1905-05-30

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called,
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the Prime Minister, when it is proposed to resume the discussion of the Bill establishing the new province of Alberta ? The Minister of Finance will perhaps remember that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice -who, I regret to learn, has been indisposed for a day or two-made a statement as to what, in his opinion, is the difference between clause 16 as originally inserted in these Autonomy Bills and the amended clause 16, which has not been discussed very much as yet, although it has been before the House for some time. Since the Minister of Justice made that statement-a very carefully considered statement which he read to the House-there has not been any opportunity, so far as I am concerned, to make any observations with regard to it, and if it would be convenient to the government I would like to speak on that question at as early a date as possible. In saying this, of course, I do not desire to put the Minister of Justice to any inconvenience if he is indisposed ; I merely mention it in order that my request ipay be conveyed to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Justice. I am unable to discuss the question until the government brings the Bills on again.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: A similar question was put to me at the adjournment last night. I then expected I would be able to see the Prime Minister this morning, so that I would be able to give an answer, but unfortunately lie has not been at his office. I .therefore do not feel at liberty to answer the question at present, but I will communicate with him, and my hon. friend will receive an intimation later. The absence of the Minister of Justice has an important bearing on the matter, and, as my hon. friend knows, he has been in very poor health.
GEORGIAN BAY ISLANDS-QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.	.
Mr. GEORGE I). GRANT. Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to speak on a question of privilege. On Thursday last, in my absence from the House and the city, the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett), during the discussion of the estimates of the Department of the Interior, made reference to the sale of an Island in the Georgian bay to Mr. Frederick W. Grant, and the suggestion was thrown out here and repeated in the public press that the purchaser of this island being my brother, I necessarily had something to do with the transaction. I desire, Mr. MAY 30, 1905
Speaker, in a very few words, but in language as explicit and as emphatic as is in my power to use, to say that my first knowledge of the transfer or sale of this island from the Department of the Interior to Mr. Frederick W. Grant was when I read of it in the Toronto press on Friday.
I in no way approached the Minister of the Interior, nor any person in his department, either by letter or by personal interview, and, so far as my recollection goes-and I think it is to be depended upon-I knew nothing of the matter whatever. As to the merits of the purchase and sale of the island, that is a matter as to which the Department of the Interior and the Minister of the Interior can well defend themselves.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT.: I did not exactly catch what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Grant) said at the outset of his remarks, but I rather gather that he stated that I had alleged that he interviewed the minister.


Mr. GRANT.: Will the hon. gentleman pardon me interrupting him ? I said the suggestion was thrown out ; I read it from Unrevised ' Hansard,' page 6718.


William Humphrey Bennett: As to the suggestion, it is for the hon. gentleman to make his deduction from what I did say, and for the public too. I did not make the statement emphatically that the hon. gentleman had at all interfered in the matter, owing to the fact that I had not seen the correspondence. Had I seen the correspondence perhaps I might have made a similar statement to that which I made formerly in reference to the hon. gentleman in connection with another matter, after I had the advantage of seeing the correspondence. On that occasion I found out this, that the hon. gentleman had written a letter to the department alleging that of his own knowledge the timber on


William Stevens Fielding: Might I suggest to my hon. friend that we ought not to go in to another matter. This is a personal explanation on one matter and I do not think we should go into another matter.


William Humphrey Bennett: With a personal reflection on another member.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: And I am endeavouring to get away from that.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no reflection.


Mr. HAGGART.: But this is on a motion for supply.


Mr. SPEAKER.: This is before the orders of the day ; there is no motion for supply.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then under these circumstances, the hon. gentleman having made what I may say is a personal attack on myself


William Stevens Fielding: No it is not.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have no doubt I have touched on a very ginger spot. The Minister of Finance has seen some very ginger spots lately and is always willing to jump to the rescue. I am quite willing to discuss this island matter where it is best known,* and I think that when the people there know all the circumstances they will think this is about as crooked-
Mr.	FIELDING.	Order.
Mr.	BENNETT

as the	timber	deal	on
Hope Island

Mr.	SPEAKER.	Order.
Mr.	BENNETT

in which	the	hon.	gentleman was mixed up.



SUPPLY-MANITOBA VOTERS' LISTS.

['We will continue the estimate?. After the inquiry to-day I sent a note to the Prime Minister, who replied, 217\nand I sent his reply to the leader of the opposition, that he will be in the House tomorrow and will confer with the leader of the opposition about it.']
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. THOMAS GREENWAY (Llsgar).: I purpose availing myself of this opportunity to bring before the House a matter which is of considerable importance to the province from which I hail. I am quite well aware that in doing so I am trenching upon a policy which has been adopted by this House and by this government of adopting the provincial franchises for the purpose of Dominion elections, and I fancy that so far as that principle applies to the provinces in general it is a good policy. But if I cannot show by the statements which I propose to submit to the House that it is right and incumbent upon the government to adopt a different policy in reference to the province with which I am to deal, then I shall not say anything more about it. It will be within the recollection of those who are conversant with Manitoba politics that in the province of Manitoba adopted in the year 1902 the then government adopted a policy of personal registration; that is to say that every voter, no matter who he was, no matter how long he had lived in the country, no matter how much property he owned, no matter how well known he was, had to come at a certain time to a certain registration booth to register his vote otherwise he had no vote. At the time of the introduction of that Bill I occupied a seat in the legislature and I was very much opposed to the system of personal registration in that way. 1, do not know that there is .such a system in any other part of the empire. If there is I am not conversant with it. The inconvenience of such a system to the province of Manitoba must be manifest to any one who is at all acquainted with its circumstances. The sparse settlement, the long distances it is necessary to travel, the expense, and the inconvenience of it altogether is very much against the system, and the results have shown that the opposition to the system at the time was well grounded. The importance of this subject will appear when I say to* the House that there is not in existence in Manitoba to-day, in one single

constituency for tlie House of Commons, a legal voters' list. We were asked to accept that law because it was commended to us as a new departure, as putting in the bands of tlie judges of tlie county courts tlie compilation of the lists and taking it away from partisan officials. That was the system which was adopted in 1903 in the compilation of the lists. The judges appointed the places for registration, appointed the courts of revision, appointed the registration clerks and all the details in connection with the compilation of the lists were prepared by the judges of the county courts. That certainly looked like a reasonable recommendation. That was continued for a while and the 1903 elections were held upon lists which were compiled in that way. A number of registration booths werp appointed in each local electoral division, a number of days extending from the beginning of the week until the end of the week were given for the time of registration, and in that way although, it was very inconvenient and very expensive and entailed a great deal of work upon the respective parties still a fair, a reasonably fair list under that system was compiled. Now, Sir, I am one of those who think that the government having decided and the Commons having decided by the law of the land what shall qualify a voter, that the voter ought to have the means of registering his vote with the least possible expense and the least possible inconvenience. I think that is a good principle to lay down. Parliament having settled the franchise, having said what the qualification of a voter shall be, the machinery ought to be provided which will enable that individual to get registration or whatever else may be adopted for the compilation of the list and get his name upon the list with the least possible expense and inconvenience. I said that was the system which was adopted in 1903, and the judges of the county courts of the province established the registration booths, completed the lists and the elections were held upon these lists. Previously our law had been that no list would be compiled until prior to an election, so that when a proclamation was issued providing for the compilation of a list it was notice to the public that an election was about to be held and that some time within three months the list would be completed and the election held upon that list. That was the law under the government which I had the honour to lead for a number of years ; that was the law which was introduced by our opponents in 1903 when this system of personal registration was adopted. But Sir, these gentlemen last year, in 1904, conceived the idea that it would be well for them to prepare lists for the purpose of the Dominion election. And they amended the law to provide that the compilation of the lists should take place each vear during the month of May.


Mr. STAPLES.: They did not make any
provision for striking red lines through it.


Thomas Greenway: 


Thomas Greenway: I will tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Staples) something about the red lines before I am done. And that reminds me that 1 have to deal with the hon. gentleman before I conclude the remarks I am about to make. If, after I am done, the hon. gentleman will stand up in this House and undertake to defend this iniquitous system, then 1 shall lose what little confidence I have in the hon. gentleman from Macdonald (Mr. Staples).


William D. Staples: I can do that with a clearer conscience than that with which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Greenway) can defend his voters' list when he had the compiling of it.


Thomas Greenway: I am dealing with the preparation of the lists under the system established in Manitoba to-day, and I propose to deal with it notwithstanding the interruptions of my hon. friend from Macdonald. Now what did these gentlemen do? The compilation of the list whicfh had been recommended by us because of all the details being worked out by the judges, was at once changed. Instead of leaving it to the judges, an Order in Council was passed, an Order in Council appointing the registration booths, fixing the time when these should be kept open, appointing the courts of revision and settling all tlie details. That was the system adopted by these gentlemen in 1904 for the purpose of preparing the lists to elect such gentlemen as the hon. gentleman for Macdonald. I shall give all the details in order to acquaint the House with the nature of this outrage- there is no other name for it-which is being perpetrated upon the people of Manitoba to-day. Why, Sir, in 1903, under the judges system, when the work was done by these gentlemen who knew the country and knew the circumstances, we had six days of ten hours each for registration. But under this precious system which I am going to discuss in a few minutes, we have one day. Tlie Order in Council which- was passed last month provided that there should be 74 hours of registration. In 1903, when the lists were prepared by the judges, we had 4S0 registration booths in the province of Manitoba-I want my hon. friend (Mr. Staples) to make a note of that-we had 4S0 registration booths open for six days. In 1905, commencing the day after to-morrow, we are to have one day for each electoral district in the province of Manitoba- one day. It was provided by that Order in Council that that one day should be of 7i hours ; but, on account of the public feeling which was aroused in Manitoba, they have now increased it to 13 hours. This, is not, as I will show you later on, a question of time but a question of convenience. Under this new system, we are to have 40 registration booths for the province of Manitoba, instead of 480, and we are to have one day instead of G days. Or reducing it to hours, we had 20,790 hours for registration in

11)03, and in this year of Our Lord, even by the increased time which they have given -they sent out an advertisement after the Order in Council had been passed-they have given just 520 hours. And, in an effort to make it appear that they are doing in favour of the voter they ask them to start at seven o'clock in the morning. Now, that may impress some as being a little unfair, it may occur to some lion, gentlemen who possess a love of fair-play that it is not the thing to do. All I am asking for is fair-play ; all 1 want is that we shall have the means of preparing a complete list of the voters of the province.
Let me give some figures to show how this will work out. I take only a few constituencies, because I do not desire to weary the House. I take ten constituencies out of the total of forty, and give the extreme distances voters will have to travel in order to register their names : Avondale, 40 miles ; Carillon, 78 miles ; Dauplnn, 70 miles. Then I come to the case of Emerson, which is somewhat peculiar. Emerson lies along the boundary, and there is a muskeg or morass in the centre, so that you cannot travel directly from one side of it to the other. People living in some ot the townships of Emerson, in order to register their names, will be obliged to travel by railway to Winnipeg and thence by iaii-way to Emerson a total of 104 miles. In Gimli, a constituency lying to the north, to reach the registration point some of the people will have to travel 21.0 miles , Gladstone, in a somewhat more populous constituency, 110 miles. In Kiklonan and ^t. Andrew's, the home of the old natives of Manitoba, along the Bed river, they have to travel from the extreme points, 260 miles to reach the place where they must register their names; Springfield in the constituency of my hon. friend from Selkiik (Mi. Jackson), 105 miles, Swan River, a Northwestern constituency, 145 miles. Now, Sir, that does not suit even some of the friends of the provincial government of Manitoba, and I do not think it would suit my hon. friend (Mr. Staples) if he had to travel any such distance as I have been speaking of to register his name as a voter. In the other constituencies, the distance varies from to miles to 75 miles. 1 have here a quotation from a Conservative country paper m the constituency of my bon. friend who was interrupting me. Perhaps he knows the paper ; it is the Miami ' Herald published m a nice little town in the constituency of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Staples).


William D. Staples: That is the town in which thirteen were disfranchised by the red line.


Mr.   G KEEN WAY@: There are some things that the hon. gentleman talks about concerning which he knows very little. Perhaps he had better send and get a copy of the Miami ' Herald ' if he has not one already. This is what it says :
The new provincial voters' lists are to be made up in June. Carman is the only place for registration in Dufferin. The editor happens to be one of those compelled to drive twenty-one miles and return.
He should not have grumbled, it is a mistake for a gentleman to grumble who has only to go twenty-one miles. That is far below the average, I think he is down at the minimum point.
The editor happens to be one of those compelled to drive twenty-one miles and return or lose his franchise, and we much prefer the latter. We have always been Tory heretofore, but if registered now-well we would feel like putting a government in power that would do the square thing with the registration booth. The prospects are that the Miami boys will stay at home.
Now, Mr. Speaker, why is it that these gentlemen don't want to do the square thing? Simply because of an advantage, which I shall point out directly, that they gain by the compilation of the list of 1904, and they are determined that that list shall remain until they have another provincial general election upon it; they are determined, because the number of unregistered Liberals far exceeds the number of unregistered Conservatives. That is the reason, and I will undertake to prove that to you by some evidence wbicb I have in my possession, giving a comparison between the system adopted by the judges and the system which now prevails. Let me give a few instances with regard to some other constituencies. The first constituency I have upon my memorandum is the constituency in which my hon. friend from Portage (Mr. Crawford) resides, Beautiful Plains. Under the judges system of registration they had 16 places of registration and 90 days for registration, six days for each place; under this government, in 1904, when they were compiling a list for the purpose of electing members of the House of Commons, they gave us 10 places and 10 days. I will give you the results in a tabular form :
Constituency.
Beautiful Plains .
Dauphin	
Gladstone	[DOT] * [DOT]
Gimli	
Kill am ey	
Rockwood	
Swan River	
J edges' system.		System of 1904.	
Places.	Days.	Places. [DOT]	Days.16	90	10	1017	102	11	1215	90	17	1814	84	12	1212	72	7	1212	72	8	915	90	7	7
Now, Sir, I want to say here that that was a studied thing, that was the entering wedge that they proposed to drive home upon this last occasion to prevent the peo-

pie from being registered. In the polling subdivision where I happen to reside there was a very large area, 108 square miles, with 320 odd voters in it. It had given the largest Liberal majority that was given in the previous local election, by any single polling division and therefore it must be punished, and they got two hours to do their resignation, from 11 o'clock until 1 o'clock, and one was the dinner hour. That is what they did right at my own home. I went to the gentleman who was registration clerk and asked him who was responsible for this iniquity. He said, not me. I said, I did not think it was. Now, Sir, let me come to the present system of registration and say a word or two about that. I have given you the distances that people have to travel, and I want to show you why it is that these gentlemen have adopted this course ; it is because of the incomplete list, and because they are determined that the Liberals of Manitoba shall not register. In the constituency of my hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. Cyr), and in the local constituency of Emerson, where.I pointed out that it was most inconvenient for electors to register, there are at least 500 available voters for registration, and there will not be 100 of them who will register, there cannot be, there is no provision for it. Let me just remind the House that under the system which we have there is a long list of interrogatories that have to be answered by each person applying to be registered. It does not make any difference who he is, what he is, or how well known he is, he has to answer these interrogatories. It takes quite a time in case there is no dispute over the qualification of the voter, and in case there is a dispute it takes longer. You could not by any possible means register within the thirteen hours that is given by the government, and in a place where there are more than 150 voters it w'ould be impossible for them to register. In the city of Winnipeg, if my hon. friend who represents Winnipeg (Mr. Bole) were here he could tell you that there are available to-day for registration at least from 4,000 to 5,000 voters. Under this precious system it is possible perhaps to register 300 of them, and the remaining thousands have to go unregistered-purposely, systematically it is provided that they shall not register. Why, Sir, I have been surprised when I have been thinking of the manner in which our governments are run, and when I find an old colleague of mine occupying the position of Lieutenant Governor of the province of Manitoba, becoming a party to such an outrage as this,
I cannot find language which I would be permitted to use here, Mr. Speaker, to characterize a thing of that kind. I am free to admit that there is a general idea that a constitutional governor is supposed to do what he is advised to do, but surely there is a limit to that. Fancy a gentleman Mr. GREENWAY.
thirty-five years a resident of Manitoba, who knows all the circumstances, who knows the conditions of the country, putting his signature to a document of that kind, by which at least ten per cent of the electorate of the province of Manitoba are to be disfranchised. I am within the mark when I make that statement. Now, Sir, I want to be perfectly candid with the House, I want to tell the House exactly how things stand. I have the voters' list here which professes to be the voters' list of the constituency of Lisgar. I will say something about that a little later on. We have heard a great deal as to the list and the disadvantage we were placed in by the compilation of it last year when we took no interest in it. I will explain that a little later on. If we were allowed to compile a fair list in Lisgar and if we had a fair list in Lisgar I am here to say in this House that the Liberals would gain at least 300 voters, and shall the doctrine he pronounced in this House or any other House that because they are Liberals they should be disfranchised? Is that a good doctrine to preach? I do not think it is.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? Is he opposed to the principle of the Franchise Act introduced by this administration which leaves the preparation of these lists to the provinces ?


Mr. GREEN WAY.: I think the hon. gentleman was not present when I stated my position on that.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps not.


Thomas Greenway: I said that as a rule I thought the policy of using the provincial franchise was a good one, but I proposed to show before I sat down that in this case it was not a good one and there ought to be an exception. I said a little while ago that we had not in the province of Manitoba a proper, legal list for any single constituency for the House of Commons. I was quite well aware of it before I came here, but to verify that belief and that opinion I sent a note, after 1 came down here, to the King's Printer and asked him if he would be good enough to supply me with the voters' lists of my own constituency, the constituency of Lisgar. I have in my hand what I received from him and I merely quote this to show the utter impossibility, even if the list were honestly prepared, of using the list which is prepared by the local government for the purposes of the House of Commons. 1 sent over to the King's Printer and he sent me this. You will remember that my constituency comprises two entire local'divisions and parts of three others. I asked the voters' list for my constituency of Lisgar and I received this list. I went over the list which was quite-a little chore and some people of the province of Manitoba got into trouble for doing what I did in reference
MAy 30, 1905
to this about which I will have something to say a little later on. The list 1 received contained 7,344 names. There are 4,237 that belong to me and there are 3,097 that belong to somebody else. How is that ? Take the constituency of Emerson. There is one township in the constituency of Emerson brought into Lisgar and because that one township was brought into Lisgar this gentleman sends me the whole electoral list of Emerson. That applies to Mountain, and to Manitou, two other constituencies portions of which are in Lisgar. If we undertook to hold an election in Manitoba to-day we would not have a list upon which to hold it, and if anybody should undertake to prepare it, because there is no provision under the law by which these lists shall be made, the Attorney General would have him arrested and prosecuted for so doing. I want to say right here that if an election were to take place in any constituency in Manitoba, so long as we have the present Attorney General at the head of affairs, and I were asked to nominate a returning officer for the constituency in which the "election was to be held I would not do so. I would not put my friend in the position of being persecuted as others have been.
Mr. SC I IA IT' X E I t. Ho I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Greenway) to say that one division of Emerson is brought into Lisgar ?


Thomas Greenway: I did not catch what the hon. gentleman said.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I understand the hon. member for Lisgar to be finding fault because one portion of the local constituency of Emerson was brought into the Dominion constituency of Lisgar.


Thomas Greenway: I did not find fault with it at all. I was finding fault with the list. The hon. gentleman does not understand me. I was finding fault because the list was not right, and I was finding fault because the hon. gentleman's friends persecute people who undertake to put the list right.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I would ask the hon. gentleman to state again what he said about part of Emerson being brought into the constituency of Lisgar.


Thomas Greenway: I said that because one township of Emerson was in the con-constituency of Lisgar, the King's Printer sent me the whole of the list of Emerson.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Exactly, that is what I understand.


Thomas Greenway: I was not complaining about that. I was not saying anything about what the district should be.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That is exactly what I want to know.


