1908-05-06

[Stage Direction]
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) moved for leave to introduce Mr. ALCORN.
Bill (No. 162) to amend the Post Office Act. He said : The first object of this Bill is to give a one cent drop letter to cities and towns where the free delivery system exists. The second amendment refers to the appointment of a post office superintendent. According to the Act as it now stands, he must have been ten years in the service ; I also wish to amend the Act and provide for the appointment of a financial superintendent who will supervise the books in all branches of the postal service. The work of auditing and inspecting post offices all over the Dominion was given to the inspectors, but it is found, particularly in the Northwest and in sparsely settled districts of the country, that the work of the inspectors is already too large to allow them to audit thoroughly the books in each post office, especially in the large cities. I have decided to appoint a financial superintendent whose duties will be similar to those of the post office superintendent. He will have the supervision and the auditing of the books from one end of the Dominion to the other. I will give further explanations on the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. HENDERSON.: When the hon. gentleman is fixing the rate on drop letters in cities at one cent, is it his intention under this Bill also to provide for a half cent rate on drop letters in towns, villages and rural districts ?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: When the time comes to discuss this Bill more fully, I will explain to the hon. gentleman that this rate of one cent in cities where the free delivery system exists will help me to give more postal facilities to the rural sections of the country. At present the large cities of the Dominion are paying for the service in the rural portions. We are only giving the cities what already exists in other places where no letter carrier system exists. The one cent rate exists in other portions of the country, provided the letters are not sent outside the locality served by the post office.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: When was the one cent rate changed ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The one cent drop letter rate was adopted in 1875, under the Mackenzie government, and it was abolished I think in 1889.


Mr. LENNOX.: Does this provision for a one cent drop letter apply only to cities, or to ail places where there are drop letters at present ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The one cent drop letter will apply only to those places where the letter carrier system exists.


Haughton Lennox: We have in the town of Barrie a delivery system in what is called the old part of the town. A portion of the present town of Barrie was called at one

time Allandale, and there is a post office there. It is now all one town, and I understand that if a letter is dropped somewhere midway between Barrie and Allandale, and It happens to be carried into Barrie, though it is directed to Allandale, then the drop letter rate won't apply, it will have to be paid for the same as if sent outside the town. I think that is hardly fair. Where the whole district is practically one town within a radius of a mile, there should be only one rate.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there a free delivery system ?


Haughton Lennox: There is in the old part of the town, and Allandale is in the same town.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then the one cent rate will apply.


Haughton Lennox: At present there is no delivery in the Allandale portion of the town of Barrie, what we call the sixth ward, because when the delivery was established in Barrie. Allandale was not then a portion of the town. The population of Barrie is about 7,000.


Mr. BEROERON.: Do I understand the hon. minister to say that the one cent system was abolished in 1879 ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not very positive as to the date.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I think it was abolished when the new two cent rate came into operation, by Sir William Mulock in 1897. I -think the one cent rate was abolished at the same time that the two cent rate was adopted for all letters.


Mr. PORTER.: In preparing this Bill has the minister taken into consideration the condition that exists in the post office at Belleville, to which I have called his attention several times ? Within the corporation limits of Bellevile there are two post offices, the principal post office for the central and business portion of the town, and another post office situated near the Grand Trunk Railway. We have not free postal delivery there. Generally, persons depositing letters in the town office for delivery to persons residing near the station post office, put on a one cent stamp, thinking that is the proper postage. A great many advertisements, circulars and things of that sort are dropped in the main office at Belleville for delivery to people near the station.
When the people go to the station post office for their mail they are met with a demand for the payment of two cents postage on a letter posted at the down town office. They pay the two cents postage, the letter being sealed, they know nothing as to what its contents may be, and then they find that it is an advertisement for dry goods or a show, or something that is of
no interest to them. It has been considered a hardship that that should exist. I have taken occasion to call the minister's attention to the fact that the delivery of letters at the station post office does not incur any materially greater expense than does the delivery at the central post office. Mails are carried from the central office to the Grand Trunk station for distribution by the railway company and in passing to the railway and back to the post office they pass the other post office door and they could collect the mail there as well. No great expense would be incurred, a great saving to the people would be effected and it seems to me, if the minister has not considered this matter, it should be considered now that an amendment is being made to the Act and that situation should be relieved. I will ask him to give it his careful consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. A. LAYERGNE asked :: Does the government purpose proclaiming one or more legal holidays during the coming celebration of the tercentenary?


