts. If, therefore, the thing was carried too far, men would rather not invest their capital than run the risk of being disqualified. His hon. friend had endeavoured to secure the independence of Parliament, as far as the contracts for the public works of the country were concerned, and there was no necessity for going further. He thought that, in the meantime, it would be a safe plan to try the experiment proposed. MR. BOWELL asked if the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister of Justice could not be modified so that, instead of saying, "companies undertaking contracts for the building of public works," it should be made to read thus: having a contract or agreement with the Government of Canada, except companies undertaking contracts for the performing of public work, and not being incorporated for the construction," etc.? That would include all companies incorporated for the express purpose of performing work for the Government; it would prevent any man from forming a printing company and, through the Government, getting control of the whole printing for Parliament. The Act should be made to apply to printing as well as to public works. MR. MACKENZIE said that such a general view of the case would occasion a lot of inconvenience. At least one hon. gentleman of the House, for instance, was a prominent member of the company which worked the Londonderry Iron Works or the Colebrook Rolling Mills, with both of which the Government had large transactions. MR. BOWELL said that did not apply to his suggestion, which was to prevent companies being incorporated for the special purpose of getting Government work. The Bill ought to check a carrying company being formed, for instance, to transport 100,000 tons of rails to a distant part of the country on behalf of the Government. MR. LAFLAMME said he would MR. WOOD asked if a person who undertook a contract to transport, say, 100,000 tons of steel rails across some of the western waters, found he had not sufficient boats of his own, and was thereby compelled to get boats from a member of this House, would the member be disqualified? MR. LAFLAMME: No. MR. WOOD: The directly or indirectly. MR. LANGEVIN said he was afraid he was not understood on the previous day. He then stated that the Bill would disqualify for the Senate the same party who was disqualified for the House of Commons. Was this so? MR. LAFLAMME: Yes. MR. LANGEVIN said he would like empted one part of the Government MR. LAFLAMME said there was no provision in the Act which precluded à contract with a Local Government. MR. LANGEVIN: The first section includes both. MR. SMITH: If he is an officer of the Local Government he is a servant of clause says the Crown. It is a mere matter of phraseology. MR. LAFLAMME: That does not MR. LAFLAMME said he wished "Or MR. TUPPER: Will the clause, as amended, allow of adjutants being returned to the House? MR. LAFLAMME: Certainly. MR. GOUDGE asked whether the Clerks of the Peace for Nova Scotia were included. MR. LAFLAMME: No, they are accepted as eligible. MR. GOUDGE: They certainly ought not to be, because they are the depositors of the rolls. I think they are not eligible because they are the appointees of the servants of the Crown. MR. LAFLAMME said he would adopt the hon. gentleman's suggestion. MR. LANGEVIN said he would draw attention to the other pointthat Senators were exempt, and asked for it to be amended. of these words would meet MR. LAFLAMME: That will do. MR. LANGEVIN said he had suggested to the hon. Minister, yesterday,, about giving the power to any member after the general election and after the thirty days during which his election might be contested, the right to resign, in which case the writ would issue as in the case of death or an appointment to an office. Why should a member, if he had reasons to resign after the thirty days, not be allowed to resign? MR. LAFLAMME: I think it is provided for by the Election Act. MR. LANGEVIN said, under the old law, he had to wait until the fifteen first days were over. If his election was contested, he could not resign, if not contested, he might resign. MR. LAFLAMME said this was provided for in the 12th section. MR. LANGEVIN said the 12th section provided for a resignation between two Sessions. The 14th clause stated: "If any vacancy happens by the death of any member, or by his accepting any office, the Speaker, on being informed of such vacancy by any member of the House in his place or by notice in writing under the hands and seals of any two members of the House-shall forthwith address his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for the issue of a new writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy, and a new writ shall issue accordingly." And the fifteenth clause: "A warrant may issue to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for the issue of a new writ for the election of a Member of the House of Commons, to fill up any vacancy arising subsequently to a general election and before the first meeting of Parliament thereafter, by reason of the death or acceptance of office of any member, and such writ may issue at any time after such death or acceptance of office." There was nothing provided in either of these for the case of a member who had resigned. It might be inserted in that clause where the writ was allowed to issue in case of death, that a member might resign after the thirty days, provided his election was not contested. MR. MACKENZIE said as the hour was late he would ask the hon. gentleman to defer his amendment till a future stage. MR. BUNSTER withdrew his motion. Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported. House resumed. Bill reported. House adjourned at HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, 22nd March, 1878. The Speaker took the Chair at Three o'clock. PRAYERS. ADJOURNMENT FOR LADY-DAY. MOTION. MR. MACKENZIE moved that when the House adjourns this day, it stand adjourned until Tuesday next. He said that Monday was a holiday, when many members of the House conseientiously desired to abstain from working, and when it was their custom to attend church. Motion agreed to. BILL INTRODUCED. MR. TUPPER said that, although the 13th clause provided for the resignation of a member in a certain contingency, it did not provide for the means of issuing a writ except between two Sessions and for a period which had transpired after the electioning Controverted Elections. of the new House. It did not provide for a member who wished to resign his seat previous to the first Session or between two Sessions. MR. HAGGART introduced a Bill (No. 56) To amend the Act respect Mr. MACKENZIE said he would like to know what was the principle on which this measure was bas ed. the clause of the Bill which explained itself. It provided that it should be lawful for any of the Supreme Courts in the Province of Ontario, or any of the Judges of the said Court, to order the payment of any money paid into the Election Court, by way of security of costs, in any case where the petition had been removed off the fyles of the said Court. MR. HAGGART said he would read |