Thomas Greenway: The hon. gentleman will know that another reason for complaint
against the Liberals of Manitoba was that they had changed the polling subdivisions. According to the law of Manitoba it was supposed that the registration district under the law which was carried out by the judges should be the polling division. My hon. friend knows, if he thinks for a moment, that one part of the western end of my constituency and one part of the eastern end of his constituency comprise one polling subdivision and that in this subdivison there are 59 votes in my constituency and 142 votes in the constituency of my hon. friend. What is going to be done ? Who is going to provide the remedy ? Who is going to provide that the 59 votes shall vote in my constituency and the 142 in the constituency of my hon. friend ? Somebody has to do it, somebody has done it, and because somebody has done it he has been persecuted and prosecuted by the local government. There have been a great many things said about this election. I know that the Minister of Public Works of the province of Manitoba, who has been quoted sometimes in this I-Ioilse and who has furnished my hon. friends opposite with a good deal of material, has told his friend-S in the east that they propose to carry every seat in Manitoba. Well, he was not without having some good grounds for his faith because he knew how the lists were prepared and he knew that the Liberals had neglected to take part in the compilation. This statement has been made very clearly and perhaps I might as well say here the reason why the Liberals neglected it. I am speaking for the purpose of being perfectly candid with everybody, and I find fault with my friends of the government who knew the state of affairs in Manitoba that they did not carry out their intention at the last session of parliament and give us the means of having a proper list. It was because of the understanding-I never had any personal understanding, but I know I am speaking by the book- that we are going to have a new list that the Liberals neglected the compilation of the list. It was because of the understanding that the government was going to take this course, that the Liberals, in the compilation of the lists, neglected them altogether, and it is because of the local lists which we had that these gentlemen in Winnipeg wanted to perpetuate those lists and get another advantage from them if they could. You could not have a better illustration of how these men acted than a little extract from a paper published in the town from which my hon. friend from Portage (Mr. Crawford) hails. The revision at the court house that paper says, is a production worthy of its authors. This was the revision of 1904 for the purpose of electing members to the House of Commons. Every canvasser upon the Conservative side in Manitoba was told that that was the list upon which the next Dominion elections were going to be run, and they were very eager to see all their friends

get on. Here is one of the results at the Court of Revision :
As a result of the revision 65 Tories were added and 10S Grits were struck off. No Grits were added nor Tories struck off unless in error.
That is a little bit of evidence of how that list was compiled and because this clipping expresses my sentiments, I may as well give it to the House.
But there are fully a hundred Grits that should go on and a hundred Tories that should come off, but it would have cost the Liberals $500 to get their friends on and their opponents off. Such a law is subversive of the liberties of the people and cannot be too quickly wiped off the statue-book. It is the duty of the House of Commons to pass legislation at the present session for a fair and impartial enrolment of the electors for the federal elections.
My hou. frieud talks about the little red line, I happen to know that after we had got the evidence with reference to these lists, we had had the greatest difficulty in the world to get a candidate on our side. I am not revealing any particular party secret that is of much consequence just now when I say that I do know there are sitting in this House, men who declared they would not run because of the failure of the government to carry out the promise which I fancy was made. They were induced to run on account


William Humphrey Bennett: Of the stuff.
air. GREENWAY. They were induced to run, and the result was perhaps different from what they expected. X could confront my hon. friend, who interrupted me, with a good deal of evidence on the subject, because it is important perhaps to show the motive of the crime about to be committed next month. Let me refer him to a little inadvertence of his. During the time of the registration for 1904, he received a letter from his leader in Manitoba, of which he did not take that great care he should, or it would not have got into public print. A copy of it was published in some of the papers in Manitoba, and I merely cite this to show that these gentlemen knew then, as they know now, that we did not take any part in the compilation of the lists. I shall not read all the letter but my hon. friend, if he wants to read it through and refresh his memory, can find it in the reading room.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Read it all ; it is not very long.


Thomas Greenway: No, it is not very long, but I need not read it all, because there is a part of it which is not pertinent to the question w'hich I am discussing. For instance that part which refers to my old time friend Mr. Richardson :
I presume you were busy with registration this week, but so far as I can learn no effort is being made by the Grits anywhere. That means Mr. GREENWAY.
one of two things. Either they are going to change the law or there will he no election this year. *


An hon. MEMBER.: Is that all ?


Thomas Greenway: No, but that is all of that. Then I have here extracts from the Conservative papers in Winnipeg, both senior and junior, crowing over the Liberals because they had failed to have anything to do with the compilation of the lists and then were laughed at by their friends. The ' Tribune,' which is the junior Conservative paper in Winnipeg, and is perhaps a little more zealous than its old time friend the ' Telegram,' because it is its junior, published a long article headed ' The joke of the hour. And the joke of the hour was that the Liberals did not get upon the lists which were to be used in the Dominion elections. It is no wonder then that my hon. friend was disappointed when he found Manitoba went the way it did. And the hon. the leader of the opposition received messages from the gentleman to whom I refer, assuring him that Manitoba would send a solid contingent in his favour.


Robert Laird Borden: What gentleman ?


Thomas Greenway: The Hon. Mr. Rogers.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not aware of any such messages.


Thomas Greenway: I read the messages in the newspapers hut perhaps they did not reach the hon. gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 did not see them.


Thomas Greenway: My hon. friend has been paying a good deal of attention to Mr. Rogers during the session and perhaps it is well he should not forget him just now. A few days after the election, Mr. Rogers came to Toronto and gave an interview, in which he undertook to account for the defeat of tlie Conservative party in Manitoba, in that interview he said :
Three-fourths of the voters in Manitoba were Conservative.
I suppose be meant three-fourths of those who were on the lists, but to a good many the privilege of voting was denied.
In every polling division in the province from ten to forty voters found, on presenting themselves at the polls, that they were unable to vote. Their names were on the official lists and the red line-
This is the red line about which my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) has been dreaming.
The red line had been run through them and the deputy returning officers refused to give them the ballots.
I characterize that as one of the worst pieces of misrepresentation 1 know of. You have only to think for a moment of this fact-There were 545 polling places opened in Manitoba. If I take my hon. friends lowest

number, ten voters, there were 5,450 votes. If I take the average number at twenty, you have twice that; and I want to say right here that in the changing of the lists, which had to be done by some one, there was not in the whole of Manitoba one hundred errors in making those changes. Of course a red line or a blue line, or some other line had to be used to strike out the votes that I refer to. They did not belong to me in Lisgar but belonged to my hon. friend. When I read that,
1 took the trouble to go carefully over the polling books to And out just what happened in Lisgar, and what was the result ? t found that there had been six Liberals left off the list and that three Conservatives had been misplaced. That was the sum total of the errors in Lisgar. My hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) on one occasion undertook to say that his majority would have been vastly increased had it not been for the red line, but I can tell him that if it had not been for the staffing of the lists and for the preventing of Liberals getting on the lists, the hon. gentleman would have had no majority at all.
Now, Sir, I know of no better illustration of the unfairness of the Conservative papers than their action in connection with this matter. Early in the session we had scare head lines in all the papers, from the Montreal ' Gazette' down to the Toronto ' World':
* Frauds in Manitoba ; startling developments in Manitoba in the preparation of the lists.' In my more than a quarter of a century's experience in Manitoba, I do not remember of there ever having been but one special fraud attempted, and that was by a gentleman who was sent up from the east, and whose name was Freeborn, and who came up for the purpose of teaching our people how they might spoil ballots. But upon this last and worst outrage these papers are absolutely silent. Now, Sir, it is not necessary 'for me to go over the entire list of the evidence I have. I have a number of extracts here from newspapers to show that the Liberals neglected the lists entirely. I can give you another very good proof of the fact that the lists were not complete. For instance, in the local election of 1903 there were polled in the province of Manitoba 54,500 votes ; one constituency, Gimli, which was by acclamation, being estimated. In the election of 1904 for the House of Commons, when, by the steady increase which took place in our voting power in a country which is being largely settled like Manitoba, we should at least have had 3,000 votes more, in this Dominion election there was only polled 53,100 votes. Instead of there being 3,000 votes more than in 1903, which would have been the regular increase, there were 1,400 less votes, showing that the lists were not complete, and further giving evidence of the fact that the contention of the premier, when he wrote my hon. friend, was quite correct,
and that we were paying no attention to the lists. That was the position in which we found ourselves. I said a moment ago that ; bad gone carefully over the parts of the country with which I am acquainted and made a very careful estimate of what is the percentage of that incomplete list, and I say now that upon the 1st day of July, when this list is completed by the present arrangement-it has been decreed by that famous Order in Council that it shall be completed within one month, allowing only one day for court revision by the judges in each constituency, making it impossible for people to be registered-when that is all over, ther? will be fully 10 per cent of the electorate of Manitoba that will be disfranchised. I wonder if my hon. friend from Macdonald will undertake to defend that state of things. I do not believe that in the history of Canada there ever was undertaken to be perpetrated upon the people such a gross outrage as' the one we are discussing just now. I bring this matter before the House to-day for the purpose of pressing upon the government the necessity of providing that a proper list shall be compiled for the province of Manitoba. Surely, in face of the evidence I have presented, there can be no hesitation as to the necessity for it. There is no legal provision for the use of the present lists. We all know, and we have the evidence of our opponents, who say that it is not complete. Is there not a spirit of fair-play enough in my opponents, whom I am addressing, to say that there ought to be a means by which every man who is entitled to vote should be placed upon the list ? Is not that good, sound doctrine ?
I think it is. I do not believe that any party would be guilty of trying to fasten-even if they threaten, as they did last year, to sit here till the snow flies-I do not think any party would be guilty of trying to fasten such an iniquity on the people of Manitoba. In view of the evidence I have given, I hope my friends will see their way clear to remedy this injustice. I want to say to our friends here that if we would take the list as we have it to-day in Manitoba, and if we would go to the courts of revision and that it would be possible or convenient to go to in all the towns in the different constituencies, it would cost the Liberal party of Manitoba SI,000 for each local constituency, or $40,000 in all, to make that list perfect. Ought that work be imposed upon any party ? Is it a good, sound principle to force any party to do work of that kind in order to get voters upon the lists ? The system which we have in force now is equal to running two elections instead of one. We have to go to an elector and say : We want you to go to such a place and register your vote ; and he may reply : I will not go. Then you have to persuade him, you have to take him there and see that he is registered, and possibly take him back again ; and then when lie comes to vote you have to repeat the whole

tiling all over. My hon. friends who have teen running elections as long as I have well know something about that. Now, Sir, I do not think that is a fair policy to adopt. X do not think it is fair to our friends in Manitoba. I have spoken longer than I intended and longer than I would have spoken had not my hon. friends opposite interrupted me, but X think I have omitted nothing that is essential to show that the lists are incomplete and that my contention is sound, that they must remain incomplete, because there is no possible way under the system which has been adopted in the province of getting the names on the voters' lists.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: 1 :fm sorry I had not the pleasure of hearing the whole of the speech of my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Greenway), as I was in .attendance at a committee of the House when I heard that the hon. gentleman was appealing to the jury of parliament in order to get what he calls fair-play, but not what I believe he considered to be the kind of fair-play that he dealt out to his opponents when he was premier of Manitoba. There may be a difference of opinion as to what fair-play is. It is well to remember, however, that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Greenway) has failed to appeal successfully to his own jury in the province of Manitoba ; he was turned down toy the people of his province for all time to come, and now he appears as a private member of the House of Commons and endeavours to enlist the sympathies of the members of this House against what he is pleased to term an iniquitous electoral list. Our friends on the opposite side of the House were not satisfied with \the old Dominion Franchise Act. They said it was too cumbersome and too expensive, and that it put the people to a very great deal of expense and inconvenience, but if we are going to change the present system of preparing the voters' lists, and if we are going to have an inexpensive system, as the hon. member for Lisgar says he desires, then that system should apply to all the other provinces of the Dominion, and should not be specially applied to any one particular province.
Now, however, things have changed; there has been a revolution of feeling, in the more intelligent parts of Canada at any rate, and Manitoba sent the ball rolling in the right direction. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Greenway) would never have held the reins of government so long ias he did in Manitoba on broad questions of public policy. He secured his support at least on two successive elections, by appeals to prejudice and passions of the people toy means of the school question. This is what retained the hon. gentleman in power so very long and not the fact of his general policy being suitable to the people of the province. Now, because they have met with, defeat on a couple of occasions in Manitoba the hon. gentleman desires that an exception should be made in the prov-


Thomas Greenway: ince in connection with the Dominion Franchise Act, and that you should take the provincial lists wherever there is a Liberal government in power and that you should have a new list prepared by the Dominion officials where there is a Conservative government in power. He has in mind no doubt the list that was prepared for the constituency of Lisgar two or three years ago at the time a by-election was held there. The Dominion Act calls for new lists to be prepared by the Dominion officials in the event of the .provincial lists being more than 12 months old. At the time of the by-election Mr. Richardson was seeking the franchise of the electors, and by the way my hon friend referred rather skeptically to his old time friend Mr. ltichardson. Time was when they used to hunt in couples ; time was when Mr. Richardson and the right hon. gentleman himself used to go from hustings to hustings and he appreciated the support that lie received from Mr. Richardson at that time. They are not standing on the same platform to-day.


Thomas Greenway: He has gone Tory.


William James Roche: The fact is that the hon. gentleman and his friends have changed their principles and Mr. Richardson is still standing exactly for the principles that he advocated when he was a candidate for the hon. gentleman and his party. It is the party which has strayed away from their moorings aiid they should not be so very unkind to air. Richardson because he chose to turn his guns on the hon. gentleman now and because standing to his principles, Mr. Richardson in discharging his duties as a public citizen endeavours to lead the hon. gentleman back to his first starting place. There was a by-election in that constituency a few years ago. The provincial lists were more tnan 12 months old and a new list had to be prepared. The Dominion Act states that in the compilation of these lists the provincial law should be followed in so far as it possiblv can be followed. What was the Manitoba Act ? That the judges should prepare the list, should appoint the officials, should have the courts of revision. Was that Act followed out ? Not at all. Mr. Sifton, the Minister of the Interior of that day, ignored the provincial Act in making a new list for Lisgar. This was -one of the cases where that gentleman was superior to the law of the country or thought he was superior, and he therefore appointed not the judges of the province, but one of his own political organizers, a henchman, a private citizen who had been one of his own organizers. He constituted him the board instead of the judges of Manitoba. Was that adhering to the law ? What did he do ? Did he do everything in an inexpensive manner, did he do everything to suit the electors' convenience ? Not at all. He placed the registration booths in the most inconvenient places he could for the Con-

servative party and lie adopted the same plan for tlie courts of revision. He made It as inconvenient as possible for the Conservatives to get on the lists or to get out the votes. The hon. gentleman is sighing for a return to this order of things. He gets up in the parliament here and tries to enlist the sympathy of the members with a tear in his voice telling what wonderful consideration he has for the good old days. He wants to go back to the good old days in Lisgar. when Mr. Sifton manufactured the list through a private citizen, ignoring the judges of the land. He is not so anxious to use the provincial lists as when the Liberals were in power. He says : I desire to see a fair list-and you would think he was in earnest when he says that. His recollection must be very short if he cannot remember when he was Prime Minister of the province, when he used to manufacture the lists. And what kind of lists did we have then. Did he have the judges prepare the lists ? Oh, no. He would not trust the judges in the province. Who prepared the list ? Partisan officers appointed by his own government some of whom had to fly the country for the country's good. I do not have to go at all outside my own constituency to find an illustration of the character of the partisan officials that that gentleman appointed. The law stated that they should take the last provincial lists, the last Dominion lists, and the last municipal lists as a basis in making up the new lists, compiling them therefrom and making any additions necessary, but in making the additions when we were supposed to supply affidavits in the absence of the person appealing for registration, I have myself sent in a list of electors accompanied by my affidavit, that they were legitimate electors, qualified to vote. I handed these affidavits in to an officer appointed by the Liberal government of the day and when the lists were printed a number of these names were left off notwithstanding they were accompanied by an affidavit. This is only one illustration of many, and when the revision was being held and the present Judge Richards was the revising officer, I asked the enumerator who prepared the list how it came that these names were left off. I said : Did you not see that this man's name, (taking one instance), was on the provincial, Dominion and municipal lists and that he had been resident of the province for years ? Why did you leave him off ? Yes, he said, but the laws says I am to get any other information possible that is available. I asked him why he had ignored the passing over of this man's name in the previous lists and had taken outside information. X asked his authority and he refused to give it. I pointed to the Liberal candidate who was there at the time and I said: There ts you authority, you took the word of the Liberal candidate for it that this man's name should not be
on the list, and refused my affidavit. Is that partisanship ? And when the judge, then the revising officer, heard it, he immediately put down the name on the list and called down the enumerator for his partisan action. That is only one illustration of the character of those fair lists that prevailed during the regime of the hon. gentleman who is making such a hubbub about the lists in Manitoba. Take again in the city of Winnipeg. The Ogilvie Milling Company had 30 employees in a certain mill there. These men had been on previous lists, but at this particular time it was found that 27 of the names were left off and three were put on. Of course it was only a coincidence that the three who were put on were Liberals and that the 27 who were left off were Conservatives. When the enumerator was asked how it came that these 27 Conservative electors were left off what was his explanation ? Well, he said, I have an old list to go by, and I found that these three names are on the list and I put them in the new list. He was asked what list he had and he actually confessed it was an old scrutineer's book that had been used in the previous election and he put on the three names that had been marked as voting Liberal and left off the 27 although they all worked in the same mill. And this is the fair list the hon. gentleman wants : to go back to the old days when they did not depend on intimidation and bribery alone but disfranchised the electors by leaving them entirely off the lists. The hon. gentleman has stated that a great many electors in Manitoba at the present time have to go 40, 50, or 60 miles or even more in order to reach the registration courts. And he tells us :	When I was in power
they had so many registration districts, they had so many courts of revision ; two years ago when the judges were running affairs, we had half a dozen or a dozen in each constituency, while now there is only one. In this way, the hon. gentleman compared the revision that is to take place this year with the revision that took place two years ago and when he was in power in Manitoba. But, Mr. Speaker, there is no comparison whatever. Why? Because the list of two years ago was a new list entirely on the basis of personal registration. Those who are already on the list do not need to go up and register again. We have a permanent population, you say. in Manitoba. Of course, there are always new people coming in, but those who, in the meantime, have become qualified, have the privilege of coming forward and registering at the registration booth or at the Court of Revision held some time after the registration, while the names already on the list are left on unless the parties have become disqualified in the meantime and application is made to strike them off. So, the hon. gentleman (Mr. COMMONS
Greenway states only a part of the truth. Why should the country be put to the expense of malting up an entire new list? That is where the hou. gentleman missed having a grievance. Had the provincial government provided for as many registration booths as when the list was being prepared, with all the extra officers and general expense, the hon. gentleman would have been the first to quote this as evidence of the extravagance of the provincial administration. But the provincial government know- that this is an off-year, that there will be no provincial election. Nor will there be a Dominion election, unless the hon. gentleman (Mr. Greenway) is unseated for bribery and corruption, or unless the place of his dear old friend, whom he rather reflected upon, the Lieutenant Governor of the province, which place is to become vacant this fall, attracts him,_ in which event we may have a by-election in Lisgar. But why should the provincial government have the same number of registration districts and courts of revision that they had two years ago when a new list had to be prepared? And the hon. gentleman's comparison of the number of miles electors had to go now to register their names with the number they had to travel for the same purpose two years ago is entirely unfair. The hon. gentleman cannot complain of the Mountain election having been won by unfair lists, because that is one of the constituencies in which the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite had actively looked after the lists, one of the Liberai organizers going there and spending most of iris time last year during the revision. They expected two vacancies in that province. The first was Dauphin, where the Conservative member of the provincial legislature was going to be the Conservative candidate for the Dominion. The friends of hon. gentlemen opposite looked well after that list. Then, they knew that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) was discredited as provincial leader, his friends wishing to get him out of the way, were going to put him up as a candidate for the Dominion parliament, which would create a vacancy, in the constituency he then represented in the local House, the constituency of Mountain. And so they looked well after that list. But, in spite of their having a list as favourable to themselves as they could make it, the hon. gentleman's old constituency of Mountain, owing to the great upheaval of public opinion there, defeated his candidate, and, for the first time in twenty-five years elected a Conservative. Two years ago, the judges of the province revised the lists and made the nomination of the registration clerks. And, if fault is found it is found with the appointment of registration clerks by the provincial government to-day. I can only say the gov-Mr. W. J. ROCHE
ernment have re-appointed very many of the men who were appointed two years ago. And, when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Greenway) tries to make his explanation of the ' thin red line,' X think he could hardly have satisfied himself, much less the members of this House. He attempted to show that it was because certain polling districts belonged to two ridings, and that it was necessary to have the names appear according to their proper division. I have here a fac simile of the list for division No. 9 of Selkirk

except that there are black lines instead of red-which I show to hon. gentlemen opposite to make them ashamed of the officials their friends appointed. For, this subdivision was entirely within one constituency, we find no fewer than forty-two names struck off. Many of these men were disfranchised and many more would have been disfranchised had not they taken possession of the poll and insisted upon the deputy returning officer accepting their ballots. But, even when he did accept them, he put them in a separate envelope and did not count them in the general vote. So, when the hon. gentleman attempts to account for this disfranchisement of qualified voters by saying that it was necessary in the ease of subdivisions which are in two constituencies, his explanation does not explain. In my own constituency, the returning officer is an honest, straightforward man, a fellow citizen of my own. He is above doing anything of a dishonest character. But he received instructions from some person. The law states that a returning officer shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, a list which he shall supply to the deputy returning officers and which he shall certify as correct. Did the returning officer for the constituency of Marquette do that? No. My agent waited upon him and saw the lists brought into his office and unpacked. He saw the red line scored through the names and asked the returning officer what explanation he could give of it. The returning officer admitted candidly that he did not do it. My agent asked where the lists were prepared in this way, and the returning officer answered that he presumed that, they were erased in Winnipeg. My agent called his attention to eleven names in a certain district where the voters were wrongly described. For instance, a man living in township 15 range 17 was given as township 16 range 17. And, because of that, red lines were scored through the names. Of eleven names thus wrongly described, ten were those of Conservatives, and all had been scored out. One was a Liberal, and there was no red line through that name, although the description was wrong as in the other cases. My agent asked the returning officer :	How can you
certify these lists to be correct as required by law? And the returning officer answered : I will take good care not to do