Rt.   H@: The government does not think that it would be advisable to make one or more legal holidays during the coming celebration of the Tercentenary. We think it would be inconvenient to many people outside the city of Quebec, especially those who are at the celebration, but, if it is thought advisable for the city of Quebec to have a legal holiday this can be done by proclamation by the mayor.


QUEBEC TERCENTENARY-DESIGNS FOR POSTAGE STAMPS.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE asked :: 1.	Has the Postmaster General asked for tenders for the designs of the issue of the postage stamps for the third Centenary?
2.	If so, from whom were they asked, and which was accepted?
3.	If there were no tenders, has the Postmaster General conferred with certain artists on this subject? If so, with whom?
i.	What price was asked by the artist or artists, and for how many designs?
5. Was this price accepted? If not, why not?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1.	and 2. No.
3. 4 and 5. The department has had no official communication with any artist on this subject.


QUEBEC TERCENTENARY-FRENCH AND ENGLISH ON SOUVENIR POSTAGE STAMPS.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE asked :: Has the Postmaster General reached a decision concerning the use of French and English on the souvenir postage stamps to be issued at the third Centenary?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The matter is still under consideration.


MR. FRITZ CIRIvEL, M.E.
Mr. GANONG asked :: 1.	What remuneration was paid to Fritz Cirkel, M.E., for preparing the report issued by the Geological Department on the graphite properties in Canada?
2.	How many copies have been printed?
3.	Is Fritz Cirkel, M.E., at present in the employ of the government? If so, at what salary?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Mines).: Some of these questions were answered on March 16.
1.	The report on Graphite was made to the Mines Branch of the Department of Mines; contract price for the Monograph complete with drawings and photographs, $1,300.
2.	3,000.
3.	Mr. Cirkel is at present engaged in writing a monograph on chrome iron ore deposits of the eastern townships at a salary of $250 per month.


WHARF AT WELCHPOOL, NEW BRUNSWICK.
Mr. GANONG asked:: 1.	Has any estimate been made by the government engineer as to the cost of a public wharf at Welchpool, Charlotte county, New Brunswick? If so, what is the estimated cost of same?
2.	Has the location been purchased by the government? If so, from whom and at what price?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to include an amount in the supplementary estimates to build this wharf?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	(a) Yes.
(b) $10,500.
2.	No.
3.	Matter under consideration.


HON. ADELARD TURGEON.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE asked :: 1. Is it true that the government intends to appoint to the next vacancy in the Senate the Hon. Adelard Turgeon, Minister of Crown Lands in the Quebec Cabinet?
2.	If so, is the government aware that Mr. Turgeon is accusfed of graft in the administra-Mr. LEMIEUX.
tion of his department, an accusation of which he. has not yet been exonerated?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister):: 1.	The government does not intend to appoint Mr. Turgeon or anybody to the next vacancy that may occur in the Senate. It is time to consider this question when vacancies arise.
2.	I think this question is out of order and should not be put, but, on the other hand, I beg to say that the government has no such information.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-USE OF THE FRENCH LANGUAGE.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE asked :: 1.	Is the Minister of Railways and Canals informed that the notices for the arrival and delay of trains posted at the stations of the Intel-colonial Railway, in the province of Quebec, more particularly at Levis, are solely iu English, contrary to the provisions of the Railway Act?
2.	Is the minister aware that a great number of employees of the Intercolonial! Railway in the province of Quebec cannot speak French.
3.	Is the minister aware that the French language is not- employed concurrently with the English on the Intercolonial Railway in the province of Quebec?
i.	What means does the minister propose to take to put an end to this injustice?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The department has not been so Informed.
2.	The department is not so aware.
3.	The only railroad that prints Its tickets and time cards in both languages, Is the Intercolonial Railway.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-NATIONALITY OF CONTRACTORS.
Mr. WILMOT asked :: 1.	What is the nationality of Messrs. Foley, Welsh & Stewart, contractors on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway construction?
2.	Does the government know that it is asserted that Canadian citizens competing for contracts under this firm are discriminated against in favour of foreigners?
3.	Is duty collected on railway construction plant coming from the United States into Canada?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railway and Canals) :: 1.	The department has no information.
2.	No.
3.	The Customs Department states that duty is collected on all such importations.