anything of the kind ; 1 will write ' certified,' not ' certified correct.' And, ii you will look at the Marquette list, which I moved to have laid on the table, you will [DOT] find that that is the way it is certified. It was a quibble, I grant you; but the returning officer would not take the responsibility of certifying the lists to be correct, because he knew that they were not correct. These lists were scored before they came into his possession and scored in the office of the Liberal organizer in Winnipeg. Now, who were some of these officials ? Take one in the constituency of Selkirk. Everybody will admit that the men appointed to act as deputy returning officers and poll clerks should be men who have the confidence of the people of their districts. But in one district they had a man by the name of Duggan. He had been a bartender in the town of Selkirk. In his evidence he stated that he was a clerk in a hotel, and had previously been tending bar in Selkirk. And this was a gentleman who was appointed returning officer in that constituency, as was shown afterwards in the court. There were at poll 9, Beausejour, twenty-three names struck off; at poll 16 there were twenty-two names ; at poll 11, one name; at poll 26, fifteen names; at poll 27, seven names ; at poll 35, six names ; at poll 37, nineteen names. Some of these may have been put on poll 28, for the list for that subdivision was missing. Many of the lists which should have been sent back to the court were found missing from the ballot boxes and have never been found up to the present day. So far as we can learn, every one of these people was struck off and disfranchised, because they were not all allowed to vote at any poll, though they were entitled to do so.
Now it was invariable, so far as we can learn, there may have been a few exceptions by mistake, but the lists without exception were of Conservative electors. It seems to me that the bon. gentleman was rather venturesome to bring a question like this up in the House of Commons, with such a black record for his party. Not being satisfied with' the thin red line in that constituency, they have used it in other constituencies as well. For instance in the constituency of Macdonald it was not known until the morning of the election by the Conservative portion of the community that these lists had been so doctored, and when they found it out they went to the law officer of the Crown, to the Attorney General and some arrests were made on that occasion. Investigations have been held and some of the charges have been thrown out on technicalities, for instance in one case where the charge was that they wei'e erased from the list the word ' wilful ' was left out, and on this the judge threw the case out because he held it was an error or omission. But there were other cases that never came to trial because the grand jury did not allow, as I think they
should have allowed, in my opinion-I am not going to accuse them of being animated by political motives-but at any rate the grand jury did not see lit to allow other cases to come to trial. Nevertheless these gentlemen, through another process of law, are going to be made to face the music, and we will see if they can commit these crimes with impunity. I might read a great deal of evidence distinctly declaring that the witnesses had taken their lists into Mr. Leach. And who is Mr. Leach '! Mr. Leach was the Dominion Liberal organizer for the province of Manitoba. He has since secured his reward by being appointed to a position in the Department of the Interior, the usual refuge for all these gentry who were doing handy work for the Liberal party. Mr. Leach is to-day in the employ of the Dominion government as a reward for his political services. He opened an office in the city of Winnipeg, he had the returning officers send or bring their lists into him, and he even prepared the proclamations. These proclamations were prepared some time prior to the election by means of a personal canvas, and the canvas books were prepared throughout the province by the Liberal organizers long before the elections were held. In my constituency there was a gentleman by the name of McNab who had never been out of the constituency prior to holding the election, for 10 months doing just such work preparatory to scoring off those names. These lists were prepared under the direction and guidance of Mr. Leach. Can any hon. gentleman on the opposite side of the House defend that proceeding ? Who can say that it is right and proper for the Liberal organizer to take this work out of the returning officers hands, the gentleman who is by law appointed to prepare these lists ? They are taken entirely out of his hands by the Liberal organizer, and do you suppose that a gentleman of that kind is likely to do his work in a manner to commend itself to the fairness of both political parties ? Is it surprising that under these circumstances we find the thin red line doing its work very efficiently in many cases ? Let me read the evidence of one Ayotte, a deputy returning officer, when he was being cross-examined. He states that he took his list into the office of Mr. Leach, the Liberal organizer, who furnished him with his proclamation and asked him if he could fix the lists according to the proclamation, and he said he could. He is asked :
Did you leave the lists with him ?-A. Yes, sir.
Shortly afterwards he went back to Mr. Leach and obtained the lists altered in a great measure by having lines struck through names on the lists. He apparently did not take the trouble t^p ascertain whether the alterations made were proper or not, nor did he even examine them for the pur-

6^60
pose of ascertaining what were the nature of the alterations Mr. Leach had made, for he goes on in his evidence to state :
Mr. Knott : Q. You did not know anything about thorn, that is, the lists ?-A. No.
Q. They may have been different lists altogether for all you know ?-A. Yes.
Q. They may have been lists for Macdonald or Winnipeg ?-A. Yes, they may have been.
Q. You took his word (that is Mr. Leach's) that these were the lists you wanted, with the different polling subdivisions, and that satisfied you then ?-A. Yes.
Having received the lists in this altered condition, Ayotte certified to them as being correct, although he admitted he did not know whether they were correct or not. He then went and placed them in their respective ballot boxes, which ballot boxes he had kept in the Liberal candidate's committee rooms in St. Boniface. The Liberal committee rooms in St. Boniface were the headquarters for this gentleman, where he took his lists and left them in their boxes. All the official papers transmitted to him in connection with the election from Provencher were also kept by him in Mr. Cyr's committee room in St. Boniface, but how long they were there the witness could not tell. There was no safe there where they could be locked up, and it is not known bow many people had access to them during the time they were there. He did not know just how long they remained in that committee room. Now this gentleman confesses that he took the lists to the Liberal organizer ; and be took them to be fixed in conformity with the proclamation, and that Mr. Leach had them fixed for him. He went and received the lists, without knowing whether they were the same lists, then he left them open in his box in the Liberal committee room where they remained until the election. Now if that is the kind of fairness the hon. gentleman wishes to re-establish in the province of Manitoba I do not think the people of that province of either political party will agree with him. I do not think it is necessary for me to read all this evidence. Probably some time we will have an occasion to go into this matter more fully. The hon. gentleman from Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) has seen fit to leave the House, therefore I do not think I need trouble you with any further quotations. I desire to say that there is no comparison whatever between the lists as prepared to-day under the Conservative government, in respect to fairness, and the lists that were previously made by the Liberal government. There is no responsible citizen in Manitoba, no matter what his polities, who would desire to go back to the old sy stem, if you read the independent press of that province you will find them stating alniost without exception that although the original lists may have taken a little more trouble to prepare, they were sure to be clean lists, and people could be sure that they did not contain the names of dead men, Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
of men who had been absent for years, as | was the case with the lists prepared by the j agents of the Greenway government. People prefer to vote on clean lists, even though they are a little more expensive on account of various registrations that have to take place. Therefore there is no possible comparison between the present lists and what they were a few years ago. The Greenway law required the lists to be made just prior to a provincial election, once every four years. The present law provides for an annual revision and immediately prior to a general election a more complete revision will take place and the people will have all the registration districts they require. But this year's revision is merely supplementary to the original lists. I think when the speech of the hon. member for Lisgar is published in the province of Manitoba it will not meet with much approbation.


Mr. J. CRAAVFORD (Portage ia Prairie).: Mr. Speaker, I was rather pleased with the remarks of the hon. member, for Marquette (Mr. Roche) who has just taken his seat because of the fact that what he said went a long way to prove the point which my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) attempted to make. I noticed that he failed to defend the position that he now occupies in so far as our Franchise Act is concerned and in so far as the conduct of the government of the province of Manitoba is concerned. There is no question but that the condition of affairs as it exists at the present time by reason of the adoption of the provincial lists of the province of Manitoba is far from what it ought to be. The remarks of my bon. friend from Lisgar, I think, in every particular, embodied a true statement of tile facts. I will try simply to enlarge upon the statement lie made. I may just say before proceeding with the few remarks I intend to make that we expect that our friends on this side of the House will seriously study the situation, and that our friends on the other side of the House will do the same. I believe I am not going beyond the true state of things when I [DOT] say that this side of the House is not wholly 'responsible for the condition of things prevailing in Manitoba at the present time. We, in the province of Manitoba, knew more than a year ago, in fact two years ago that means were not being provided by our provincial authorities in Manitoba whereby we were likely to get a fair list and we knew at that time that by the adoption of the provincial list, as provided for in our Franchise Act, we were not going to get what we considered a clean and proper list for use in our election. We knew the dangers which were ahead of us at that time, and we knew some of the consequences that were likely to take place, and this is one of the reasons why we looked to Ottawa a year ago for some change in this respect. We have a condition of things existing in Manitoba to-day which I may say is a dis-

grace to the whole country. That condition has been brought about by the adoption of the provincial franchise for Dominion purposes. Ever since the 3rd November last we have had a condition of things exis'ting in the province of Manitoba which should not exist and which is not calculated to do our country any good. We have heard of the use of the red line in connection with our voters' lists, to disfranchise many of our citizens who by the use of this red line were deprived of their votes when the election came on. As far as the use of the red line is concerned. I am not going to say anything about it. The red line was used in some cases and other lines were used in other cases, because it was necessary to use a line of some kind or another. I am not going to defend anything that may have been improperly done to disfranchise any elector. These points are being discussed in the courts of Manitoba to-day. The courts have been appealed to to settle whether right or wrong has been done in that respect and I will just leave it in that position. I may just say that in so far as my own constituency is concerned, I have heard of no complaint in so far as the improper use of the red line is concerned. I have only heard of one elector being improperly disfranchised in that constituency in connection with the lists which were used on the 3rd November last. I took the trouble to look over the lists and just this one complaint was made at the time to me in connection with the disfranchisement of this elector. I know the gentleman in question very well. He is just as much entitled to vote as any person in this House or any person in Canada, but he, for some reason or other, was struck off at the court of revision by the revising officer. I just mention this to show the House that it is possible for errors to creep in here and there. This is one error which crept in in my own constituency in connection with this particular voter. This is the only one out of 8,000 voters in my constituency that I have heard of as being deprived of his vote through the use of any line and that line was the line the revising officer used at the time of the holding of the court of revision. My hon. friend from Lisgar has made his statement and it is not necessary for me to repeat a great deal of what he said. But, I would just like to say that I feel that the government of the province of Manitoba to-day are trying to create the impression that certain persons representing the Liberal party had a deep laid scheme whereby the elections were to be won by dishonest and illegal practices. They have tried to prove their case. They have had a great many prosecutions started against certain individuals who were connected with the elections held last November. Ten writs .were issued against different parties in Manitoba particularly around Winnipeg. These parties were arrested for illegal practices in connection with elections. These 215
ten cases have gone through different stages of the courts. In the first instance these parties were tried before the police magistrate who is a partisan of the provincial government, a very strong Conservative and it was naturally up to him to see to it that these parties who came before him should be-sent up for trial. They were, of course Naturally we expected that. These ten cases were all sent up to the higher court and each and every one of these cases was dismissed. Not one of them came to trial. Every one of them was turned down. Now, you would think that after the government of Manitoba had had an opportunity of testing this question on ten different points in ten separate cases that would end their work, but they have a different idea about these things. They are continuing these same prosecutions, not on quite the same charges but on similar charges. Thev have gone so far in the province of Manitoba as to vote money for the purpose of prosecuting these cases. At the last session of the local House they voted a certain sum of money to be used to prosecute those, who, in their minds, had done something illegal in connection with the preparation of the lists used at the elections on the 3rd of November last. I consider that the prosecutions which they are conducting at the present time are not based on any real honest motive at all, but that they partake more of the character of persecution than anything else. The men who have gone through their trials in different courts have been re-arrested. This whole condition is not entirely the fault of the people of Manitoba, but it is created through the act of this House.
I claim that this is merely an excuse for continuing those conditions, and that to continue those conditions is something the members of this House should not ask the people of Manitoba to submit to any longer.
I do not want to throw the onus for this condition of things on one party more than the other. This side is just as much to blame as our hon. friends opposite. Had our friends opposite last year been willing that the present conditions should continue, no doubt it would have been put an end to. They are therefore just as much responsible as we are, and I am not attempting to free this side of the House from any responsibility in that connection. Let me just read a few quotations from the ' Telegram ' of the 10th November, 1905, and the * Telegram ' is a Conservative paper published in Winnipeg :
Startling was the revelation made at the police court in Winnipeg yesterday as to the way in which Conservative names were struck from the voters' lists in the province before the last Dominion elections. . . . More shameless trickery was never resorted to.
This newspaper proceeds to sav that the bogus ballot boxes of the province of Ontario were hardly a more damnable device than the lists in Manitoba, and charges that

676?

tile whole thing has been brought home directly to official Liberal organization. Well, I can only speak for the division I reiiresent, and in that division I have not 'heard of anything of the kind existing in anv shape or form. It may exist in other places ; and if it does, this House, which is responsible for that condition, should make a change. That paper continuing, -says :
Tt is now more than ever evident that this whole matter must be silted to the bottom. When, on election day, appeals, and protests came in to the Attorney General from all parts of the province against the fraud being practised on bona fide electors .	. . all honest
Liberals will join the Conservatives in insisting that the government will do its duty and bring the guilty to punishment.
Here it refers to Mr. Rogers :
As Mr. Rogers said at Wawanesa a few days ago, after referring to the trick ballot boxes of Ontario, there has been in this province a condition of affairs which, to my mind, is equally as serious, and even more bold and daring than the boxes. I refer to the methods adopted in certain constituencies by which, through the use of a red line, hundreds and hundreds of the oldest settlers were deprived of their rights and privileges when they went to ask for their ballots.
All I can say is that in my constituency there are some 8,000 votes, and I have yet to hear that any of those people were deprived of their right to vote through the use of the red line. The paper says further :
In view of yesterday's revelations the public of Manitoba will more heartily than ever stand back of the government in its efforts to serve the cause of Justice in respect to the fundamental right of citizens to exercise their franchise.
Again on February 15, 1905, the same paper referred to the matter in glaring headlines :	' Provincial versus Dominion
franchise.'
In attempting to extenuate the circumstances attending the erasure of names from voters' lists prior to the late Dominion elections, the * Free Press ' said editorially on Saturday.
To show you that it is up to this government to rectify the situation, I shall read the opinion of the 'Free Press' at that time :
In conclusion It might be said that the Ottawa government is responsible in a large measure tor this whole trouble. If it had made proper-lists for the Manitoba constituencies, it would not have required rearranging. By compelling the use of the local lists made for the constituencies whose boundaries do not correspond with those of the Dominion seats, they imposed upon their election officials a duty which they did *not desire but could not shirk-the cutting and fitting of the local lists bo the larger area. In [DOT]discharging this duty they gave the Conservatives, smarting under their well merited defeat and eager for an excuse, an opportunity to raise a colourable cry of dereliction of duty on their -part. We need and must have a Dominion fran-Mr. CRAWFORD.
chise for Dominion constituencies, and the sooner the Ottawa government faces this fact and acts accordingly, the better it will be for all parties concerned.
Tbe 'Telegram,' on the same day, says this :
Is it possible that the conscience of the organ is at last awakened, and that, scandalized at the revelations in the courts of malfeasance by Dominion officers in the performance of their duties in connection with the application of the provincial lists for Dominion purposes, it rebels against its masters at Ottawa and prefers a return to the methods condemned by its party rather than risk the repetition of the organized malpractices of its friends during the last election.
On the 25th February, tbe ' Telegram ' again coroes out on tbe same lines and refers to tbe situation as tbe revenge of tbe Liberal party :
Those who recollect the chagrin of the Liberal party in this province when they discovered the worthlessness of Mr. Sifton's promise that the Manitoba lists would be disregarded by parliament, and his advice that they need not worry about the revision, will not be altogether surprised that extreme measures were taken to retrieve the reputation of the Minister of the Interior for political sagacity.
in connection with the revision of tbe lists, I can only speak for my own division. Tbe hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) referred to Mr. Leach and others in Winnipeg who prepared the voters' lists. But neither Mr. Leach nor any other person, except the returning officers, had anything to do with the preparation of the lists in Portage Laprairie. The returning officer had complete control and the red line used was made by them. We were greatly disappointed when we did not get what we expected a year ago and what we thought would be required to rectify the conditions 'that have been brought about through the adoption of the provincial law in that province for Dominion purposes. I for one can say that I was greatly disappointed and in fact it was very difficult for me to decide to be a candidate. Had it not been for the splendid record of the Liberal party since coming into power, and the greyt progress of the country during the past eight years, not a Liberal would have been returned in the west on the 3rd September last.
The chief reason why the Liberals were so successful in the west last election is because the people of the west were well satisfied with what the Liberal party had done for the country during the past eight years, and were more than pleased at the prospect of what the Liberal government would do for them in the future. Had it not been that hundreds of good Conservatives voted for the Liberal candidate, the prediction of the Hon. Mr. Rogers would have been verified. Let me give a few reasons why tbe red line or some other line was necessary. I have here the voters'

lists for the district of Portage la Prairie, provided by the King's Printer, and to show the impossibility of satisfactorily working -out the law as it now exists I may mention that this constituency consists of parts of seven local constituencies, but not one whole local constituency. If you look at the old redistribution and the present distribution of seats you will find that the old redistribution followed the municipal boundaries almost completely. In my constituency I have a great many municipalities but there are only the boundaries of four municipalities that are not followed, or that are cut across in any particular way, whereas in the case of the local distribution of constituencies it is one of the worst kinds of gerrymanders it is possible to frame ; hardly in any case have they attempted to follow the municipal boundaries. Some of the provincial constituencies in my own district include parts of as many as five different municipalities and possibly not one whole municipality. In the Federal division of Portage la Prairie comprising parts of several local constituencies, the municipal boundaries are followed very closely and we only cut four municipalities, and that is where they run off in the direction of the north pole. The Winnipeg ' Telegram' and our Conservative friends tried to make the people believe that there was no use for the red line or any other line, and that we could have got along without anything of that kind. Well, let us see about that. I have a map here of the electoral district of Portage la Prairie which shows the division of the polls, and you will see that at the outlying portions of the division there are eleven different polling divisions in Portage la Prairie which overlap and are partly in the division of Portage la Prairie, partly in Macdonald, partly in Dauphin and partly in Brandon. There are in these eleven overlapping divisions 1,494 names of voters. I find that only 556 of these voters belong to the district of Portage la Prairie and that 815 of them belong to some other electoral division over the line. Now all these names are properly designated on the list and properly located, and in order to get the list for the district of Portage la Prairie it was necessary for the returning officer in that division to strike off 815 fiames. Further, in these eleven polls there were 123 names that had no location at all and the returning officer could not tell whether they belonged to liis division or whether they belonged to some other electoral division. The use of the red line or some other line became necessary to get the names that belonged to Portage la Prairie and to strike off the names that did not belong to that division, but here were 123 names in these eleven polling districts that had no location at all, and the returning officer had no evidence before him to show to what electoral division they did belong. He might be personally acquainted with some of these names although it was not possible he could be acquainted with all of 215*
them and in adjusting the list he was very liable to place one of these 123 names either inside or outside their proper electoral division. I do not exactly know how the returning officer arranged it. In No. 1 poll Lakeside, which is one of the municipalities in my division, there was one qualified voter in Portage la Prairie and 90 in Macdonald polling division, and the returning officer for Portage la Prairie had to strike those 90 names off to get a list for that one man. In poll No. 2, Lakeside, there were 123 not qualified, 112 qualified and 33 without any location at all. At poll No. 2, Portage la Prairie, there were 61 qualified voters, 93 not qualified, that is, who were on the list but belonged to some other division, and 19 that had no location at all. In poll No. 4, Cypress, which my hon. friend from Macdonald knows, there were 14 names that belonged to the constituency of Macdonald, only 46 that belonged to the constituency of Portage la Prairie and 2 without any location. In South Brandon there were 34 names on the list belonging to Brandon constituency, 56 belonging to Portage la Prairie, and 6 without any location at all.
In division No. 13 in South Brandon, there are 63 belonging to the constituency of Brandon and three belonging to the constituency of Portage la Prairie. There are only three voters who belong to my division of Portage la Prairie and the others belong to the adjoining division. Now those 63 names have to be struck off to get a_ list for the Portage district. In No. 10 Norfolk, there are 111 not qualified that belong to the Brandon division and only 24 that belong to the Portage division and 49 who have no location at all. In No. 11 Norfolk there are 86 names of unqualified voters belonging to an outside division and only 17 that belong to the district of Portage la Prairie. In Beautiful Plains, that is my own home, in poll No. 8 there are 47 names on the list that belong to Dauphin, 145 belonging to Portage la Prairie and 12 without any location at all. You cannot tell where they belong unless you personally know where they reside. In poll 17 Gladstone, 21 belong to Dauphin, and 21 to Portage. In 18 Gladstone, 15 belong to Dauphin and 38 to Portage la Prairie. That makes 815 names of unqualified voters on the last list. The returning officer in Portage la Prairie had to strike off these names by the use of a red line or some other line in order to get a list. Out of 1,494 names. 546 were qualified and there were 123 that you could not tell whether they were qualified or not because they had no location. I am satisfied in my own mind that it is not reasonable, it is not right, that we should be forced to use lists in that condition. It is not right or proper that we should delegate to some irresponsible person, if I may speak in that way, the power or the right to revise a voters' list in this way. I do not think it is right for us to ask a returning officer or

676S
any one else to take tliat responsibility. I think it is up to this House to rectify that condition of affairs and make the required change. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) has not attempted to defend the situation as it now stands. He made no attempt at all to defend his friends in Manitoba and you will notice that throughout the whole discussion in connection with the preparation of the lists in Manitoba the Conservative press of that province and in other parts of Canada have failed to criticise or condemn or say anything about the operation of the present law as applied to Manitoba in the preparation of the voters' lists. There is not any question but that the returning officer has the power to make the changes. But as I said he should not be expected nor should any person else, to take that responsibility and some provision should be made here at a very early date, in fact we expect it to be done at once, so that we shall not be compelled to live under the conditions that exist at the present time. Another reason why the present law should not be continued is found in this circumstance. I have here the Manitoba ' Gazette ' which gives the conditions for the preparation of the voters' lists now about to take place. My hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) has gone pretty fully into that and I can only add to what he has said in connection with the unfair manner in which the lists are being prepared at the present time. A few people possibly who live convenient to the registration booths can get their names on without any loss of time or great expense, but the great hardship is in the fact that people in Manitoba to-day, I might say thousands and thousands, if they are to get their names on the voters' lists and get the privilege of using the franchise when the election comes on, will have to travel hundreds of miles. I live in the heart of the province of Manitoba in one of the most thickly settled districts and people in that local division in order to register their names may possibly have to travel 120 miles at an expense of perhaps $10. Owing to the short time allowed for registration it would be impossible to register the number of voters who would apply for registration if all of those qualified were placed upon the list. I think there are all of 600 voters in that district not on the list at the present time. I was sorry to hear the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. TV. J. Roche) make the statement that there was practically no change in the residents of Manitoba, that settlement was stationary. There is a great change in progress. More people are coming into Manitoba every day and it is increasing in population, 'a great change is taking place in many constituencies. I believe there are as many as a thousand votes in some districts which will not be registered because of the great expense involved and the short time allowed for Mr. CRAWFORD.
registration purposes. I do not believe that in my own local division more than, one-half can register in the time allowed. I have here the form which an elector has to fill out in applying for registration. The registration clerk has to fill out the form and to ask a great many questions and then there is a declaration to follow and 1 claim in many instances, that the ordinary registration clerk who is appointed, no matter how good or clever he may be, will take 15 or 20 minutes to get one elector registered. That means only a very few in an hour. Say he can register one in every five minutes, that is only 12 in an hour. Thirteen hours are now allowed and only about 150 names can be registered as it is personal registration and certain long questions have to be answered and the declaration read over. So it is impossible during the time allowed for those not on the list to get registered under the conditions as they are being carried out in Manitoba to-day.