THE STEAMER ' LADY EVELYN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARMSTRONG-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1. What date did the steamer ' Lady Evelyn' leave Rimouski for winter quarters in Sydney?

2.	What date did the steamer ' Lady Evelyn' return to Rimouski this year?
3.	What use is made of the steamer 'Lady Evelyn' at Sydney during the winter months?
4.	Has the Post Office Department a service with the island of Anticosti? If so, what is the nature of the servioe, the number of trips made by steamer, the estimated cost of service per annum, and the population on the island?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.	and 3. The ' Lady Evelyn ' did not winter at Sydney but at Quebec.
2.	The steamer left Quebec for Rimouski on the 30th April last, and after landing the mails at that point on the incoming and outgoing mail steamers this week, leaves for Sydney to perform a like service at Sydney, in accordance with the terms of the transatlantic mail service contract.
4.	Yes, between Quebec and Anticosti. The contract is with Messrs. Holliday Brothers-a distance of 410 miles-three trips per month, cost $1,050 per season. The population of Anticosti is estimated at 442.


WHARF AT CHASE'S POINT, NEW BRUNSWICK.
Mr. WILMOT asked :: 1. Has the Minister of Public Works received a petition from the inhabitants of Chase's Point, on the St. John river, New Brunswick, asking for aid in the construction of a public wharf at that point? If so, how many names are on said petition?
_ 2. Did said petition contain a clause pledging the petitioners in the case the prayer of the same were granted, to support the Liberal candidate in the next federal election?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) Forty-three.
2.	No.


SUPPLIES FOR STEAMER 'PETREL.'
Mr.   T.@: CHISHOLM-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	What persons furnished supplies to the steamer 'Petrel' between March 31, 1907 and April 30, 1908?
2.	What was the amount paid to each such person, and what was the date of each pay ment?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: I would suggest that my hon. friend make a motion immediately for a return and then the papers can be brought down. The answer to this question is very lengthy.


Sir. BLAIN.: Will it stand as an Immediate notice of motion ?


Mr. SPEAKER.: It will stand as a notice of motion for a return.


Richard Blain: I move for a return showing :
1.	What persons furnished supplies to the steamer 'Petrel' between March 31, 1907 and April 30, 1908?
2.	What was the amount paid to each such person, and what was the date of each payment?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: By leave of the House this motion is made. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion ?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called :
Robert Laird Borden: May I inquire of the lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), as I have inquired on two or three previous occasions when he happened to be out of the HouS'e, whether or not the resignation of the deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries has been accepted or whether any action has been taken in regard to it ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The deputy minister has not tendered his resignation but has asked for. leave of absence and for superannuation. His request in regard to leave of absence has been granted and the other request is engaging the attention of the government.