William D. Staples: How many persons not on the list at the present time would the-hon. member say would apply for registration in any particular constituency in Manitoba? I venture to say that outside of Winnipeg there would not be more than 25-or 30 or possibly 100.


John Crawford: In the polling division in which I live there are over forty Liberals to add, there are over twenty Tories to strike off, and in the whole division over 600 to register and I think over 300 to strike off. That is something I know about right in my own home, and throughout Manitoba there are thousands to add. And in the city of Winnipeg, I believe, there will be 5,000 voters to add. Now, the registration clerk who has been appointed for my own division, the division of Beautiful Plains, is a fine fellow, a good man. He is a good Tory, but I think he will do the fair thing. But he cannot do more than a certain amount of work in a certain time. I venture to say he cannot register the name of one voter in less than fifteen minutes. And it will take him nearly half his time to register the names of those who will apply for that polling division alone. Even in that central district of Manitoba, a district that has been settled for years, one of the most thickSy-settled parts of the province, there are electors who may be obliged to travel 120 miles if they wish to have their names appear on the list. To attend before the registration clerk the voter must make a trip of 60 miles. If he fails to get his name on then, which is. not unlikely, he will have to apply to the court of revision. So he will be obliged to travel 120 miles and lose four days, besides incurring an expense of possibly $10 or $15. I have here an extract from the Carberry ' News.' Hon. gentlemen know where Car-berry is-on the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, 60 miles west of Portage la Prairie. That newspaper says :

We boast about our fine franchise ; we lay great stress on the fact that British citizens in Canada, and in Manitoba especially, enjoy the rights of manhood suffrage ; we pride ourselves on the freedom of our institutions ; yet the Roblip government with one swoop deprives eligible voters of their inalienable right.
On June 1, John Balfour, registration clerk for Norfolk, will attend at Noble Dickie's office for seven and a half hours to receive applications for registration in this riding.
I may explain that, as provided for under the Order in Council, 74 hours is all that was allowed for registration. But since then, as my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) has stated, the time has been increased to 13 hours. As I understand it, this has been done only by a kind of notice from the Provincial Secretary-there has been no Order in Council extending the time to 13 hours. There has been only a notice advising the registration clerks that they might keep their offices open from 7 a.m. to 10.30 p.m.
He will be there for just that one day and for the number of hours specified and during that time applicants from MacGregor, Rosehill, Douglas, Oreeford, Edrans, Wellwood and Brookdale and all intermediate points must be on hand to get their names on the list or go without a vote.
Suppose a voter comes from MacGregor to register. He pays his railway fare, his hotel *expenses and loses at least a full day's work. The actual cash outlay will not be less than say $3. He pays this for a free (?) franchise. If he cannot afford to pay the money or lose the time there is no vote for him. It is simply legalized robbery by the government of either money or votes. If an eligible voter comes he loses his money ; if he stays away because of the expense he loses his vote. There is nothing lair or equitable about it. Our Tory friends may say it's as fair for one party as the other.
I may say that that is tbe only pretense of an excuse that has been made by tbe Conservative newspapers in tbe province [DOT]of Manitoba for this outrage which is 'being perpetrated upon us-that it is as fair for one as for tbe other. My bon. friend from Marquette said there was not likely to be an election this year, so there was no need [DOT]of going to expense in preparing tbe voters' lists. I do not think I ever heard a more rotten statement from any person as such a statement as that I have just referred to. The idea of an bon. member of this House liringing such an argument forward as an excuse for disfranchising Canadians! If there is to be no election, there is no need to go to any expense at all. But if you are going to make a voters' list, let it be an honest one and a complete one. Tbe Winnipeg ' Telegram,' a few days ago, made some attempt to excuse tbe action of tbe provincial government. This is wliat they said in their issue of May 3rd, 1905 :
The present year is an off year so far as [DOT]elections are concerned, and the revision will be a more or less formal affair.
As I say, that is the only excuse I have
seen in the Conservative papers of Manitoba for the existing conditions of things.
That is no excuse. It is unfair to both, manifestly unjust and clearly a crime.
There are probably fifty or more voters in MacGregor and its vicinity who are entitled to registration. Does it seem reasonable that these fifty should spend in the aggregate $100 to register when the registration clerk could visit MacGregor and get their names at a cost of $5 ? The same rule applies to other points in the riding.
The ' Telegram ' states that this registration is only a formal proceeding and that no election will be held on the list thus revised. If that is the case, why spend money for revision at all ? Does the ' Telegram ' thus acknowledge that the Roblin government spend the people's money in farcical schemes ?
I think I have said enough to show the situation in Manitoba. We are not here defending something the Greenway government may have done ten or fifteen years ago ; we are dealing with things of to-day. It is no excuse for the outrage of to-day to say that the Greenway franchise law of ten years ago was not all it should have been. My bon. friend from Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) has practically tried to argue that because the Greenway government did something wrong some ten or fifteen years ago, that was a reason why we should not change the existing condition.
I do not know that it is necessary for me to occupy more time. But I would like to give one or two figures to show the distances that citizens have to travel from in some constituencies in order to register their names. I have here the name of one division where electors have to travel 400 miles to get their names on the list. In another division, if they had to make the return trip, they would have to travel 220 miles. In Swan River they would have to travel 145 miles each way. Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope this House is convinced that the state of things we have at the present time in the province of Manitoba ought not to be continued.


Mr.   BRAIN@: Tbe bou gentleman is doubtless familiar with tbe action of tbe Liberal party in the legislature of the province of Manitoba. Might I ask him if the Libera] party have at any time moved to abolish this law inaugurated by tbe Roblin administration ?


John Crawford: I do not know that I can answer that, I have not been in the provincial house. I have not the records before me, but I have no doubt they have moved against it. But even though they may not have moved against it, that is no justification for maintaining it on the statute book. I do not see tbe point my bon. friend is trying to make. I want to say this in conclusion, that a number of our friends in the province of Manitoba, honourable men, have suffered from proceedings being taken against them owing to conditions

brought into existence by this parliament of Canada ; they have been placed in positions in which they were forced to do certain things, and have been put to certain expense and loss of time, and obliged to defend themselves against charges. I think it would be only right for this parliament to recompense those men in some way or another, for although they have had to defend themselves in court, they have not been guilty of any illegal act, and X think they should be recompensed in some way for the abuse they have suffered and the time they have lost. I leave the situation as it now stands, and trust to the good sense of this House to rectify it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me as a strange thing that this matter should be sprung upon the House this afternoon. It certainly was sprung upon us by hon. members opposite, because evidently they have had plenty of notice that the discussion was coming on, and have been preparing themselves for it. There seems to have been some object to gain in bringing on this discussion, and my feeling is that it is because they do not wish to resume discussion of the question which has been before this House for some weeks. I believe therefore they have an object in bringing on this discussion to-day. I would like to have had some time to prepare myself ; but we have to speak offhand, as the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Itoche) did, although hon. gentlemen opposite have had some days or weeks in which to prepare their briefs. Now, Sir, I am sorry that the hou. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) has seen fit to leave the House. There is an old saying that a man who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day. But I would not expect that of an old parliamentarian, a man of such long experience as the hon. member for Lisgar. If the hon. member for Lisgar had not made a personal reference to myself I do not think I would have detained the House with any remarks. The member for Lisgar said that he appealed to this House as to a jury. Well, Sir, X think I can give evidence to this jury on which they will have no hesitation in giving a decision to the defendant. Sir, there is no man in Canada who thoroughly understands the legislation under the Greenway government and the system of registration in vogue to-day under the Robiin government, hut will say that the present system of registration is much more fair and* just. The former system allowed men to vote who were dead, men who had been for years out of the country. Now the member for Lisgar said that he approved of the principle of the registration, that it was all right. Let me say that under the old administration and the old way of making up the lists, there was one man appointed for each local district to make the registration. He could go around and take affidavits all over the country. Al-Mr. CRAWFORD.
though the registration was supposed to cease at a certain hour of the evening, I know for a fact that in my own town a number of names were simply handed in to this officer who was appointed to register the voters, and he put them on. That was done all over the province of Manitoba. If I had known beforehand that this debate was coming on I could have procured figures to show what it cost the Conservative party throughout the province to get names off the list that had no right to be there, names which had been put on under the policy which the hon. member for Lisgar advocated here to-day. Now, I cannot understand how an old parliamentary hand like the member for Lisgar could get up here and attempt to deceive this House,, as lie did in regard to the registration under the Robiin government.
When the Robiin government came into power Mr. Robiin said : We want a fair list. We do not want to prevent any one from voting who has the right to vote, but we want to prevent dead men from voting. The hon. member who used to represent Dauphin will remember how that system was conducted when the Canadian Northern Railway was being built up through that country. They used to take carloads of men who had not been there for some time out to that country to vote. They could do that under the old system, but under the system oLpersonal registration that state of affairs is absolutely impossible. Well, Mr. Robiin set out to make a voters' list for Manitoba. My hon. friend from Lisgar tried to show this House how unfair it was that there should only be about 13 hours or oue day in one place iu a county to register the vote. When Mr. Robiin first undertook to make this voters' list he appointed about six men in each county. You must not confuse these with Dominion constituencies. We have no counties in Manitoba as you have in Ontario; we just have local districts represented by local men and then we have the Dominion constituencies. The local constituencies are somewhat small. Perhaps the average constituency in my part of Manitoba would be about 30 x 15 miles. In a constituency of this size they appointed six men at different places at which men could register their votes and this registration lasted for one week. To show you again how hard it is for those who are not legal voters to get on the list I may say that we have a long-list of questions that a man has to subscribe to, and more than that he has to swear to the answers to these questions before he is enabled to place his name on the list. That is to prevent an unfair list and to endeavour to get a good list. Now, then we have six places in each constituency at which the registration lasts for six days, so many hours a day, going up to ten o'clock in the evening during which men are allowed to register. I think it is customary in most countries that you have a registration when you want to have an election. Mr. Robiin

thinks that when the list is over one year -old it will not be a fair list, that there will be men on the list whose names should go off because they had left the country, or men might have come into he country in the interval and would be entitled to vote. So, Mr. Roblin went a step further. On the occasion of making the first list every citizen of Manitoba who wanted to vote at the coming election had to register his name so that you can understand it would take' a considerable time, and 1 want to say, because I went through it and know something about it, that there was ample opportunity afforded. I am not speaking for Winnipeg, but I am speaking for the rest of the country when I say that we could have registered three or four times as many men as we registered during these six days. I want hon. gentlemen to understand that what I have described is the system of registration all along the line. That system was new but I want to say and I say it without fear of contradiction that there was very little complaint about it from Grit or Tory and that they were well satisfied with it. But, it was new and some electors said : I have been in the country a long time and I am not going out to register. So, for that reason, at the first registration, it was not possible to get all the qualified names on the list. So the next year Mr. Roblin said : I will give you one day, but I will give you six places. A gentleman was appointed, he went around to these six places in each small county after due notification had been given to the voters of the district that they could go and register their votes. That does not look very much like an attempt to keep qualified voters off the list, and it is a fact that they could have registered a great many more names. Is it not fair to believe that after the previous registrations which had taken place the registration of last year would not require so much time ? But, nevertheless, hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House complain of how far men had to travel in order to register their names. I think I am correct in saying that they did not have to travel any farther than they had under the Greenway registration because under the Greenway registration there was only one place to register, whereas there are six to-day. There may have been a few exceptions to that, but there were very few. I think any hon. member who followed the argument of my hon. friend from Lisgar will agree with me that it bears out the expression I made use of at the beginning of my address to this House when I said that he was talking against time and trying to defer the consideration of something that is more important than the question which he has brought up. Those who have to register in 1905 are only some young men who have become 21 yeras of age or those who have become otherwise qualified since last year-just a few. The other names remain. The voters whose names are on
the list absolutely do not have to register. No one has to register if he is already on the list. Only those who have become qualified since the last registration are required to register. That would not take very long, and I have no doubt that in all the districts outside of Winnipeg-I am not speaking for Winnipeg-they will have ample time to register their votes without any trouble. I would ask this House to compare these two systems of registration.
I have tried in as few words as possible to put before the House the system of registration prevailing in the province of Manitoba and I am confident that this House will agree that the remarks of the hon. member for Lisgar are very uncalled for.
I want to allude to one matter in connection with which my hon. friend from Lisgar referred to myself. It is a personal matter but I want to show this House the fairness of the hon. gentleman. I am surprised that he would bring that matter before the House. It would be bad enough for some young man like myself who has not had the parliamentary experience that the hon. gentleman has had. When I was nominated to contest the constituency of Souris my leader, Mr. Roblin, sent me a letter and I want to explain to this House what the hon. gentleman said about that letter and what the facts are about it. I ask any hon. member of this House if he should find a private letter if he would not consider it his duty to return it to the man to whom it belongs, or would he consider it to be his duty to have it photographed and published all over the country. Further, I want to say and I say it without fear of contradiction that that letter which you have heard read, and I do not think there is anything to be ashamed of in it, was stolen from my political file in my office and I know who stole it. I had it in my office on my political file.


An hon. MEMBER.: Did the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) steal it ?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I have too good an opinion of the hon. member than to blame him, but it was stolen and sent to the ' Free Fress ' of Winnipeg. It was also photographed and sent throughout the country, and every Liberal paper in Manitoba tried to injure me. But notwithstanding all this. I was able to redeem the county by 520 majority.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: How could it injure the hon. gentleman when it came from his friend the leader of the opposition ?


Robert Laird Borden: It did not come from me.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He said it did.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is as much mistaken about that as he is about many things.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I was referring to Mr. Roblin, the leader of the government in Manitoba.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: When you left the chair at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was replying to the attack made by the member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) upon the Manitoba voters' lists. I said that I believed this Question was brought before the House this afternoon by gentlemen opposite in order to postpone the discussion on the Autonomy Bill, and in that effort I propose to be generous enough to help them to some little extent. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) tried to make out that the system of preparing the electoral lists in Manitoba was unfair and unjust, and my remarks were directed to prove that the registration under the Roblin government was far more effective and in every way fairer than the system under the Greenway government. The question is important and at the risk of wearying the House I shall explain the conditions in Manitoba. The topography of that province is different from that of either Quebec, Ontario or the eastern provinces. Beginning at the south eastern end of Manitoba we have ranges running from east to west and townships which are gjx miies square running from north to south. The average local constituency in the thickly settled portions would include about three ranges from east to west making 18 miles, and about 0 townships north and south or 36 miles. To show how fair the Roblin government was and how anxious it was that there should be sufficient time given for registration, the constituencies were laid off, in my part of the country at all events, into what might be called three tiers. There was first the registration clerk for the whole constituency and under him there were officers known as clerks. In the constituency which I have in mind there were three clerks in the north end, three in the centre, and three in the south making 9 clerks to register the names. They worked from iron day morning until Saturday night, their offices being open until 10 o'clock at night in order that working men might register, and I say without fear of contradiction that after the legal hour for closing at night not a single name was put on the lists. There was an absolutely new votei-s' list being prepared, and so we commenced with a clean sheet and every one had to register. I can say that had twice as many voters come forward to register, ample time was given to enable them to do so. Contrast that with the Greenway system under which in the local constituency of Turtle Mountain there was only one man to register, and he was located at Boissevain, to which town every voter had to come to


Robert Laird Borden: register, or else he had to take the oath and comply with certain other requirements. Under the Green way system I am prepared to assert that in my constituency a number of names were handed in and added to the l'sts after the legal hours. Another good test as to which was the fairer system is to be found in the fact that in the court of revision hundreds and even thousands of names were removed, from the original lists prepared under the Greenway government, and the Conservatives were put to great expense at these revision courts ; whereas, in the case of the lists made by the Roblin government comparatively few names were stricken off by the court of revision. Had I known that this discussion would be on today I could have given the actual figures, but at all events the fact proves that the. Greenway system was not so righteous as its author would make out. The hon. member for Lisgar spoke about the Liberals not adding names to the voters' lists in 1904. but I will state the reason for that, and I will quote not from a Conservative source, but from the mouth of one John Smith, a gentleman well known to the late Minister of the Interior, as well as to the member for Lisgar. Mr. John Smith was laughing up his sleeve and poking fun at us because we were honestly endeavouring to add names to the list before the last Dominion election. It happened to be a very rainy day and any one who lives in the west knows that it can rain very hard there when it wants to. We had started out at daylight and continued work until after dark, and the rain poured down perhaps providentially, because it was of great benefit to tlie crops at that particular season. We endeavoured to get our men to go before tlie registration clerk and register their names and this John Smith and some of the other good Liberals were present and I said to them :	How is it you fellows are
not working to-day ; it is not like the Liberals in this constituency to be lacking in effort. Mr. Smith told me to go-not to the good place, and he said :	Are we fools enough
to fight a general election on your lists ? Well I said :	I do not know whether you
are fools enough to do that or not, but there is nothing to be lost in making an effort to place every man who is qualified on the list, and Mr. Smith replied :	The
Hon. Mr. Sifton tells us we are going to have an opportunity to make up a list for ourselves and that the government will not have a Dominion election upon your lists.
Well, why didn't they have the list ? Perhaps the whole history of that would be interesting. No doubt members on the other side know more about this than I do, but we believe in Manitoba, and I believe to-night, that the hon. member for Brandon, then Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), intended to make up a list, but his friend, whom I am told loves him, the Minister of Justice, refused to sanction that outrage, for it eer-
[DOT]6777

tainly would have been an outrage had they been allowed to make an exception in the province of Manitoba and make up a list different from that in any other place. So they did vote on the list which was made tip at that time. When it came to the court of revision, they did their utmost to get many off the list, but because of the fair manner in which these names are added they had very little success in removing names from the list at the court of revision. The hon. member for Lisgar referred to Emerson. He said that part of Emerson came into his Dominion constituency, and in order to get a list of Emerson, or of that part of Emerson which came into his constituency, he was obliged to get a list of the whole constituency of Emerson. I am surprised that the hon. member for Lisgar made that statement, because I want to show you, and can show you beyond any doubt, that the Liberal party is to blame for his having to do that, and that is the reason why I refer to this. I think the principle laid down by the Liberal party when making a redistribution of seats was that they would, as far as possible, make the lines coi'-respond to county lines. I understand that Dominion constituencies in other provinces, as in ours, contain more than one local constituency, and the principle was to make the county line a division line, which certainly would have been a fair and very convenient way of dividing up the country. The line between the constituency of Lisgar and my own lies between range 12 and range 13, but that was not a local division. As it was, West Manitou, which was then called Mountain, took in a row of townships in Mountain, so that I had a range of townships in Mountain constituency, and when I wanted to get my list, a list made up by the local legislature, in order to get a list for range 13 on the eastern boundary of my constituency, I had to get all of the voters' lists for Lisgar or Mountain. That was not our fault, that was the fault of the Liberal party. Had they made this division as they should have done the hon. member for Lisgar would uot have had to get all the lists for Emerson ; he would simply have had the voters' list in the different local constituencies which the Dominion constituency contained, so I think it was in very bad taste and of worse effect for the hon. member for Lisgar to make that statement.
I would like to know where the gross outrage is that the hon. member took so much pains to bring before this House in the way those two lists were made up, and I want to go further and say this, that when the Rob-Iin government appointed their, registration clerks, they absolutely did not confine the appointment to Conservatives, and I say that without fear of contradiction. I would like to ask hon. gentlemen opposite if they know of the Liberals ever using a strong party man of the party opposed to them to make up their list ? I want to say that in my
own constituency the gentleman whom the Roblin government appointed as registration clerk was a Liberal. He was not only a Liberal, but, with' all due respect, he was what I might call a very strong Scotch Grit, who absolutely never gave a Conservative vote in his life. Yet this gentleman conducted the registration of the voters' list in the local district of Turtle Mountain, so I think that was another indication of the desire of the Roblin government to give the people a fair and honest list. X think the hon. member for Lisgar went a little out of his way this afternoon, it was not necessary for him to make the references to some id embers of the government of Manitoba which he made in this House to-day. Outside of politics, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) and I are the best of friends. We are neighbours, we have always been friendly, we are friendly to-day, but the hon. member this afternoon threw down the glove, and it will be necessary for me to show that a man who lives politically in the glass house that he does in the province of Manitoba should be a little more careful, as to his statement, even although he gave us no warning of this and no way of preparing for the discussion, in undertaking to talk about members of the government and men who are supporting the Conservative party in Manitoba to-day. He referred to Mr. Richardson as a man who had changed his views and spoke of him, as is the custom of Liberal papers and Liberals, disrespectfully. I think Mr. Richardson will be known to some members who sat with him in this House as an ardent Liberal. He has seen fit to change his views. I am surprised that a man with the history of the hon. member for Disgar would leave himself open to what might be said of himself in that respect. The bon. member sat in this House once before, not for a Manitoba, but for an Ontario constituency, and I *wonder if his own history is absolutely favourable to him in connection with that one point; I wonder if the hon. gentleman -since he wants to talk about political men who have tried to deceive the people-remembers the time up in our province when in one constituency he promised the French electors thathe would not disturb their separate schools or their dual language ? I wonder if he has forgotten that ? I wonder if he forgets a little later in history when he absolutely promised the Protestants of that country that he would not move one jot from the stand and the position he had taken upon this school question in 'Manitoba ? I want to go a little further, and I do not think I am going outside the question after the glove the hon. gentleman threw down this afternoon. and to refer to another transaction which the hon. gentleman will perhaps not want to hear of, but I am perfectly justified in stating the case to this House to-night. "We had in that country at that time two	railways-the Canadian