ALLEGED PADDING OF PAY LISTS AT SOREL.
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I would like also to ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he has forgotten to bring down that report of Mr. Gandet, of Sorel. He promised the other day that he would bring it down.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I received the report two days ago and I will bring it down. I have not received the evidence yet, but I will bring it down as soon as I receive it.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-MR.
Mr. BENNETT.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, if, on the 11th March, he was correctly reported in 'Hansard' as having said that Mr. Roy, who was employed at Sorel, had been padding the pay-lists and that the amount involved was considerable. I would further like to ask the minister if he does not consider that as a case where there has been, on the part of an employee of the department, a lack of conscience sufficient to place all the details before Mr. Watson commissioned by the government to inquire into matters appertaining to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and does not the minister think that in addition to other matters placed before Mr. Justice Cassels this matter should be entrusted to Mr. Watson to be speedily inquired into by Mr. Justice Cassels ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understand my hon. friend refers to the investigation which has taken place ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Not to the investigation but to the circumstances of the case.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is no objection to that. I shall put ail the papers before Mr. Watson. The question has been inquired into, by Mr. Gaudet and I shall bring down the report.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am to understand that this case will be investigated by Mr. Justice Cassels ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know ; it( would be for the judge himself to decide whether it would be investigated or not. The papers will be brought before Mr. Watson.


DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Aylesworth for the second reading of Bill (No. 115) to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Mr. DAVID W. BOLE (Winnipeg).: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to attempt to controvert the speech delivered by the hon. member for Prince Edward county (Mr. Alcorn) last night. I sat attentively for two and a quarter hours, listening to the speech of the hon, gentleman, and I must state, without any intention of offence, that the speech did not contain very much that can be answered.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


David Wesley Bole: I find in ' Hansard ' this morning that 40 pages are occupied by the hon. gentleman, 35 of these pages being quotations from the Election Acts of the Dominion, of Ontario, of Manitoba and of British Columbia and letters which have appeared and which a good many of us have read in the public press. But I think I am voicing the sentiments of a good many members when I state that the substance of the hon. gentleman's speech is contained in the last paragraph in which he says :
Under these circumstances and subject to what the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) may say, but voicing I believe the sentiment of every hon. gentleman on this side of the House, I will observe that if these sections to which I have directed attention, sections 1, 13, 17 and 28, be maintained, the opposition will exhaust their constitutional rights in opposing this Bill before this House.
I have no doubt that an hon. gentleman is within his constitutional rights in spreading 35 pages of extracts upon * Hansard,' but if you allow me to suggest I cannot see that it adds much to the dignity or the value of the debate.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether it is not necessary to Mr. BENNETT
consider those Acts of British Columbia and Manitoba ?


Mr. FOSTER.: Not for him.


David Wesley Bole: It may be, but all these Acts are in the statutes and can be hunted up and read without spreading them on 35 pages of ' Hansard.' Neither will I attempt to discuss the thin-red-line scandal which has been paraded not only before this House but up and down the country and spread on the newspapers of the country for the last four years. I think I am right when I state that the thin-red-line campaign has complet-ly collapsed in this debate. It does appear to me to be very strange indeed that gentlemen occupying very important positions in connection with the Conservative party, after making such a campaign on this thin-red-line, should have utterly abandoned it in the speeches which were delivered by the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and the hon. member for Prince Edward county (Mr. Alcorn).
Neither will I make any serious attempt to show the necessity of clause 1 of the Bill, which is now before the House for consideration. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) performed tnat duty so successfully, so exhaustively and so completely, that it does appear to me that there is nothing left for either side of the House to state with respect to that clause. There is, however, one feature of the Bill which has not been brought to the attention of the House by the Minister of Justice, perhaps because he does not feel in respect to that feature as I do, and perhaps because I stand alone ; but my feeling has always been that in a growing country like the province of Manitoba there should be only one revision of the voters' lists and that immediately preceding an election. We have in the province of Manitoba and other western provinces a great many people coming from the province of Ontario, the maritime provinces and the province of Quebec, who are good citizens of the Dominion of Canada and who have a perfect right, in my judgment, to reflect their opinion on political matters when an election comes around. I think also that the one year provision with respect to residents should sufficiently qualify an Englishman, a British subject coming from England, to become an elector in the province of Manitoba. The naturalization laws are sufficient, I think, to protect the native-born people and the Canadian citizens from undue influence from alien quarters.
Another objection that we feel in the province of Manitoba with respect to these annual personal revisions of the lists and registration, is the tremendous expense involved. It is simply impossible for either party to secure a completed list in the province of British Columbia or Manitoba without of a very large annual expenditure, and l have thought that when all purposes will