John Crawford: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Schaffner) what the building of railways has to do with the Franchise Act ?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I want to show that when the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) rises in this House to cast slurs upon Mr. Richardson and other men, his own history is not such as to entitle him to adopt such a tone. I know that hon. gentlemen opposite do not want to hear this, but I shall make this point unless 1 am prevented by the Speaker. I have read the correspondence. Now, any one who knows Mr. Charles Young, knows that he is a man not very easily deceived. After the elections it came out that Mr. Greenway had deceived his own co-workers in the elections. Mr. Young, the Liberal member for Deloraine, wrote this letter to the Deloraine 'Times':
I take this early opportunity of informing my supporters, through your paper, of my surprise and disappointment on learning that Mr. Greenway has (notwithstanding my statements to the contrary) promised aid tq the Waskada extension of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I can assure you that when making the statements I was telling what I thought to be the truth and knew nothing to the contrary till I saw the correspondence published in the ' Telegram ' of the 16th instant. I am writing the president of the Liberal Association asking him to take such steps as may he necessary to afford my supporters an "opportunity, at as early a date as can conveniently be arranged, for dealing with the matter as may seem to them best.
The letter addressed to John Renton, president of the Deloraine Liberal Association, reads :
As I told you, when in the city, the promise made by Mr. Greenway re granting assistance to the Waskada railway, has placed me in an awkward position with my constituents. At the time of my election I distinctly stated that no aid was to be given this road, and at that time, and till I saw the letters published in the ' Telegram,' I believed such was the case. Consequently I feel that I secured my election under false pretenses, and notwithstanding my having done so innocently, I feel it my duty to tender my supporters my resignation.
Now I think that shows pretty conclusively the point I stated. After attempting to deceive the people of Manitoba as he did, ft was not in very good form for the hon. gentleman to get up in this House and try to throw blame upon the men who had given that province such an honest and just list on which to vote as the Ro-blin government has given. Now I have said all that I wish to say on this question. I understand fairly well the lists up there, I believe they are honest lists. I have tried to show how those lists are prepared : I have tried to show that while it took six days the first year, the next year it took only one day with nine clerks, and to-day we have only one clerk and one
day. I believe we have such a fair list in the province of Manitoba to-day that when the eastern provinces come to understand it, as they will understand if they read the ' Hansard,' that every one of them will be sending delegations up to Manitoba to get a copy of the very righteous and just law which we have placed on the statute hooks in order to carry on honest and just elections in that province.


Mr. S. J. JACKSON (Selkirk).: of their rights. Many of them were foreigners, still they were naturalized by this Dominion government, they were three years in the province, and they were entitled to be on the list, and I say they should have been on it. But owing to the Act that we have now in the province of Manitoba it was physically impossible for them to get on the list. I know there were 50 men who were sent out at an expense of 32 each that they might be registered, the only people in one particular district that could be got to go the distance necessary to register.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: How is it possible for these men to go that distance and register ? In the election previous to the last one how did some of these men get to the polls unless they were taken in some conveyance like the ' Minnie M ? '


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I would like to know what that has got to do with it. The hon. gentleman shows that he knows very little about this matter when he asks a question like that. There Is only one place to-day where these people can register, when an election is going on. They have polls fairly convenient, where they only have to travel 10 or 15 miles. I have here the voters' list of the municipality of Rock-wood. In the northern portion of that district there are something like 250 Galicians. Now how many do you think were on the last Dominion voters' list ? There were only 70. whereas there should have been 250. Now if they want to get on the list in that particular division they will have to go down 36 miles. I may say that the electoral division comprises 7 townships north and south, it is 39 miles by 42 miles. Now these people have to register at the town of Stonewall, within 5 miles of the southern boundary in that district, they all have to go down there to register, some of them 30 miles away in a straight line. Now these people will be left off the list. Now why is this done ? There are 11 protested elections in that province, and every one in this House knows that the Roblin government does not want these names to be put on that list in view of possible byelections. I am not at all astonished that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) and the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) are in favour of the Roblin government list, because that list was badly loaded at the last election in their favour and they know it. The hon. member for Marquette was elected the last time by a very small majority, and if it had not been for some sharp practice on the part of his friends in the Roblin government, lie would not be sitting in this House today.


William James Roche: Tell us what it is.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I will tell you what it is. You had the officials in the local government arrest Mr. Harvey, who was working against you in that district, and you had him taken into Winnipeg and Mr. S. J. JACKSON.
kept in durance vile to prevent him working among a population that would have voted against you.


Mr.   W.@: ,T. ROCHE. Was he not a government officer ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: That does not make any difference.


William James Roche: Did he not have 3700 in his pocket when he was arrested ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: That man was a British subject and just as much entitled to vote as the hon. member for Marquette is. He was made a British subject by this parliament. He had been over three years in the country, he was a naturalized Britisn subject aud he was entitled to go out and do any business that he wanted to do. But, you had him arrested on false pretenses and kept him in durance vile until he could not go back to that county. The Attorney General of Manitoba withdrew the charge against that gentleman just as soon as there was no chance of him going back to the county.


William James Roche: No, the Attorney General did not withdraw the charge, but the witnesses who had been bribed were spirited away and were not on the scene. They were brought up and sent away out of the country entirely.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: The hon. gentleman cannot give any proof of what he is saying. That gentleman was an honest farmer in my district. He was working as he had a perfect right to do in any part of 'Manitoba. There was nothing to hindei' him. He was not receiving pay from the Dominion government at the time that he was engaged in this work.


William James Roche: I brought this case up in the House last year aud I drew the attention of the then Minister of the Interior fo the fact that a government official, naming him, ill-. Harvey, was engaged in a House to House canvass in my constituency. The then Minister of the Interior promised that he would at once issue instructions to that official, which would apply to all other officials, telling him that he must desist from such work, that it was against the regulations of the government.
Mr. S, J. JACKSON. Then the hon. gentleman could not have brought this matter up in the House because this was a matter that only happened last October before the election which was held in November.


Mr.   W.@: ,T. ROCHE. If the hon. gentleman turns up 1 Hansard ' he will find that I brought up the case of this very same official.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: The hon. gentleman is talking about some other matter. I am talking about the matter that took place in October and you were a party to it because you had that gentleman arrested
67S5

when there was no charge to be made against him. They withdrew proceedings .inst as soon as the election was over and he could not go back to work in that division.


William James Roche: Does the hon. gentleman say that I had him arrested ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Your friends of the Roblin government had this gentleman arrested.


William James Roche: On what charge ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: On the charge of having advanced money in my riding for the purpose of influencing the election in that district.


William James Roche: Or had it anything to do with my riding ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Yes, they had him arrested in your riding and they took him down and prevented him from going to any riding. This is just a sample of' what your friends of the Roblin government will do in any election. X have had a great deal of experience with the Tory party in running my elections in Manitoba. In 1S86 I ran against Mr. Hagel. You talk about the fairness of the Roblin government. The former Conservative government started out with the same claims to fairness that the Roblin government made at the outset. The Norquay government adopted a franchise Act under which, in the first election which I ran in 1886, 44 votes were illegally added to the voters' list. Even then I was not defeated. I had a majority of 15 in 1880 notwithstanding the fact that they burned the ballot boxes. We have had a large experience in Manitoba of the way in which Conservatives will run elections. It is a most unjust law that we have at the present time on the statute-book of Manitoba. It is the most unjust law that we have in the Dominion of Canada and how these hon. gentlemen can justify it is something that it is difficult to understand. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaff-ner) spoke about an hour this afternoon and evening and what did he say ? He went on and spoke about a fair law. The Roblin government passed a fair law in 1902 when they first came in. The judges looked after it then and we had a fair list, but how long did they leave the judges in charge ? Only a very short time. The judges then had everything to do with the preparation of the lists. The judges mapped out the districts and appointed the men to revise the lists. Things are altogether different now. They have revising barristers and they select very illiterate men to collect the votes. In the county of Rock-wood. that I have particular knowledge of, they have a farmer who can barely sign his own name who sat for two hours at three different places in the county and yet he pretended to make the list. I am personally
aware of that matter and I do not see how hon. gentlemen of the intelligence of the hon. member for Souris and of the hon. member for Marquette can get up in this House and justify one place and one day in the large counties we have in Manitoba, or assert that under that system it is possible for us to have any kind of a fair list. Now, we come to the thin red line. The other day I sent to the King's Printer, asking him to send me the voters' list for Selkirk, the county which I have the honour to represent. What was the outcome ? He sent me a list containing the names of
9.000	voters. That was sent to the returning officer of the county of Selkirk. There are the names of 9,000 voters on this list, while in the constituency of Selkirk there are 4,824 voters, so you will see that the thin red line had to be worked all over that list. There is the red line. It does not make any difference whether it is red, blue or black. Part of this list belongs to the constituency of my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) and part to myself. There had to be a copy sent to the returning officer in Selkirk and also the returning officer in Macdonald. The returning officers, as a rule, are not all business men. We will appoint some good honest farmer in a county as the returning officer. This man had to score out the names of the voters who did not vote in Selkirk. It would not be possible to leave some 58 names on the list for one polling subdivision which belonged to the county of Macdonald, because otherwise these voters might vote in Selkirk. Four thousand and odd names had to be taken off that list before it was a proper list to be used in Selkirk. I see where this government is to blame in some respects for sending up that list. It comes from the King's Printer to me as the voters' list for Selkirk. That was sent to the returning officer in my county who is now under arrest charged with having erased names. He had to erase names. He had to score these names out. He was provided with a list containing
9.000	names when only 4,800 voters were entitled to vote. It is a list containing the names of voters partlv in other counties and partly in Selkirk. I may say that the Roblin government laid out each electoral division into polling subdivisions. We did not take the same polling subdivisions that the Roblin government did in the local elections. What was the consequence of that ? These red lines had to be put in again. In the township of Grassmere, Stonewall is up in the northeast corner of the township and there are 346 names on the list. That list was sent to the deputy returning officer. For 14 years, while I represented that county in the local legislature, I had a polling subdivision in the centre of the township so as to enable the farmers to vote close to their homes, but the new arrangement made by the Roblin government necessitated a
<5737

great many of these farmers travelling ten miles from their homes to poll their votes. We had to change that. I laid out the district containing the names of those who had voted at Grassmere and the district containing the names of those who had voted at Stonewall. Ninety-six had voted in the township and 250 in Stonewall. _ That necessitated two copies of the list and there would be 250 red lines on the list which was handed to the gentleman who was the deputy returning officer for that part of the township outside of Stonewall and 96 red lines would have to be drawn through the list for the deputy returning officer who acted at Stonewall. * That is plain. The red lines had to go in. You could not work it in any other way. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he can point to one man in that district, where I had the personal supervision myself, who came up and was not on that list, and in that district there were about 1,500 votes.


Sir. SCIIA  FFNER@: You say you did not make polling subdivisions to correspond with those in the local constituencies ? Do you not think that the latter would have been a far better division, and you would thereby have avoided all this temptation put in your way when you changed your polling subdivisions.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Why should we adopt the Tory subdivisions for polling ?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That is not an answer to my question. You asked me why you should adopt ours, and I say because it was a just and righteous division and would have saved a good deal of trouble.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: How would you do with one polling subdivision where part of the district was in two or three counties ? You say that you made them for the convenience of the people. Well, I remember a few years ago, when a subdivision was made for the province of Manitoba, the voters' had in some cases to go 60 miles to vote just because they happened to be supporters of mine. And they had to go [DOT]by a dog train in the winter. The red line had to be adopted when w'e were sent a list by the King's Printer. We will have to have a revision of the lists in that country because they are not fair to the public. When the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Sohaffner) interrupted me, I was asking him to point out-and he ought to be able to do it now because the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) has all the evidence in the trial and read a lot of it this afternoon-I was asking him to point out one man in the whole electoral division of Selkirk who was left off the lists, out of 1,500 votes. There was only one weak spot in the whole county, as far as the management is concerned, and that was a polling subdivision called Beausejour. where there were 14 names left off. But those voted all Mr. S. J. JACKSON.
the same, their ballots all went in, and they were not all Conservatives either-there was quite a proportion Liberal-and if there had been anything like a close election they would have counted.


An hon. MEMBER,: How many were Liberals ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: ICwo out of 14, but it just shows that these wrere taken off in some way we have not been able to get at. I do not justify anything of the kind myself, because I have always found that one name left off the list would hurt you more than half a dozen of the other side put on. As far as I am concerned, every voter, both Liberal and Tory, should be on the list. Under the Greenway law which the hon. gentleman denounces, every man entitled to vote was on the list. None were left off in my part of the country. I have been in politics a number of years and have met politicians of both sides, and I have never heard any objections to that list as far as putting the names on was concerned. But in Manitoba to-day we have thousands of good British subjects, who will not be on the list, and the blame lies at the door of hon. gentlemen opposite from that province who are supporting the Roblin government and its present iniquitous law. It is physically impossible for many of these men to get on the list. There is one thing more I want to mention. We had enumerators who compiled the lists when the late Greenway government was in power. It was the duty of those gentlemen to take the municipal lists as a basis. That is what they did ; and if we had an election law anything like the election law you have in Ontario, I would be perfectly satisfied to accept it. Take any list as a basis. Take the municipal lists. Then let the manhood suffrage voters be put on by the judge at the court of revision. There is great objection to this personal registration. Take old timers who have been on the lists some twenty-five or thirty years, they have to come and register. During this campaign, I met one of the prominent residents of Winnipeg, who is living in the district of Kildona, which is a suburb of Winnipeg, but is in the division of Selkirk. He was a Conservative too. I went in to see if I could get his vote, and he said he would be very happy to vote for me but he had not registered, and that the present Roblin government list was an outrage. That Roblin law compels men who have owned property in the country for years and who have been on the lists some twenty or thirty years to go and register, and hundreds of them said : We are entitled to be on the list, why should we travel ten or twenty miles to register ? We had enumerators in Manitoba who went around and took all the voters they could, and I may tell you what we did in our part of the country. I held a series of meetings, just meetings for the purpose of getting

everybody to attend and register and have his name on the list. I wanted their names put on regardless of politics, but the people have to come and register, and they do not know to-day what the law is and are in doubt whether they will be on the list. The kon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) said that the law is only there for the purpose of adding to the list, but when did they change the law ? As far as I understand the law, it requires personal registration in every case. It is just optional to-day with the registration clerk to put names on the list or leave them off, and the clerk is there for the purpose of registering. I am not aware that the law lias been changed so as to enable those men who are now on the list to stay on.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The law absolutely states that only those who have become qualified since last year, who have become British subjects, or have been in the province long enough to vote, need register this year.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: What about the thousands who were qualified before last year and who are not on ?


Mr. LALOR.: Is it not their fault if they do not get on ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: No, because they may have to travel fifty, sixty and sometimes 260 miles in the county of Selkirk to register. From Fisher river they have to travel 150 miles, from Black Island, 100 miles, from Bad Throats, 100 miles, from Gimli sixty miles, and that is the only way by which they can be put on the list. They have to travel by team and by water, with no regular boats running. There is one thing which the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) brought up this afternoon and which I do not think he was justified in bringing up. He tried to leave the impression on this House that the returning oflicer for the county of Selkirk during the last election was a bartender. I do not know whether he meant it or not, but he said it. I might just point out that when I was asked to name a returning oflicer, I settled that the proper place from which to select that official was the town of Selkirk because it was in the centre of the county. I was not there at the time myself, but I sent word to the Liberal Association to appoint a returning officer. They appointed a gentleman called Lawrence Duggan. His appointment was perfectly satisfactory to me.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear. hear.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Yes, I have known him for some five or six years. He is not bartender ; his half brother Martin O'Donohoe is the local member for the same county and he owned the hotel where this gentleman acted as clerk, and I dare say he may have gone behind the bar and sold a drink although I do not know that I ever bought one
from him. However, he is as respectable a man as any gentleman in this House. I have known him for years, he does not drink himself and he is a good young man. I may also say that he has been out of the business for over two years. At the time of the election he was a clerk in a store in Selkirk, and I defy any gentleman in this House to say that before he was appointed returning officer or since, Mr. Lawrence Duggan was not a man of excellent character. The federal division of Selkirk comprises the whole of four local divisions and the local divisions returned three Conservatives by majorities of over 100 each, while I carried each of these divisions by about 125 majority. The Roblin government wanted to put some courage into their supporters and so they made charges against certain Liberals that these gentlemen were not guilty of. It is needless to say that these indictments were thrown out by the grand jury. They have now instituted proceedings against Mr. Duggan and Mr. Leach but they are not able to prove anything against them, and will not be able to prove anything because I am satisfied that everything is as straight as it possibly could be so far as Mr. Duggan is concerned. The Liberals thought of course that the county of Selkirk was stolen from them, because they had the lists so loaded in their favour that they believed they were certain of carrying the constituency. Bitt, Sir, it was the policy of the Laurier government that was so popular in that country that carried the election, and it secured for me hundreds of Conservative votes, and these Conservatives would vote for me again if there was an election tomorrow. Indeed, if the lists were fair it would not be a majority of 500 that I would have, but a majority of at least double that. I can tell these gentlemen opposite that the policy of the Liberal government is so popular in the west, that if there was an election there now, the Liberals would carry ten seats.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Why did'nt you carry Mountain ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: That is easily explained. I can give you a little information about that if you want to know. The five members of the Roblin cabinet were up there and they had every civil servant working for them, and three or four surveying parties were laying out ditches and offering $1,000 here and $1,000 there if certain districts gave good majorities for the government. In one particular municipality where there is a local option, the people'wanted a license and the friends of the Roblin government told them that if there was a good majority for their candidate they would put them into a new municipality so that they could get a license. I cau tell my hon. friends that the educational clauses of the Autonomy Bill, or the boundary question did not figure in that election.

For the benefit of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Sehaffner) I wish to read the Manitoba electoral law which says :
21. Lists of electors shall hereafter only be made and revised at such times as is hereinafter provided :
(a)	Provided that a new list shall he made and revised in the case of every general election ;
(b)	Provided also, in this case of a by-election, the list last revised under this or any previous Act may he used if not over one year old. If over one year old, a new list of electors shall be prepared for the electoral division affected.
This law says that a new list shall be made.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What is the date of that statute ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: 1901.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That has been changed.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: There is no amendment to that so far as I am aware, and there is nothing to hinder the Roblin government striking us all off the lists if we do not appear.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The hon. member knows that is not correct.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I do not. I have read the law for you.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That is the law of 1901.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Then point out any changes that have been made. I think the hon. member for Marquette should apologize to Mr. Duggan ; he is not a bartender ; he has had nothing to do with a bar for a year and a half, and he was never in the real sense of the word a bartender at all. I have a number of very warm friends who have been in that business, and 1 dare say hon. gentlemen opposite are in the same position. I think it has been clearly proven that we have an iniquitous election law at present in Manitoba. I want a fair list; I want to see justice done to voters irrespective of politics, and I say that it is the duty of this government to give us a revision of the lists, taking the local lists as a basis and having a revision by impartial judges. I do not want any partisan revising barristers. I want to see the lists prepared by impartial judges. When we have a government such as that now in power in Manitoba who will not give us fair voters' lists, but who have loaded itp the lists in their favour and are trying to keep them in that shape, then it is the duty of this government to remedy that even if we. have to stay here till the" snow flies. It is the duty of this government to see that every voter in the Dominion of Canada who is entitled to vote should be put on the voters' list regardless of politics, and even though we have to stay here till Christmas or January next, justice should be done.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: 


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he wants an exception made of Manitoba in this respect ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: It may he necessary to extend it to the province of Ontario in a short time if the Conservative government there do not render justice. We may not he alone in the time to come, but I do say that in view of the government we have in power in Manitoba to-day, an exception should be made for that province. If the Manitoba government would give us a voters' list similar to that in Ontario I would be satisfied. but if they adopt the partisan system under which they can favour themselves if they have a clerk that is any way crooked, then that should be (prevented. In the town in which I registered I have myself seen dozens of men to whom the oath was never administered and who were put on the lists, while dozens of other men were sworn. As I understand it the law says that a man can not he entered on the lists unless the man who proposes to put him on swears that he was unable to he present or was away from the country or something of that kind, but names were put on the list right along in my town without that precaution having been taken. This shows how loose the system is. It is the duty of this government as soon as possible to introduce an Act making an exception for the province of Manitoba, and giving us what we consider would he a fair list ; let the judges do it.