be properly served by a revision immediately before an election, this will be the best course.
The Minister of Justice stated yesterday that the province of Manitoba anticipated an election by certain legislation in 1906. He did not put it in that way but that is the meaning I got from it. It is not the only occasion on which the legislature of the province of Manitoba anticipated a Dominion election by legislation. Mr. Hugh John Macdonald, during the short period of his premiership of the province of Manitoba, I think in 1900, passed a Franchise Act in many respects containing a good deal of merit. It provided, among other things, an educational qualification. No man was allowed to vote under that Act unless he was able to read or write in one of five languages, English, French, German, Scandinavian, or Icelandic. Under that condition and under that clause of the Act, no matter how well a Galician was educated in his own language, it was impossible for him to vote. The result was that a Galician, no matter how well educated he was in his own language, was not able to qualify himself for the franchise unless he was able to establish that right in one of these five languages.


Mr. GREENWAY.: Unless he has been seven years in the country.


David Wesley Bole: Yes, unless he has been seven years in the country.


Mr. WARD.: Is that law in force now?


David Wesley Bole: No. In the Dominion Franchise Act, I understand, there is a provision that in the event of any legislature discriminating against any class, that class can vote under oath. It was the intention of the Liberal party-and I am one of the guilty parties-to vote the Galicians under that provision, but the legislature of the province of Manitoba, anticipating that Act, struck out the educational clause of the Hugh John Macdonald Election Act. But when they came to make provision for the registration of the Galicians, who were scattered here and there over the province in groups, they placed the registration booths at such a great distance from the Galician colonies, and kept them open so short a time, that these people were practically disfranchised.
Now, the hon. leader of the opposition in his speech yesterday made some statements which I am going to quote. On page 8119 of ' Hansard ' I find the following :
I would like to remark once more that no unfairness in making the lists for any province has been brought to the attention of the House except in the statement of the Minister of Justice based upon a hypothesis which he has not been able to prove. It has been stated to me that the Prime Minister of Manitoba has challenged, both inside and outside the legislature, his political opponents or any
person within the province to bring to his attention the case of any man who has been unfairly deprived of his franchise in that province.
On page 8121 I find the following from the same hon. gentleman :
I would like my hon. friends opposite to give some names, any instance in Manitoba or in British Columbia which would justify the interposition of this parliament.
On jiage 8123 I find the following :
Show me, in the first place, the wrong that has taken place under that Manitoba Act.
And then on page 8150, in the speech of the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn), I find the following :
And Hon. Robert Rogers, also a member of the Manitoba government has issued a challenge which has never been taken up, that, if in one authentic case it could be shown that even one man had lost the franchise through the wanton or wilful act of an officer of the government, every seat in the province would be allowed to go by acclamation to the Reform candidate in the next election.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it becomes my very unpleasant duty to lay before the House some evidence with respect to these things. The hon. gentlemen have issued a challenge and I am going to accept and respond to that challenge. I do so only with respect to my own constituency. I would very much prefer that some other member would perform this unpleasant duty, but as the incident which I am about to relate occurred in my own constituency, and the evidence respecting the same was submitted to me, it becomes my duty to present that evidence to the House, to show, not only that one man has been deprived of his right to vote under the Act of the province of Manitoba, but that no less than 450 good citizens in one provincial constituency, namely, about one-fortieth of the province, have had their votes nullified by 450 names being placed upon the voters' list by means of fraud, forgery, perjury and impersonation. I will now read some affidavits which have been made by people who are personally interested.


Mr. STAPLES.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman for Winnipeg the date of the affidavits which he is about to read.