Mr.   I.@: AT,OR. The hon. gentleman has stated that in some cases people lived so far away that it is impossible for them to register. Is that not as fair for one party as the other ; do not Conservatives live as far away from the polls as Liberals ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I have always been in favour of making it convenient for the people, whether Conservatives or Liberals and I think we should not compel even Conservatives to come down 260 miles to register their votes.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Do they travel any further under this system than under the other ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Yes.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: We had an enumerator who went around and put their names on, and there were very few put on at the court of revision. There were lots to strike off, as the hon. member for Souris said this afternoon, but very few to put on, for the list as a basis, there were always men on and there was only the cleaning of the lists to be done.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why were there so many to strike off ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: With the municipal list as a basis, there were always men on the list who were dead or who had moved away, because they are marked residents

for certain purposes of statute labour. There used to be trouble about that when we took the municipal lists as a basis, and in that way we had to clean up the list.


William D. Staples: I am sure anything I may have to say, coming from an ordinary farmer like myself, cannot be so interesting as remarks would be coming from an hon. gentleman like the hon. member for Selkirk. That hon. member went up to Manitoba only a few weeks ago, and by hanging a map on the wall, taking a pointer and making a few scientific flourishes with it, he solved the whole boundary question that has been troubling the people of Manitoba. If he was so effective in solving the boundary question, I think we can afford to have the solution of the Franchise Act of Manitoba put in his hands. His solution would be about as effective as his solution of the boundary question of Manitoba. The hon. gentleman has been finding fault all afternoon with the registration that is taking place in the province of Manitoba, that is the annual registration. If we were under the Franchise Act of the Greenway government we would have no registration at all this year, because it was not annual as at present, and those men who are desirous of getting on the list would not have an opportunity of doing so if we were under the Greenway Act. All they have to do now is to go to the registration booth and, as has been pointed out to-night, it is as fair for one as for another. The hon. gentleman went on to say that if the lists had not been stuffed, instead of there being seven representatives here supporting the government to-day there would be ten. I want to say that if it had not been for the mutilation of the lists for Selkirk, if it had not been for the thin red line and other things of the same nature, he would not be here to-day, and I would say further that if he has a spark of principle, knowing the conditions and the methods which were adopted in order to secure his election, if he is the gentleman I think he should be, he would resign his seat and say : I did not win that election fairly and I wish to contest it over again. Talk about how he got here, about the striking out of names ; there were forty-two Conservative electors struck off at one division, and he took good care that he did not mention that there were a number of polling booths in that constituency where the Conservatives went in numbers asking for ballots and were refused, and were told that there was a red line through their names and they could not vote. The hon. gentleman knows that, and he also knows that in several polling subdivisions where they asked for ballots and could not get them, they became boisterous, forced the doors, demanded a ballot and made the deputy returning officer give them a ballot and take back the ballot. As a matter of fact, what did he do? He would not allow them to deposit the ballots in the 216
ballot box, but he put them hi an envelope, and, if I am rightly informed, they again went into the booth after reconsidering what he had done with the ballots and forced the deputy returning officer to tear the end off the envelope and drop the ballots one by one into the ballot box. You talk about your ballot stuffing, your ballot switching and your bogus ballot boxes, but there is nothing to my mind, or to the mind of any fair elector, equal to the thin red line. A more effective scheme could not be thought of, and this scheme I have mentioned has been utilized, and what does the hon. gentleman ask to-day ? They know they cannot go back and practise the same device, and come here asking this government to pass a special Franchise Act for Manitoba, whereby they would be able to exercise other schemes in order to be elected. It has been explained how our lists are compiled, and I have yet to find a Liberal in Manitoba who will not say that the (present list there is the most fair and just that has ever existed in the province. Ask any Liberal in my own constituency, and he will tell you this. The gentlemen who have spoken this afternoon know full well that	this
subject has been debated on the floors of the local legislature, and the leader of the opposition there has stated that it is a fair compilation of the list, but that it is too expensive ; that is the only fault he has to find with it. The hon. gentlemen say that the red line had to be used. Admitting that the red line had to be used, although I do not think it was necessary to use it, had this government taken hold of these lists at the proper time and compiled them here, then it would not be necessary to use the red line. The red line is all right if it had not been abused, but up go the lists, and'where do those lists go to ? Before going to the deputy returning officers throughout Manitoba, the lists went into the hands of one Mr. Leach, who sat in the Liberal committee room in Winnipeg and drew the red line just where it suited his own will. Where is this gentleman, Mr. Leach, to-day ? He is under the employment of this government, as some one has well said, receiving his reward the same as many others. The hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the other side have evidently been preparing this subject. Each came here with a long brief and a pile of papers.
I had secured and gathered together a number of papers relating to this subject which I have handed over to another hon. member on this side who is unfortunately away from the House this evening, and 1 have not the information and the facts with me that I might have presented to you to-night. I know the subject will come up later on, and then there will be plenty of time for stating facts. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. S. J. Jackson), who was in the constituency of Mountain in the campaign which recently took place has ven-



tured the statement that the school question was not made au issue there. If the hon. gentleman will go through the archives of this country and search the papers printed and speeches made in that constituency, he will find that the school question and the boundary question were the two issues upon which the constituency of Mountain was won by the Liberal Conservative candidate.
I am glad that we have at last heard from the hon. mernDer for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway). He has sat here through this entire session which has lasted almost five months, and not a word have we heard him utter until this afternoon, But I venture to say that when the newspapers appear in Manitoba to-morrow they will contain some expressions of surprise that he has waited all this time to deal with such a question as this after having missed so many opportunities to deal with a question of more importance-though this one is important too. Why have we not heard from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Greenway) on the school question, a question on which he was returned to power time and again and upon which this government rode into office ? The people of Manitoba, I venture to say, would much prefer to hear him talk on that question than on the question which he has made the subject of his first speech in this parliament.
Now, I wish to call attention for a moment to the way that this ' thin red line ' did its work in the constituency of Macdonald. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) seemed anxious to draw attention to me and spoke of the little town of Miami. I wish to call attention to one incident that occurred there. On the 4th of November last, there were thirteen Conservatives went to the poll there and asked for ballots that they might vote for the Conservative candidate. Did they get them? They were coolly told that there was a red line through their names and that they were disfranchised. The statement has been made that they were probably on the list in some other division. They were not on the list in any other division, and I defy the bon. gentleman to prove to the contrary. But Miami is not the only place in which such things occurred. Take the polling subdivision at Poplar Point, and there the names of fifteen men had the red line drawn through them, men who had lived in that polling subdivision for years. Of these men every one was a Conservative. The same was true at Miami-every one of the eleven who were disfranchised was a Conservative. I have gone to considerable trouble to ascertain how many men were disfranchised In the different polling subdivisions of Macdonald, and I find that close upon 300 Liberal-Conservatives who went to the polls and asked for ballots, found that their names has been erased. I may also cite the case of a Liberal who. just before the election, meeting a Conservative in my town, said : 1 Well we have got Sta-Mr. STAPLES.
pies trimmed.' My friends replied : ' It is not possible. .' But the answer was : 'You will find out that what I say Is right, and when the polls are closed you will see the basis on which I make the assertion.' It was on the ' thin red line ' that this man based his prediction. They went it pretty strong ; they went it to the extent of nearly three hundred ; but they did not go it quite strong enough. Now, just one other point with regard to my own town Tre-herne. This is a matter that came under my own observation. On the day of the election, two electors went to the poll and asked for ballots. They were told that there was a red line through their names. They came to me and asked how it was. I told them that possibly they were outside the limits indicated by the proclamation. I went to the polling booth expecting to find a copy of the proclamation, but there was none though the law requires that one shall be hung in the polling booth. After a little time I succeeded in getting a copy which I took to the deputy returning officer and told him that these men lived within the hounds of the polling subdivision and that he could not legally refuse them a ballot. Though, for a time he refused, I must admit that these were fair men-about the average of Liberals after considerable argument, I succeeded in getting ballots for the voters who had been refused them. And they voted, I suppose that had the case arisen In some other polling subdivision I could not have succeeded for in all these polls I had good scrutineers who asked the officer to allow the electors to use their franchise, but they refused.
Now, I am satisfied that this question will come up later on and I have something to. say about it, for I have plenty of information on the subject. But before I take my seat I wish to call the attention of the House and country to what one Liberal newspaper has said as to the fairness and justice of the method of compiling the voters' list in use in Manitoba. I quote from the ' Eye Witness,' of Birtle, a newspaper which, I understand, is edited by a good Liberal :
The Winnipeg ' Free Press ' is working overtime endeavouring to make a mare's nest of the Manitoba Franchise Act. Had it expended half the energy during the twelve years its friends were in power urging them to give the province something better than the cemetery voters' -lists that were used until Roblin's government enacted the present personal registration Bill which, while not perfect, is without doubt the best franchise law anywhere in Canada, the Liberal piarty would now have something in this line creditable to look back to. The * Free Press' present harping Is so out of place that every Liberal paper in the province, except its couple of echoes, are discreetly silent. A few columns on red line disfranchisement would be more to the point.
I do not think for a moment that, when all the facts are known as to the method of compiling the lists in Manitoba this House will think of enacting a special law

for that province. As this newspaper states, we have the fairest method of compiling these lists used anywhere in Canada. It is a credit to Manitoba to have such a system. At-the same time, I am satisfied, that as time goes on, it will be made even more perfect.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not rise for the purpose of participating in the discussion in regard to what has occurred in the province of Manitoba, for. like many other hon. members of the House, I have no knowledge of the facts except as they have been presented in this discussion. I wish to say that I think the principle upon which the Dominion Franchise Act is framed is one in the interest of public economy and public convenience. The preparation of a second list for Dominion elections throughout the whole Dominion would involve a considerable expense. But that to my mind is not the most serious side of* the question. Everybody who has anything to do with political organization must know that the preparation of an electoral list involves a great deal of labour and time to many of the best citizens of our country, and I count among those all who take an active and intelligent interest in public affairs on either side of politics. The time that is spent and the labour that is involved in getting up electoral lists are therefore considerable, anl I think we could all agree that if we can minimize that labour and sacrifice throughout the Dominion, by having one list instead of two, such a condition is very desirable. Whether we have attained perfection in that respect under our present system, may be a matter of debate. While I would contend that the present system on the whole has a good purpose and works well, if it could be shown that the system is abused in any province, by any government, Liberal or Conservative, and that the intention of this parliament respecting the free exercise of the franchise by every elector of this Dominion Is not being carried out, but that there is a deliberate and systematic abuse of the system with a view of disfranchising any portion of the electors, then I think we would all agree, irrespective of politics, that a remedy should be provided. Whether that condition has been disclosed in the province of Manitoba, I confess I have not sufficient knowledge to express an opinion. I can only say that in view of what has been presented to the House this afternoon, the matter is one of great gravity, and I feel that the principal law officer of the government, the Minister of Justice, should give the matter full consideration, and I have no doubt he will do so.


Robert Laird Borden: acknowledged, what some of their friends denied here last session, namely, that it was proposed to pass by the lists so made up, with an appeal to judges, as I understand is the case in Manitoba-to pass by those lists and have other lists made up in that province by partisan officers, in order that a certain advantage might accrue to their political friends. We had the intimation also later on that there were certain members of the cabinet for whom a proposition of that kind was a little too strong. The hon. gentleman for Lisgar and his friends to-day spoke somewhat tearfully and regretfully of the circumstance that their proposal was not adopted by the government. I am glad for the credit of some members of the administration at least, that they found a proposal of that kind a little too strong ; I am glad of it for the sake of public life in Canada, and for the credit of some members of this administration in that regard. Here were lists that could be revised by independent officers, lists as to which there was an appeal to judges in the province of Manitoba. And I may say in passing that we vainly fought in this House for similar appeals in respect to provincial lists in the province of Nova Scotia, and members of the administration -would not permit us to have even that. But here were lists that were revised by independent officers, in respect of which an appeal would lie to the judges ; and the proposal coolly admitted by the gentlemen who have spoken on that side of the House, was that these lists made up by independent men, subject to revision by judges were to be passed over in order that lists might be manufactured by partisan officers. Well, if that is what my hon. friend the Minister of Finance says is under consideration by the government-I do not know whether I am to interpret his remarks in any other way-I venture to say that if he brings down a proposal of that kind, after once having committed himself and his government to the principle of leaving these matters to provincial legislation, any measure of that kind will be before this House of Commons for a very long time before it will pass.
There are many things which the opposition has to concede to the majority in this House. The rights of the minority in this House are not always regarded as absolutely sacred, but when highway robbery of that kind is suggested, because that is what it amounts to, I venture to think that the hon. member of Lisgar will find that they have attempted one of the most stubborn and difficult propositions that they ever endeavoured to put into force, and it is just as well that this should be understood before the government are committed to any proposal of this kind. We took our stand upon the principle which has been advocated by the Conservative party. We made no factious opposition to the proposi-Mr. R. L. BORDEN,
l
tion which was brought in by this administration when they changed the method of making up the lists ; but when it is said that you shall have one principle for making up the lists in a province which happens to have a Liberal administration and another principle for a province which happens to have a Conservative administration and that there shall be one principle applied to provinces like Manitoba and Ontario in respect, and an altogether different principle to Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and other provinces where there is a Liberal administration-to say that we are to have anything like that in this country is going a little bit too far, and I venture to think that the administration upon reflection will think twice before they accede to the proposition which has been coolly and unblushingly made by the hon. member for Lisgar and by bis friends from Manitoba to the House to-day. There has been no complaint that the revising officers are unfair or partial. Every one admits that the lists in Manitoba are prepared by non-partisan officers whose decisions are subject to an appeal to the judges of the county court. The judges hold courts of revision and independent officers deal with these lists, a privilege which we have not to-day under the Liberal legislation of the province of Nova Scotia, although we have sought it many times. It has always been denied us both by the Liberal government of the province of Nova Scotia and by this government in respect to the Dominion lists in that province. To say that these lists, revised by judges of the land are to be passed over in Manitoba, and that the lists of Nova Scotia has, to which we have no right of appeal to any independent officers, are to be taken and accepted as absolutely fair and impartial does seem to me to be a proposition that would not commend itself to the judgment of some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House for whose fairness subject to certain partisan bias which we must always expect, I have every possible respect.
I do not think this discussion has been wasted to-day. Probably before the end of the session we may hear, as my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) has said, a little more about that thin red line. We have some pretty7 full information about the way in which that line was utilized, and I do not think that everything has been said on this subject to-day which might be said in regard to it. For the present it is enough to say that I trust my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, does not intend to suggest to the House that there is to he one principle applied to the province of Manitoba because it happens to have a Conservative government or because its lists do not happen to be made out to the liking of some hon. gentlemen on the other

side of the House and another principle applied to other provinces.
Let me say before I sit down what I forgot to say before and it is this: The hon. member for Lisgar spoke of the lists made up in 1901 in the (Province of Manitoba as if they were designedly unfair lists to the Liberals of that province. He knows very well, every lion, gentleman from Manitoba knows very well, that the reason why these lists were not favourable to the Liberals was the simple reason that they took no part in the revision upon the promise of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), then Minister of the Interior, that these lists were not to be the lists Upon which the general election was to be run. That is the reason why the lists were not favourable to the Liberals ; they took no part in the revision. It is not denied that a promise was made by the hon. member for Brandon that these lists would be disregarded, and that new partisan lists would be made up for the purposes of the Dominion elections. Then, Conservatives naturally said the Liberals had made a mistake in expecting that their party friends would go so far as was prophesied. Undoubtedly the lists were not originally as favourable to the Liberals of Manitoba as they would have been if they had attended to the revision in the ordinary way. But that which was not accomplished by the Liberals by means of attending to the revision, which they would have done under ordinary circumstances, was accomplished, I know not whether at the suggestion of the hon. member, for Brandon-I hope not-by this thin red line which has been spoken of this afternoon. They did not do it by means of legislature because they dare not bring that legislation before this House, but their party organizers and their party heelers did it by means of this thin red line that has been spoken of. That is the only difference. The end was accomplished after all. The lists were dealt with. They were not dealt with by legislation brought down and openly and fairly discussed in this House, but the end was accomplished by having every one of these lists placed in the hands of the Liberal organizer for Manitoba who carved them according to his own sweet will receiving them for that purpose out of the hands of the returning officers who are the servants of this parliament. I am not speaking of matters of hearsay. I am speaking of matters that were deposed to on oath by these returning officers in more than one case in the province of Manitoba. So that the thing was accomplished very well after all. not by legislation which some members of the administration shrank from bringing down, shrank from taking the responsibility of, but the thing was accomplished by having every one of these deputy returning officers hand in his list to a gentleman named Leach, the Liberal organizer for Manitoba, and Mr. Leach arranged these by means of his thin red line so that a majority of Liberals was returned at the election held in November last. The hon. member for Lisgar and two or three other hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have the audacity and hardihood in the face of these facts to stand up in this House and complain of these lists in Manitoba. I do not wonder that the hon. member for Lisgar, after he had spoken, and after he had heard a portion only of the speech of my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) left this House and showed the extraordinary interest which he takes in this subject, introduced by himself this afternoon without notice, by not putting in an appearance during the remainder of the day. This is all we have to say for the moment on the subject. That hon. gentleman, an old parliamentary hand, did not even have the courtesy to let us know on this side of the House that he proposed to bring up this important subject although we hear very often suggestions of lack of courtesy if any hon. gentleman on this side of the House introduces a much less important subject without giving notice to the Prime Minister or to the proper minister of the Crown. However, he has seen fit to pursue his own course and I venture to say in conclusion that he will hear something more on this subject before the session closes.