David Wesley Bole: The date will be embraced in the affidavits themselves.
Province of Manitoba, to wit:
I, Theodore Rudneski, agent, make oath and say, as follows:
1.	I am personally, intimately acquainted with W. H. Hastings, the organizer in the province of Manitoba for the Conservative party, and I have been acquainted with the said Hastings for upwards of two years.
2.	About the middle of the month of January 1907, I pointed out to the said Hastings that a large number of foreigners, partiou-larlv of the class usually known as Galicians,

were residing in various parts of the city of Winnipeg who were at that time entitled to take out naturalization papers in Canada, but who had not at that time done so and who were otherwise qualified to become electors in the elections then in contemplation in the province of Manitoba.
3.	Shortly after the middle of January, 1907, the said W. H. Hastings, in my presence, made arrangements with a committee of six composed of Joseph Makarski, Thomas Snezek, Frank Szablewski, George Czornij, Michael Humilowicz, Thomas Jestremski, to proceed at once to make up a list of Conservative Galicians eligible for naturalization.
4.	The said W. H. Hastings further arranged with me to personally superintend the work of the committee referred to in the preceding paragraph.
5.	Prior to the third day of February, 1907, the committee aforesaid and other friends of the Conservative party made up a list of some 450, more or less, Galicians, Polanders, Germans, and other foreigners said to be at that time eligible for naturalization.
6.	Prior to the said third day of February, 1907, the signatures of a few of the men on the list of 450 as aforesaid, were obtained by different parties to blank oaths of residence and oaths of allegiance on the forms in common use in connection with the naturalization of aliens, but the greater number on the list aforesaid had, prior to the third day of February, 1907, signed no papers whatever or taken no oaths or affidavit whatever with a view of complying with the requirements of the Naturalization Act.
7.	On Sunday the third day of February, A.D. 1907, I, this deponent, and Thomas Snezek, Frank Szablewski, Thomas Jestremski, Billey Cichocki. Yladmir Rudko and Julian Nowacki went, at the request of the said W. H. Hastings, in the Maw block on Market square, in the city of Winnipeg, and set to work about two o'clock in the afternoon to prepare the naturalization papers for the parties on the list of 450, thereabouts, above referred to.
8.	I, this deponent, and the other parties referred to in paragraph 7 hereof, continued the work of preparing the said naturalization papers on about 2 o'clock on Sunday the 3rd day of February, 1907, until about 3 o'clock in the morning of the 4th day of February, 1907, having taken a short intermission for supper about 6 o'clock on Sunday evening.
9.	I was personally present at the time and place aforesaid and I saw the said Thomas Jestremski sign as commissioner, the various naturalization papers aforesaid and certify that the contents of the said papers were sworn to or affirmed by the respective parties mentioned therein, without any of such parties swearing or affirming or being present on the occasion in question.
10.	The parties referred to in paragraph 7 hereof, in my presence wrote on such of the oaths of allegiance and oaths of residence as had not already been signed by the applicants for naturalization, the name of such applicants for naturalization in the absence of such applicants and without any authority whatsoever for the doing.
11.	In the case of a number of naturalization papers previously filled in by some par-


David Wesley Bole: ties and signed by the applicant for naturalization, the papers had been improperly filled in and a number of the parties referred to paragraph 7 hereof, in my presence did destroy the napers so signed by applicants for naturalization and made out new ones in lieu thereof and signed the names of the applicants^ for naturalization to the oaths therein contained, and the said last-mentioned papers were then completed by the said Thomas Jestremski in the same manner as is set out in naragraph 9 hereof.
12.	The only commissioner present at the time and place referred to in paragraph 7 hereof, was Thomas Jestremski, and it was necessary in order to complete the naturalization papers for the 450 applicants, more or less, above referred to, for the said Thomas Jestremski to sign his name some twelve or fifteen hundred times, more or less, and the said Thomas Jestremski complained from time to time towards the latter part of the session in question of fatigue and complained that he was too tired of writing to complete all the papers. To overcome this the said Jestremski told others of the parties referred to in paragraph 7 hereof, to sign the names of the said Jestremski to a number of the papers which were being made out as aforesaid, and the same were signed accordingly.
13.	I am personally acquainted with Mr. Irving, an employee in the Department of the Attorney General for the province of Manitoba.
14.	The naturalization papers for the 450 men, more or less, bad, prior to the third day of February, 1907, on several occasions been the subject of conversation between Irving and me, this deponent. On the occasion of the conversations aforesaid between myself and the said Irving the said Irving had particularly impressed upon me the necessity of dating the said naturalization papers back to a date early in January, 1907, giving as his reason therefor, that the said papers were required by law to be ou file in the county court of Winnipeg for at least three weeks prior to the fourth day of February, 1907, in order that the certificate of naturalization might on the last-mentioned date he issued to the said parties respectively, but stated that if the papers were regular on the face of them he could get them through in a few days without any notice.
15.	On the occasion of my conversation with the said Irving the said Irving repeatedly told me that if the said naturalization papers were dated as aforesaid, he, the said Irving, was able to get the said papers through the county court of Winnipeg on four days notice.
16.	Instructions were, to- my personal knowledge, given to the effect that the 450 sets of naturalization papers above referred to should be delivered on the morning of Monday, February 4, to Mr. Irving of the Attorney General's Department in order that the said Irving might get the certificates of naturalization for the said parties through the county court of Winnipeg on the said February 4, 1907.
17.	I personally counted the sets of naturalization papers so delivered to the said Irving and the same numbered 450, more or less, and

were delivered along with 125, more or less, other sets of naturalization papers to the said Irving as I am informed and verily believe, on the said February 4, 1907.
18.	Between February 4, 1907, and the 12th day of the same month the certificates of naturalization for the 450 men, more or less, above referred to, were delivered to me personally by the said Irving at the office of the Conservative club in the Maw block aforesaid, and I am personally aware that a greater number of the said 450 were subsequently registered as electors on the lists of the electors compiled in the various constituencies in the city of Winnipeg.
Sworn before me at the city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba, March 21, in the year of our Lord, 1907.
(Signed) E. T. HTTGGAKD,
A commissioner, &c., &c., in B.E.
(Signed) THEODORE RUDNESKI.
Province of Manitoba, to wit:
L. Joseph Szymanski of 177 Syndicate street of Winnipeg, carpenter, make oath and say as follows:
On the 30th and 31st days of January and the 1st and 2nd days of February, 1907, I was working for Joseph Makarski and T. Jes-tremski securing the names of parties who were not already naturalized. I was told by these men to simply get. their names. I was to bring them to the Conservative club rooms in the Maw block in the city of Winnipeg. I secured 80 names and handed the same over to Tlieo. Rudneski in the said club rooms. I simply took the names and addresses on a sheet of paper.
Mr. Rudneski then informed me that in a few days he would give me the certificates of naturalization, and on Friday the 8th day of February, 1907, the said certificates of naturalization for the parties whose names I had handed in were handed to me by Mr. Rudneski.
I had these naturalization certificates with me on the days of registration, and after the parties had registered I handed them their certificates of naturalization.
I remember on the 7th day of March, the election day, and on the Sunday prior to the 7th day of March there were delivered to me at my house by Jos. Makarki and Theo. Jes-tremski three kegs of beer in a sleigh, and when they gave the same to me they told me to give this beer to parties who would vote for Mitchell. On Wednesday, March 6th, the same parties brought two more kegs of beer and told me to treat the parties who were voting for Mitchell.
I leave a clause out of this affidavit referring to the distribution which is not relevant to the case.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: If the hon. gentleman does not read the whole thing, that part which is not ready cannot go upon ' Hansard ' without the consent of the House.


David Wesley Bole: Then I will read the rest of it :-
I remember on the 7th day of March, the election day, and on Sunday prior to the 7th dav of March there were delivered to me at my house by Jos. Makarski and Theo. Jestremski three kegs of beer in a sleigh, and when they gave the same to me they told me to give this beer to parties who would vote for Mitchell.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who was Mitchell?


David Wesley Bole: He was the Conservative candidate in the north constituency in the city of Winnipeg.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Was he elected?