Mr. W. P. COCKSHUTT (Brantford).: This is the first time I have had the honour of hearing the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway), and I must say he has chosen a very unfortunate subject for his maiden speech and also a very unfortunate province in which to deliver such an address. The province of Ontario had some little knowledge of Liberal fairness in the preparation of lists, and we from Ontario can speak feelingly on that question. But I understand that the hon. gentleman has lately come down from the mountain, not like the prophet of old with radiant smiles, but with a scowl on his visage, because forsooth he met defeat in that constituency. Smarting under a keen sense of his discomfiture, he opens out the vials of his wrath on the Conservative government in Manitoba because that government did not satis-isfy him in its preparation of the lists ; and to-day, in conjunction with the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Jackson), he coolly proposes that this House shall make a difference when it comes to deal with provinces which return a Conservative majority as compared with those which have Liberal administrations. This surely is a very strange doctrine. When the Conservative party was in power, it had a franchise that was fair to all throughout the Dominion, but these gentlemen opposite, in their wisdom, saw fit to abrogate that law and disfranchise citizens who had enjoyed the right to vote for many years, many of whom, I may say, reside in my own county. These hon. gentlemen cancelled this franchise

law, and they did so because there were Liberal governments in every province of the Dominion at that tune. But now it appears that the province of Manitoba, having elected to return a Liberal Conservative administration, is ripe for a change, and we are told that the province of Ontario is nearly ripe for a similar change. Why is this ? Simply because the province of Ontario, by a majority of 38,000 at the last election, showed the Liberal party that the people of that province had had enough of their fairness. We know something in Ontario about the preparation of lists. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) waxes eloquent about the great disability the people of Manitoba are labouring under in going to register. Let me tell him that in Ontario that was the least difficulty we had to contend with. Our difficulties only began when we got to the registration office. It was then quite a feat to get a vote on the list. Who was the revising officer ? In every case fie was a political appointee-an official appointed for political purposes-and who was bound to pay the debt of gratitude he owed those who put him in office, by keeping every possible Conservative off the list. That is what was done in Ontario for twenty-five years. Whenever we wanted to get a man on, we had to have lawyers to fight his case inch by inch ; and after he got on the list, were his troubles over ? Not by a long way. They were only beginning.. He had to run the gauntlet of those who were offering money for his vote ; and if he had sufficient backbone to resist and got as far as the polls, what happened ? He was very possibly sworn, if it did not happen that his vote had already been presented by some one supporting these gentlemen. And when he did succeed in putting fiis ballot into the box, it sometimes happened that it was not a real box. Sometimes his ballot was put to one side and another ballot, marked for the man he did not vote for, put in its place. After that there was a good deal in the counting. We know that in some polling subdivisions, not 100 miles from the constituency I represent, where eighty-two voters swore they had voted for a certain candidate, only forty-two ballots for that candidate were found in ithe box. The warning of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. R. L. Borden) to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who seemed to be somewhat carried away, was very timely. That hon. minister will find that there will be a considerable amount of indignation excited if he endeavours to apply to Manitoba or Ontario a rule he does not apply to the rest of the Dominion. We have had trouble enough fighting for our rights in the province of Ontario ; and having obtained them by a popular majority of 38,000, we shall not submit to their being taken from us. We can speak feelingly on this subject, because we have been groaning under the load for years. Tear after year we Mr. COCKSHUTT.
have met defeat at the polls in that province -and why ? Not because the people were against us, but because we were smitten by an unseen hand, because we were robbed of our franchise, because we were deprived of our rights as citizens. That is no invention of my own. It has been told in the public glare of the courts to the disgrace of the Liberal party. These things have been revealed in our courts and condemned by our judges from one end of the province to the other. And after our ballots had been cast, and were likely to be called for in court, we know that in some cases they were burned by mistake. These gentlemen, who have raised this question to-day, have struck a very sore spot. Those gentlemen who have given us such broad hints that they are going to make a law which will apply to certain provinces because they are Conservative and will not apply to others because they are Liberal, will find they have struck a snag which this country will not stand. We are all willing to play the game and play it fairly. If we stay in opposition as long as our lives last, we are ready to do it so long as our elections are clean and free from reproach; but when the majority of the people say they want a certain man or party in power, we think it is time that man and party were put in power. These gentlemen talk of the grievance in Manitoba but they have not shown that the Conservative party has any advantage over the Liberals. If a Conservative has to travel 260 miles to get his franchise, why should not a Liberal do the same ? There is no difference in that respect between the two, but this thin red line makes a difference. It strikes the Conservatives only and the Liberals escape. IIow is it that the thin red line is applied to one party and not to the other ? If you have to apply it at all, apply it in fairness, and we will make no complaint. We are a comparatively small band on this side-not as big as we should be according to the wishes of the country, not representatives of the number of people who voted Conservative by any means- but that comparatively small band is not going to have its rights lightly trodden upon. The hon. gentleman has evinced a great desire to propitiate minorities, but only minorities of a certain kind. When the Conservative party was in a minority, did they show any such desire ? Not a bit of it. Every unfair advantage that could be taken was taken for 25 years in the province of Ontario by these gentlemen ; but I am thankful to say that at last we have there an upright, straight government. What was the very first act of that government ? It was to strike out that marked ballot, which hon. gentlemen held up for twenty-five years as a whip over their party friends and nonparty friends to keep them in line. Mr. Whitney, however, has done away with it. He has said : Gentlemen, whether you are for us or against us, we do not wish to

know ; your vote is your own ; poll it like a man ; and if you do we shall count it for the man for whom it was cast. These gentlemen who come down to this House to preach about Liberal fairness in elections little know what the province of Ontario has had to endure for the last twenty-five years and how it has had to fight for its rights.
The very first act of the Conservative government has been to say : Gentlemen, we will not take any unfair advantage through that marked ballot ; that marked ballot goes ; no matter which party you belong to you can vote by secret ballot, and you can put it into a proper ballot box, and it will be counted for the candidate you intended it for. I am sorry to say that system did not exist in Ontario under the Liberal regime. My hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Porter) can tell a tale of what happened in some constituencies last election ; he can tell what was meant by the Liberal boast, that no power on earth could defeat the Liberal party. I leave you, Mr. Speaker, to judge where the power would come from that could defeat the Liberal party. That hon. gentleman from Hastings can show the ballot box that was falsely made for the purpose of destroying the freeman's franchise. Surely the member for Lisgar is out of touch with the province in which he at present is, and if he Las returned sorely disappointed from Mountain, why should he pour out his vials of wrath in this House against the people of Manitoba because their Franchise Law does not happen to please him ? He had his way for a time. His government did wrong, and they are out of power, and they are suffering for doing wrong. Under our constitution governments come and governments go if there is fair-play, and X presume that if this government is disappointed in North Oxford and London, you will hear some of these gentlemen opposite doing as the member for Selkirk does, and asking for a special law making an exception of Ontario, so far as the Franchise Act is concerned. Mr. Speaker, the snow will certainly fly before the House prorogues if any such outrage as that is attempted.


Mr. A. CAMPBELL (Centre York).: I am sure the government will be gjad to know now what their duty is, and that before they attempt to pass auy law they will have to go to the hon. member for Carieton (Mr. It. L. Borden) and to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) and ask them to please be allowed to pass it. A government with seventy-five or eighty majority in this House must go to these gentlemen and ask them, forsooth, if it pleases their mighty-ness and their holiness to be allowed to pass a law. I would like to know who is running this country. Is it this little outfit over there, this small little band that the people of Canada rejected ; these men who were
told by the people from the Atlantic to the Pacific, told that their policy was wrong and that they were not fit to govern ? Is it these men who are going to hold the House up until the snow flies ?
Some hon. MEMBElRiS. Yes.


Archibald Campbell: Two can play at that game. We can stay here as long as they can, and we will do it, too. What this government undertakes to do they are going to do, and they are not going to ask the opposition whether they can do it or not. It is a nice thing if the minority, a small minority, that is discredited by the people, that the people have spewed out of their mouths ; it is a nice thing if they can hold this parliament in session until the snow flies. The leader of the opposition has given us warning ; he has threatened us in plain terms : You cannot pass this law unless it pleases* us, Who is ' us ' I would like to know ? A little discredited band over there who, if they went back to the country to-day, small as they are, they would come back with scarcely a baker's dozen ; a miserable outfit. And the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), he has not been long in this House, and when he is in the House a few years longer, he will not be so bold and so bumptious as lie has been to-night. He talks about the province of Ontario. What have we suffered from in the province of Ontario ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Ross.


Archibald Campbell: Ross ! Ross and his party ruled this country for thirty-three year's, and I venture to say you will not rule it for thirty-three years or half that period. You were going to reform everything ; you said that the departments were reeking with corruption ; you have failed to show it, and the only thing Mr. Whitney has done is to repeal the marked ballot. That is a ballot that has been in force in England for generations, and which the people of England believe is a good ballot, and I do not care whether the Whitney government repeals it or not. He was going to repeal the Conmee Act and the Succession Duties Act, but instead of that he increased the succession duties. He has not been able to show one single thing that the Ross government has done that has not been to the credit of the province of Ontario. There never was a province governed so wisely or so well as the province of Ontario under the Liberal government, whose record will go down to generations as a wise and an honest government. There have been no complaints about the election law in the province of Ontario. The list is taken from the assessment roll and an appeal lies to the county judge, a court of revision is held, and Liberals and Conservatives have fair-play before that court. Everything is fairly and honestly conducted, and there are no complaints. There were complaints of the



[Stage Direction]
Dominion Franchise Act in the old days, when the lion, member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) and his friends got 200 Indians put on the voters' lists to vote 'for him. We all remember how Dr. Montague appealed to the Indians in Haldimand to vote for him because the Queen wanted them to do so. That is the way these gentlemen opposite conducted elections. And the member for Brantford has the audacity and the cheek to rise in this House and to denounce the system now in force in the province of Ontario. I venture to say you cannot improve on the way the voters' lists are made up in that province. It was not so under the old Franchise Act. I remember in the county of Kent when there were 1,100 appeals sent in, and the judge-he was a revising barrister then and not a judge-refused to hear these appeals at all, and -we had to go to the 'fcourts in Toronto to get a mandamus to compel him to hear them. That is the way things were then conducted in the county of Kent, as I know to my sorrow, and in various other places in the province of Ontario the lists were made up in the most outrageous and partisan manner. To-day the hon. member for Selkirk has shown that men have to go 200 miles to get their names on the list. Is that not a monstrous thing ? I do not care whether it is against the Conservatives or the Liberals ; 1 think it most unfair, and never ought to be allowed to exist.
What sense of fairness or justice is there in that ? Sixty or seventy miles and then only allowing 13 hours of one day for each municipality. Why Sir, it is utterly impossible that they should get all the names on in that time. I remember in the town of Toronto Junction last year there were no less than 1,200 appeals for names to be added and struck off and the list is made up every year. I suppose there is one-half *that number in Manitoba in any constituency, it would be utterly impossible in 13 hours to answer all the questions asked there and get the names put on or off, and so I say if such a state of affairs exists there, as has been described here to-day it is the bounden duty of the government to look into the matter and rectify any wrong that may exist. When the Tories get into power in any province they always follow their own way and conduct things in a partisan manner. They did it in the 18 years they were in power in the Dominion when we had that iniquitous franchise law, that was expensive, that put the people to a great deal of trouble and expense and which when this government came into power they properly repealed and placed the franchise as it is to-day. If they are going to repeat these tactics in Manitoba and m Ontario-in Ontario they have not done anything yet-but we will see what they will do in a year or two and I say if they are going to follow out these tactics then it is time for this government to interfere and repair that wrong. No case could be stronger than that made out by
Archibald Campbell: the hon. member for Lisgar and those who have spoken from this side of the House, and have stated that men have to go 60, 70 and even 200 miles to register their votes. I say it is an outrage upon the people that should not be allowed to exist any longer than it takes to repeal it, and if the case is as made out by these gentlemen then I say it is the bounden duty of the government to interfere and rectify that wrong.


William Humphrey Bennett: From the sadness in the tone of the hon. member for Centre York it is quite plain he has met with a fatal blow.


Archibald Campbell: No, he has not.


William Humphrey Bennett: Every one in this House, particularly members from Toronto, know the fatal blow he got in the last few days and what made it doubly bad is that it has come from Mr. Whitney. The hon. gentleman has in his constituency a place called Toronto Junction, which under the guidance care of the Ross administration has been the resort of ail the toughs and thieves who used it for the purpose of gambling.


Archibald Campbell: It is not in my constituency at all.


William Humphrey Bennett: Toronto Junction ?


Archibald Campbell: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am going to give the hon. member for Centre York credit for one thing and that is gratitude. The kindly acts that were performed for him in past elections by this gang when in Centre York and when Toronto Junction was in Centre York are not forgotten by him and that is the reason he is wailing to-night that that gang of iniquity is toroken up.


Archibald Campbell: It never was in Centre York.


William Humphrey Bennett: It was in the riding the hon. gentleman represented and lie got the benefit of their influence, and that influence was fostered by the Ross government by reason of the fact that it got very great benefits from keeping that gang there. It is rather hard that what has happened in Ontario has happened, that for the first time in 30 years the criminal law has been administered. That is what galls these hon. gentlemen and the member for Centre York knows it better than any one. Is it not galling to think that on the 13th in London there will be no more plug-gers ? Mr. Quinn is now serving a year in the Central Prison ; he voted five times for Hyman in the last election. Mr. Whitney has not done anything ? The criminal law in Ontario was paralysed and Quinn walked around the streets of London boasting of what he had done. That has all been changed and Quinn is now in prison. Where are the forms that used to go about tiie corridors here. Geo. B. Grey and Shipley and Lott, where are they? Under this awful man Whitney they are on the other

side now, in the United States, and the member for Centre York no longer grasps the hand and sees the burly form of Lott as he walks dropping a pointer as to the ballot boxes that were going to toe used and stating that it is out of the power of Providence to defeat them when these boxes were used. Mr. Whitney has broken up the junction pool room and he started the criminal law in motion. Messrs. Lott and Shipley regret it and he is making it so hot that even ' Cap. ' Sullivan will not be at the station to wish the member for Centre York good luck in his trip to Ottawa and the ' Minnie M ' has gone out of service as well. The member for Centre York must not say that Mr. Whitney has done nothing ; he has certainly done something, he has started the criminal law in motion and we give you fair notice that in the election in London the criminal law will be enforced and the gang you have had floating from one province to another who were in Brockville, in a wonderful election, and in West Elgin and all over Ontario are not to be found now. The ringleaders Lott and Shipley have disappeared. Let the government make their appeals in London on the 13th and they will have to go with the Ross government. There is no danger of this gang being in London. My hon. friends opposite are to lose the benefit of that beautiful entourage which followed them throughout the province. I think mv hon. friend had better say less about Whitney. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that there are some very uneasy friends of hon. gentlemen opposite who have had large dealings with the Crown Lands Department. It takes time always to stir up these things but you will hear of them later, they are coming and they are not coming the way of some Grit lumbermen who for years have been living on the fat of the land through, the Crown Lands Department of Ontario. We have heard the old story about the infamous Dominion voters' list in Ontario. What was the fact in reference to that ? My hon. friend says there were 1,100 appeals. All who know him know that everything he says has to be discounted. He was wrong in saying that there were 2,000 Indian electors in South Brant. Every one knew that this is untrue and I suppose we will have to take the same discount off his statement as to the number of appeals in a certain election. As there are about 200 Indian electors, so I presume there were about 110 appeals and there are equally as many appeals under the local law as there were formerly, the same judges hold the courts. The main and the greatest difficultv about that is that under the old Act the Indians had votes but under the present Act they have not. How many constituencies does that affect in Ontario or the whole Dominion ? The Minister of Customs could be elected in the riding of Brant when there were Indian voters but he got licked in that riding
and he is afraid to go back to it when there are no Indian voters there, so the Minister of Customs must have got the benefit of the Indian vote. We are not going to be threatened, we can stay here as long as hon. gentlemen can. Goodness knows the hon. gentleman is a patient waiter. The hon. gentleman has been waiting since 1896 to be taken into this cabinet. The newspapers from time to time announce that he is going in as the minister of this or the minister of that. But he is never going in as the minister of anything, as a matter of fact, and for the simple reason that he could not be re-elected for Centre York if he were taken into the cabinet.


Archibald Campbell: IIow do you know ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman is afraid to try it. But, after London is disposed of, he may have a chance, that is, unless the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) is to have another chance in Prescott or in Russell where there may be some reasonable prospect of his being re-elected.


Mr. DERBYSHIRE.: He will be re-elected in London.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. member for Brockville (Mr Derbyshire) said the other night that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) would be elected. And he undertook to prove it in a way peculiarly his own-he was prepared to bet any amount of money on it. Now, I hope my hon. friend (Mr. Derbyshire) will go up to London in this campaign ; because as soon as his burly form is pointed out and people are told that he is the man who wishes to bet money on the success of the government party in this election, they will come about him like flies around honey. And, if he will follow Mr. Hyman in the house-to-house canvass that he is making, the people may think that they can have a nickel dropped in the slot. But I warn him that the Londoners will not be satisfied with nickels in this election. They know that the government is playing for its last stake and that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) must be elected at all hazards, and so one-dollar or two-dollar bills will be utterly useless. In proportion to the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Derbyshire's) dimensions, the bill should be correspondingly large. I do not know whether this government intends to bring in a special Bill for the benefit of the demoralized Grit party in Manitoba or not. If they do, we shall examine that Bill and see wliat it contains. Of course, according to the old saying, desperate diseases require desperate remedies, and the condition of the Liberal party in Manitoba is such that one hardly knows whether to speak of it as a party at all or not. They had a by-election in Mountain the other day, and every one knows the result. I think there are three or four opponents of the Roblin government in the legislature, and they have been tumbling over one another, since the last election,

to get in with the government side. What is the complaint that has been voiced here this afternoon ? It is that they are not going to have a thorough revision of the lists in Manitoba this year. Why, there will be no revision of the lists in Ontario this year. Hon. gentlemen on either side do not care to spend their time and money fixing up the lists in Ontario. And I will tell you why : It is because we know there will be no election. There will be no Dominion election- that is a certainty. Every man who sits in this House can console himself with the reflection that this government is not going to meet the people until the last moment. And, as to the Ontario legislature, there is not a possibility of there being an election there for four years. You could not even galvanize the parties^ into preparing to have an election this year. For you cannot have an election unless there is an opposition, and there is no opposition in the Ontario legislature to-day. The opposition did not challenge a vote in the House last session.


Archibald Campbell: They did-on the Gamey matter. They challenged a vote on the white-wash and it was a big coat of white-wash too.
eminent doing to-day ? It is delaying the session to prevent business being done. They will not let business go on. They have here this coercion Bill, but they do not move an inch forward, but they put up these tricks to delay. One after another their supporters fire their guns and retire. Was it not a pathetic sight to see the burly form of the hon. member for Lisgar, after he had emptied the vials of bis wrath upon this side, retiring from the chamber while the sympathetic onlookers could almost hear the refrain of that beautiful and touching song ' Don't you go Tommy, Don't go.' They are delaying the business of the House. Let them give us this coercion Bill that we may get on with it, finish our business and go home. Let the people of London and North Oxford know what the government's policy is. Let them know whether this is a Bill, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) says it is, with little or nothing in it, or a Bill as the hon. member from Centre York (Mr. Campbell) says it is, so harmless that the system of separate schools will die out in a little time, or a Bill as some other hon. gentlemen on that side say it is, that will place on the statute-book and establish for all time the strongest system of separate schools ever known in the Dominion.
, Mr. BENNETT. True ; I had forgotten about the Gamey business. But I should thought that after the knock out that Mr. Gamey gave the Liberal government in Ontario we would never have heard his name from a Liberal again.
In conclusion, let me commiserate my hon. friend from Centre York on his dwindling and vanishing majority. His speech reminded me of that grand old hymn :
Hark ! From the tombs a doleful sound That bids my soul arise.


Mr. FINLAY.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) ought to be ashamed to mention his name.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not wonder that my hon. friend from East Peterborough (Mr. Finlay) is roused to some kind of protest when the name of Mr. Gahiey is mentioned. Why, the hon. gentleman's political godfather was Jimmy Stratton. And I am here to-night to acknowledge that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Finlay) has one good quality the quality^ of gratitude. He cannot but feel a sympathetic pang when he hears mentioned the name of the man who struck Jimmy Stratton in the vital parts, the man who placed Mr. James Stratton where he it, to-day-outside the pale of Ontario politics, outside the pale even of the Liberal party, for in that party to-day there are none so poor to do him reverence.
If the government bring in this Bill, we will be here to see what it contains. But so long as the people of Manitoba are almost unanimous in favour of the present government, this House should hesitate to say that a law passed at the instance of a government so firmly entrenched in the approval of the people of Manitoba is a bad law. We will wait and see what the government do. And we must be prepared to wait, for this government seems to be a | waiting government. For, what is the gov-Mr. BENNETT.
I know the hon. gentleman's deep feeling of sympathy for his old friends in Toronto Junction, who, by the prompt and stern action of Premier Whitney have been wiped out, their pool-room closed up and the hon. gentleman's band of tried and trusty followers scattered to the four winds of Heaven.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Commutation in lieu of remission of duties on articles imported for the use of the army and navy-further amount required, $500.
Mr. PATERSON.: The leader of the opposition asked for an explanation of this matter. There is a sum of $2,250 In the main estimates, that will be $500 short, and we are asking for this supplementary vote. He asked the reason for a vote of this kind, seeing that under the Tariff Act articles for the use of the anny and navy are free. That is true with reference to officers that belong to the mess, but there are a certain number of officers who do uot belong to tlie mess, and who purchase-their supplies from Halifax merchants, it may be, or import them ; but in either case they pay the duty. Tbis vote is to reimburse these officers who do not belong to the mess for the estimated amount of duties that they pay. The money is not paid

to the officers until there has been a certificate from the commanding officer that these officers do not belong to the mess but have purchased the goods which have paid the duty.


Robert Laird Borden: The reason for restricting the free importations to the mess, I suppose, is in order to keep some control ?


William Paterson: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: And doing it iby means of a refund is for the sake of the revenue ?


William Paterson: Well, these officers that do not belong to the mess have to buy their own supplies, and whether they buy them in Halifax, or in Victoria, for the Esquimalt portion of the garrison, or whether they import them from the old country, they have to pay duty. They are not allowed to get them in free, even if they import them themselves.
New Brunswick-Riehibucto public building- balance due contractor, &c., $1,600.


William Stevens Fielding: Last evening a statement was asked for as to the expenditure on this building. I gave the total amount but I did not have all the details which I now present in these tables :
Riehibucto, New Brunswick, Post Office, &c. Statement of expenditure to date-
Site, purchase price	$	808 50Site, legal services and survey	
107	00
$	915 50
Right of way for drain	 105	00
Construction of building.. 10,613 00 Heating apparatus and
boiler	
1,049	36Fittings (on account).. ..	1,300	00Safes (2)	
679	10Box fronts and grilles.. ..	594	25Grading and fencing	
259	00Clerk of works	
1,242	50Furniture	
214	70
15,951	91
Printing, advertising, travelling expenses, &c	 594	63
Total	 17,567 04
Still to be paid-
Balance fittings	 $ 700 00
Electric installation	
559	52Clerk of works	
112	50Legal services	re drain.. 96	10Furniture	
112	00

Schedule of Tenders for Post Office, &c., Riehibucto, New Brunswick.
Cheque.
A-James Reid, Sydney, N.S.$ 9,716 00 $1,000 00 B-John McDonald & Co.,
Chatham, N.B	
11,587 00	1,158 70C-Joseph Green, North Sydney, N.S	
11,900 00	1,190 00
D

Viau & Lachance, Hull,
P.Q	
13,996 00	1,400 00E-Dussault & Pageau, Quebec	
15,345 75	1,535 00


Mr. DANIEL.: Why is this chargeable to income instead of capital ?


William Stevens Fielding: Public buildings of this character are not charged to capital. Public buildings at Ottawa relating to the government are charged to capital, but other public buildings throughout the country are not.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is this the only public building for the whole province of New Brunswick ?
!Mr. FIELDING. This is not an estimate for the future, it is closing up the current year's accounts. Estimates are coming in that have to be dealt with separately.


Mr. AMES.: By the application of what principle does the hon. gentleman charge a building to income, and a dredge to capital ?


William Stevens Fielding: I suppose my hon. friend is referring to dredging the St. Lawrence. It has been the custom to charge certain dredging, especially a channel like the St. Lawrence to capital. It might be difficult to give a logical reason for charging that to capital and not to income ; but the Englishman's reason for these things is : That is always the way we have been accustomed to do it.
i


Herbert Brown Ames: Is the present government satisfied to accept precedents in all such matters without making any change ?


William Stevens Fielding: No : but there is something to be said in favour of this practice. Dredging the St. Lawrence is part of a great national undertaking, which should be distinct from an ordinary small building. At all events, that is the rule which we have adopted in the past. I have not had my attention drawn to the necessity for a change, but I do not think, at first blush, it follows that a change should be made.	.


Herbert Brown Ames: I am willing to admit that the result of the work of a dredge is properly chargeable to capital account ; I question whether the instrument or tool that performs the work can.be rightly so charged.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a very fine distinction.
Ottawa public buildings-telephone service, $4,600.


Mr. TAYLOR.: How much does the telephone service cost altogether ? This is in addition to what was granted in the main estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: The total amount required for telephones at Ottawa is $9,738.


George Taylor: What was the vote in the main estimates ?


William Stevens Fielding: $10,000 was the appropriation up to 31st December. Since that

time there have been some additional telephones put in.


George Taylor: $10,000 was the appropriation which was asked for in the main estimates last year. Surely the telephone service can be pretty nearly estimated ?


William Stevens Fielding: Well, it is increasing all the time. It is just that class of service that increases with increasing business ; $10,000 was the appropriation voted last year.
iMr. TAYLOR. It has overrun that by about 50 per cent. That is a very poor estimate, knowing what each instrument costs and knowing how many you require.


William Stevens Fielding: There is an explanation of it which we have to give regarding one or two other items, and it is a reason that is not entirely satisfactory to myself. It is that there has grown up in the department the practice of allowing some of the accounts of one year to run over into another year, with the result that they have had to take from this year's appropriation to meet the balance due from the previous year. I think the system is a bad one ; I think it should be changed as far as possible, and I am glad to see the hon. minister is asking for a sufficient amount to close up the accounts for the chrrent year. In that case $10,000 would be enough to pay the accounts for the current year, but if the accounts are passed over into the next year there is a difficulty in making the calculations.


George Taylor: In 1S96-97, when the government brought down their estimates, they found fault with the previous government for having pursued that practice, and in nearly every case they asked for money enough to wipe off old debts.


William Stevens Fielding: That is the right way.


George Taylor: They did that, and it was never going to happen again ; but now with nearly every item that comes up the money is required to pay overlapping accounts. '


William Stevens Fielding: I quite agree with my hon. friend that it is the better way to take a sufficient sum to close up the accounts for the current year rather than that they should be carried over. I would rather, as Minister of Finance, give a sufficient sum to close up the accounts for the year than have these accounts hanging over. That is what we are proposing to do in this case.


William Stevens Fielding: This is a similar case. There was as much as $28,000 paid out of this year's appropriation for accounts that bad accumulated. The vote proposed is intended to cover all the accounts for the current year, and we are asking for the coming year $140,000.
Mr. OSLE'R. Have you the amount expended on rented buildings ?


William Stevens Fielding: We are coming to an item in a few moments when I will give that information to the hon. gentleman.
Ottawa public buildings-heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, $18,000.


William Stevens Fielding: The appropriation in the main estimates was $87,000. With the additional amount we now propose it will -make it $105,000. The chief item in this is for coal supplied by the contractors, Messrs. John Heney & Son, Ottawa. We paid last year $6.90 per ton. The general amount consumed for some years was 6,000 tons, but last year it was necessary to order an additional 1,000 tons.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What kind of coal ?


William Stevens Fielding: Anthracite.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That does not include all the coal ?


William Stevens Fielding: This is for the Ottawa buildings.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is the coal that was burnt in this building included ?


William Stevens Fielding: All the furnace coal is hard coal, but for grate purposes some soft coal is used.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the rate at which that is purchased ?


William Stevens Fielding: For the grates they use Cannel coal, which is purchased at $8.45 per ton.
Ottawa public buildings-elevator attendants, $1,900.


William Stevens Fielding: This is asked to supplement a vote of $10,000 which was made by parliament last year to cover the cost of running the elevators in the public buildings, the parliament building, the east and west departmental buildings, the Langevin block and the Woods' building.
Ottawa public buildings-gas and electric light, $4,'250.
Ottawa public buildings-including repairs, ventilation and lighting, furniture, &c., $40,000.


William Stevens Fielding: There was an appropriation in the main estimates of $125,000. We are asking for $40,000, which will make it $165,000.


George Taylor: Why are you asking for this large sum ?


William Stevens Fielding: iMr. FIELDING. We had an appropriation in the main estimates of $24,000. This is another case of arrears. The appropriation will probably be sufficient for the year's service, but there were considerable arrears, and it is proposed to take a sufficient vote to cover them. The appropriation proposed for the coming year is $24,000. We are not increasing the amount. We are asking for

a sufficient appropriation to pay these arrears.
Ottawa public building3-grounds, $1,250.


George Taylor: Is this on account of the heavy snow ?


William Stevens Fielding: This $1,250 is to be obtained for the purpose of covering arrears accumulated during the past few years in keeping the grounds on Parliament Hill and the Lovers' Walk in proper condition. I think in consideration of the Lovers' Walk, it should be passed without objection.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: I notice that the hon. acting Minister of Public Works says that this is to cover arrears. I think when he tells us about these arrears, he should be able to tell us the amount of the arrears overlapping in each of these cases.


William Stevens Fielding: It is really the amount we are asking-about $1,250. Actually it is $1,249.70. Of course, that would be paid in the early part of the season out of the general vote, and in the latter part of the season they would be short just that amount to pay current expenses.


Uriah Wilson: That is not the way I understand the hon. minister is putting it.


William Stevens Fielding: Then in that ease I am afraid I have been misleading my hon. friend. At the beginning of the year, out of the appropriation the balance of last year's account will be paid, and at the end of the year we will be short just that amount.


Uriah Wilson: I want to know what these amounts were for V


William Stevens Fielding: $747 will be applied to the payment of gardeners' and labourers' wages. $445.74 is for plants, 'manure, &c., and $56.98 for sundries. Total, $1,249.70.
Ottawa public buildings-Major's Hill park, $1,500.


William Stevens Fielding: The details are as follows :	Manure and earth, $283.98 ; plants,
$171.41 ; sundries, $63'65; gardener's wages, &c., $871.7S.
Dominion public buildings-furniture, $5,000.


William Stevens Fielding: The number of these buildings is increasing and consequently this item increases.


George Taylor: The government are lavish in buying furniture both for Dominion buildings and Ottawa buildings.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think that any of the furniture in these apartments is too luxurious for the parliament of Canada or in any way extravagant.


George Taylor: I notice a large quantity of steel shelves going to the different departments.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a special vote for that. It is not covered by this vote.
Dominion public buildings-rents, $10,000.


William Stevens Fielding: This to provide the balance required to pay all rents up to the close of the current fiscal year.


George Taylor: Surely the government knew, when they brought in the main estimates, the rent they would have to pay and should not ask an additional $10,000.


William Stevens Fielding: This is on account of buildings acquired during the year in all parts of the country. At iSt. John, New Brunswick, the immigrant building was rented at $950. It was rented from the city council. In the Carry building oil Rideau street, two floors and a basement, were rented for the purposes of the Georgian Bay Canal survey. The rent is for nine months at the rate of $5,285 per annum. The term of rental is two years or a little less, so that it shall end the 1st May.


Mr. OSLER.: How many clerks are employed in the offices ?


William Stevens Fielding: My deputy thinks 20 to 25.


Edmund Boyd Osler: In Toronto you could rent office accommodation for 150 to 200 clerks for that rental. This is simply an outrage. If this building is rented for that purpose alone, you cannot spend that money without having some sort of a job.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think my hon. friend should rush to that assumption.


Edmund Boyd Osler: In Toronto or Montreal, to pay $5,000 for the purposes of an office connected with the survey would be simply an outrage.


George Taylor: I draw attention to the fact that this vote is for Dominion public buildings, and you are including in it an Ottawa public building for the Public Works department. The government are paying at the rate of about 25 per cent in money for rentals. Surely the government would do better to borrow at 3 or 4 per cent and put up the buildings we require and not rent from party friends at exorbitant rates. We are paying nearly $3,000 a year for improvements on a building down on Sparks street that was rented for the taking of the census and which it was supposed, would not be required after that work was done. It was continued on at $6,000 a year and the government spent $15,000 or $20,000 in putting in an elevator and refitting the whole place. Why should the government pay theSe exorbitant rentals ?


William Stevens Fielding: In coming to a conclusion as to the fairness of the rental one must take each individual case and investigate it. I quite agree that these rented buildings are not the most convenient and for my part I think we should accept the responsibility

6S20
of putting up a new departmental building and concentrating our offices tliere. But these things cannot be done in a day and for the present we have not been able to do it. 1 know that the Minister of Public Works has been giving his attention to this matter, but how far he has succeeded I am not prepared to say. I have not sufficient knowledge of the character of the building to contradict my bon. friend (Mr. Osier) but 1 cannot imagine that the department would pay a grossly extravagant price. I am afraid that nearly every one*thinks the government ought to pay more than a private individual pay a grossly extravagant price. I am afraid it applies to nearly all transactions unless we look very closely after them. If there is any reason to believe that there is anything wrong about the renting of this building I would be glad to have the matter inquired into.


Edmund Boyd Osler: This matter has been before the House for a good many sessions and each year the excuse is put forward that the matter is being looked into, and yet as the Minister of Finance says, they continue to pay extravagant rents.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say that.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I quite agree with the Minister of Finance that the government has to pay more than a private individual has to pay, and I entirely agree with his suggestion that the government should without any delay erect proper buildings of their own. If for the accommodation of twenty or twenty-five clerks engaged in the survey of that canal we are paying over $5,000 for that floor space, it is almost a criminal act to pay it. It is an outrageous price.


George Taylor: Where is this building ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is the tall building immediately across the canal on the right-hand side. I have just been told that the Hydrographic Survey of the Marine Department and the Ottawa River Works have offices in this building also. However, that would not enter into the consideration whether or not the rent is fair, and in view of what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) has said we ought to make some inquiry into it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: My criticism was based on the first statement that it was for the accommodation of the survey staff of the canal which would require twenty-five clerks. If there are more clerks it might be that the rent is reasonable.


William Stevens Fielding: I have just been told that there are other branches includqd. The question is as to whether that is a fair rent to pay for that amount of floor space, and in that light the number of clerks would not affect the question.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If you rent two floors for twenty or twenty-five clerks you may have twice the room you require.


William Stevens Fielding: 


William Stevens Fielding: That would concern the amount of space but not the rent.


George Taylor: How much are we paying for the rent of buildings in Ottawa altogether ? I cannot understand why this government will go to a party friend and tell him they will enter into a lease for a number of years if he will erect a building for them. I understand that was done in the case of the Militia building. Surely the government can get money cheaper than a private individual and erect its own buildings. In the same way, for the accommodation of the Surveyor General the government went to a political friend and asked him to put up a building promising to take a lease for so many years and paying an exorbitant rent equal to about 20 per cent on the capital invested. In 1896 the public officials were housed in buildings owned by the government, but every year you are paying higher rentals to accommodate a larger staff and doing very little more work. What rents were paid in 1896 and what rents are paid in Ottawa to-day ?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not the figures for 1896. The total rents paid in Ottawa now amount to $47,111. I myself favour the idea of the government owning its buildings, but while it might be an unfortunate tiling to rent buildings all over the city it would he more unfortunate for the government to own buildings all over the city. I think we should select a suitable place, possibly one or two suitable places, and put up sufficient buildings to accommodate our officials. The moment the government try to buy land anywhere they immediately find it is very expensive, and the probability is that nothing is lost by delay, because if we push a transaction of that kind we may have to pay an extravagant price. It is one thing to pay an extravagant rent, if it is extravagant, for a year or two and it is another thing to pay an extravagant price for land. The Minister of Public Works is giving the subject his attention with every desire to carry out the policy that the government should own its own buildings, which I think is best all round in the public interest. At no distant date an important move in that direction will perhaps be made, but in view of the difficulty of purchasing land at a moderate price hon. gentlemen should not urge that it should be done too quickly.


George Taylor: 
William Stevens Fielding: It is a new building with very little additional cost in that case.


George Taylor: How much has been spent in fitting it up for the use of the government for repairs and furniture and permanent works ?


William Stevens Fielding: The chief architect tells me in respect to that that there has been nothing on the building itself. There is the furniture and fittings but no alteration to the building.


Mr. MILLER.: In any of these cases does the rent of the building include the cost of heating ?


William Stevens Fielding: We take an appropriation for heating. In the ease of the Corry building the heat is supplied, but we do not in all cases have the heat furnished. I do not think my hon. friend is correct in saying that for that amount of money we would have twice the accommodation. For instance we have more accommodation in private buildngs than in a building like the Dangevin block. That cost $800,000 and is a very fine building. I am not arguing that the present method is economical or convenient, and I would favour having a very fine and good departmental building erected where these could be concentrated.


Mr. BLAIN.: What is the total cost of the Corry building ?


William Stevens Fielding: We have no knowledge of that.


Richard Blain: It occupies a very small portion of land and I am informed the building was constructed very cheaply.


William Stevens Fielding: I could not give the information at present.


Edmund Boyd Osler: In the item for buildings Ottawa, including repairs how much of that amount was included for repairs ou rented buildings ?


William Stevens Fielding: I am told it is not the practice to repair rented buildings. We have to put our own fittings into the buildings but not to repair them.


George Taylor: A session or two ago a considerable amount was spent on the Sey-bold building.


William Stevens Fielding: It was not for repairs but to be fitted up to suit the department.


Richard Blain: Did the minister read a list of the owners of the buildings that have been rented and the price ?


William Stevens Fielding: I began to read a list of the buildings but not of the owners. In some places the buildings bear the owner's name, for instance, the Corry building
and the Orme building, which I understand is owned toy Mr. Orme. In most cases the owners are not given. We rent from the Slater estate five rooms for $550, in the Orme building two rooms at $250, from the Great North Western Telegraph Company, five rooms at $500 per annum. These are all the Ottawa buildings.


George Taylor: That are included in this vote ?


William Stevens Fielding: These are the new buildings, the supplementaries that are in consequence of new buildings.


Mr. MORIN.: The minister said that it was no use to be in a great hurry to erect buildings in Ottawa. That is a fact, but the cost will not be growing any less next year or in two years. It has always been the case that property owners are glad to sell to the government at a high price and if you have to pay a high price it is as well to pay it this year as next. The buildings now are very much crowded, in the printing office especially you will find in a room fit for four men, six, seven or eight, and in the departmental blocks and the House of Commons every room seems to be much crowded. It is no use trying to be so stingy about it, you may as well go and put up a building if it costs a couple of millions to do it, and then the men who work in the buildings will have some comfort. They are all crowded and many of them cannot work ; they have so many machines there that they cannot hear themselves talking and cannot turn around and it is disagreeable in every way. You might as well do it first as last.


Richard Blain: What is the rental of the building on Metcalfe street occupied by the Survey Department ?


William Stevens Fielding: 


Richard Blain: Is there a lease ?


William Stevens Fielding: It was leased ab'out four years ago for ten years.


George Taylor: It was leased before it was built. It was run up in a hurry at a cost of not more than $15,000. I am satisfied I could build it in our town for less and the government are paying $3,000 a year.
Dominion public buildings-fuel, &c., $13,000.


George Taylor: Does that include Ottawa the same as others ?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Is it bought by tender ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, the coal is purchased by tender.
Dominion public buildings-salaries, engineers, firemen, caretakers, &e., $19,500.


George Taylor: The minister will explain this surely.


William Stevens Fielding: This applies to buildings throughout the Dominion. The provision in the main estimates was $110,000. This will make our total appropriation $129,000, and we are asking $127,000 for the coming year. The number of the employees necessarily increases as we go on. The number of buildings increased from 195 to 210.


George Taylor: That would be 15 additional buildings, and it costs $19,000 for the salaries of the engineers, firemen and caretakers, of these fifteen extra buildings. Has there been an overlapping of the account from last year ?


William Stevens Fielding: This item is made up of the following : New appointments unprovided for last session, $8,584 ; increases in salaries, $2,878 ; temporary cleaners, jobbers, Ac., $7,873 ; total, $19,385.


Mr. A. C. MACDONELL.: Who supplies the fuel for the Toronto public buildings ?


William Stevens Fielding: The hard coal for last winter was supplied by the Milnes Co., of Toronto. I am not sure who supplied the soft coal.
Ottawa public buildings, including Rideau Hail-removal of snow, $-2,500.


Uriah Wilson: Will the hon. minister please tell us what Rideau Hall cost us this year ?


William Stevens Fielding: This does not apply to Rideau Hall only, but to the removal of snow from about the public buildings in Ottawa generally.


Uriah Wilson: But we should have it divided so that we should know what Rideau Hall costs. I have a distinct recollection of criticisms that were made by hon. gentlemen opposite of expenditures on Rideau Hall when we were in power.


William Stevens Fielding: But, cannot my hon. friend (Mr. U. Wilson) forget some things ? I cannot give the expenditure for Rideau Hall separately.


Uriah Wilson: But we should be allowed to know what Rideau Hall costs.


William Stevens Fielding: As respects the removal of snow ?


Uriah Wilson: As respects the whole thing.


George Taylor: That will come up on the next vote.


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot divide the expenditure under this item in relation to the different buildings. But I will promise my hon. friend (Mr. U. Wilson) that, if it is available in the department, I will give him the statement at another time.
Rideau Hall, including grounds-renewals, improvements, furniture and maintenance, additional amount, $8,000.


George Taylor: 


Uriah Wilson: Under this item, perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) can tell us the cost of Rideau Hall ?


William Stevens Fielding: The appropriation for the current year was $22,000. For next year we are asking $25,000. Then there is this additional appropriation for the current year of $8,000. The appropriation became exhausted in March last and there are works of renewal, repairs and maintenance to about the amount of this estimate.


George Taylor: That means a total of $30,000 this year ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. The expenditure for 1904 was $17,000, for 1903, $21,700, for 1902, $24,350.


Uriah Wilson: The Auditor General lias here an item showing that Rideau Hall cost $25,050.38 besides $8,000 for fuel and light.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps the Auditor General groups a number of items together.


Uriah Wilson: The items as given by the Auditor General for Rideau Hall are : Maintenance, $17,017 : repairs and improvements, $5,093.43 ; removal of snow. $1,230.34 :	charged to 1904-5, $1.-
710.51; total, $25,056.38 Besides that, the Earl of Minto was allowed for fuel and light for twelve months $8,000. And the estimate for this year is about $44,000 as I have it.


William Stevens Fielding: No doubt the Auditor General's figures are correct for the grouping of items that he gives. But we confine ourselves to this one item, so that the figures I give are correct in relation to this.


Uriah Wilson: But the minister has not given me the cost of maintaining Rideau Hall for the year ending June 30 next.


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot give the hon. gentleman the figures prepared in that way. But I can give it at another stage if he desires it.


Uriah Wilson: Will the hon. gentleman do it ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, I will do it as well as I can.


Uriah Wilson: In the main estimates there is a vote of $22,000. Then there is the removal of snow for Ottawa public buildings, including Rideau Hall, $2,500. Then there is this supplementary vote : Rideau Hall, including grounds, renewals, improvements, furniture and maintenance, additional amount, $8,000.' I think there ought to be some explanation as to why this increased expenditure is necessary.


William Stevens Fielding: As some of these items are not confined to Rideau Hall, but Include ' others, it would be necessary to separate

them, and I will endeavour to do that at a later stage. The Auditor General groups a number of things together, and we will endeavour to do the same.


Uriah Wilson: I would like to have some particular day fixed, because I would like to be here.


William Stevens Fielding: I want to make this suggestion generally, that as respects all these supplementary estimates, I would be glad if hon. gentlemen would, with as little discussion as may be necessary, assist to pass them, because until we can get a Supply Bill there is a little embarrassment. But there will be ample opportunity of discussing every question that hon. gentlemen may wish to discuss. There will be another item in the supplementaries for the coming year in regard to Rideau Hall.
Ottawa departmental buildings-additional fittings for treasury vault, $3,000.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Are these vaults up-to-date and modern ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think our vaults generally are up-to-date. We have, so far as I can learn, everything that is possible in the way of security.
Some resolutions reported.


ASCENSION DAY ADJOURNMENT.
William Stevens Fielding: At an earlier stage I called attention to the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister to the effect that when the House adjourns on Wednesday it shall stand adjourned until Friday, and being informed by some hon. gentlemen that there was a desire not to meet on Friday, I agreed to hold the matter over long enough to afford an opportunity for consultation. I have since been advised that a consultation has taken place, and that on both sides of the House there is a feeling that as Thursday is a holiday, and as Friday is not usually a very busy day, we should not ask the members to come back on Friday, but to adjourn until Monday. On the information that that is agreeable to both sides of the House, I will now amend the Prime Minister's motion to make it read that when the House adjourns on Wednesday, the 31st instant, it stand adjourned until Monday, the 5th of June next.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. TAYLOR, What will be taken up tomorrow, and what will be done with regard to the subject mentioned by the leader of the opposition ?
William Stevens Fielding: We will continue the estimate?. After the inquiry to-day I sent a note to the Prime Minister, who replied, 217
and I sent his reply to the leader of the opposition, that he will be in the House tomorrow and will confer with the leader of the opposition about it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 31, 1905.