David Wesley Bole: He was elected by 400 majority.
On Wednesday, March 6, the same parties brought two more kegs of beer and tol me to treat the parties who wrere voting for Mitchell.
Before the election I saw an express rig deliver three kegs of beer at 180 St. Stephen street at the house of Joseph Makarski and and six kegs of beer at Jos. Makarskf's house at 113 Lusted street.
At polling division No. 1 during election dav I know a number of people, at least ten voted on other people's names, Joseph Makarski being the party who induced them to do so.
One voted as Peter Bodner, one voted as Pete Meseak, one as William Szewezuk, one as John Osadezuk, and one as Simon Chrzanow-ski. Joseph Makarski told me on said 7th day of March, if I knew any people who were absent to get others to vote on their names and he would pay them money if necessary.
(Sgd.) JOSEPH SZYMANSKI.
Sworn before me at the city of Winnipeg, this 30th day of March, in the year of Our Lord, 1907.


A. E. BOWLES,
[Stage Direction]
A commissioner in B.R.
Another affidavit is as follows :
Province of Manitoba,
To wit.
Winnipeg, March 22nd, 1907.
I,	William Cichoski. of 892 Pritchard avenue, of the city of Winnipeg, school tefcher, make oath and say as follows:
During the months of January and Febru-arv. 1907, I was working most of the time for the Conservative association of the city of Winnipeg, whose headquarters are in the Maw block, in the sa\jd city. My work consisted chiefly in procuring the naturalization of aliens ready for registration. I was engaged by Mr. Rudneski and Mr. Jastremski to do this work at the rate of $2 per day and $2.50 latetr on.
I know Mr. W. H. Hastings the Conservative organizer, and often saw him in sa'd Conservative rooms directing affairs. Part of the time I was working I went through the city and had with me blank forms of application for naturalization, consisting of the forms of oath of allegiance and residence. I got sixty applications some of these papers I filled in at the time and had the parties sign them, hut they were not then sworn to, others were simply signed by the applicant and were afterwards filled in and completed in the office of the said Conservative party by myself or some other person in said room.
I remember Sunday, February 3, 1907, and that day I went to said Conservative com-
[Stage Direction]
mitrtee room and handed to Mr. Rudneski all the naturalization papers that I had taken. At that time there were working in said Conservative rooms, Mr. Rudneski, Jastremski, Szaiblewski, Snezek, Nowacki, Roudka and mvself. Mr. Hastings was also present in the morning of said Sunday. We went there to work on the naturalization papers, and worked all day Sunday and until about 3 a.m., Monday morning, February 4. We were all working on these naturalization papers filling some out and signing same. About 450 sets of naturalization papers were completed on said Sunday, many of which were not signed at all by the applicant, but some of us employed signed for them or made thjeir mark.
Mr. Jestremski was the only*commissioner present and he signed as commissioner, although none of the parties who were making application wore present.
The work was iso tiresome for the commissioner, Mr. Jestremski, that he asked Mr. Szablewski to sign his name for him to a large number of them, which he did. When we started work in the forenoon of said Sunday, Mr. W. H. Hastings was present and knew the nature of the work that was being done. At the time these papers were made on the said Sunday, February 3, they were dated back to January 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11, 1907.
Out of all the papers that were there completed on said Sunday not one of the parties thereto did appear before the commissioner and make affidavit to same.
On Friday, the 18th day of February, 1907, I was again in said Conservative committee rooms and there I saw a Large number of certificates of naturalization corresponding with the papers that had been made out on February 3. Many of those papers'were taken by Mr. Rudneski to the Conservative north end committee and were there handed bv Mr. Rudneski to the workers of each polling subdivision to be by them handed to the parties for whom they were intended. Many of these papers bad no street or number address and they were retained by Mr. Rudneski.
On February 12, registration day, two parties named David Knaur, 855 Aberdeen street, and Rinepart Knaur, 855 Aberdeen street, applied at registration district No. 16 where I was acting as interpreter for the government and mae application for registration to the clerk, and at said time they said they had only been two years in the country and had no naturalization papers, hut would like to get on the list, and the clerk said: ' it is all right/ I will put yiur name down without making a declaration.
(Sgd.) WILLIAM CICHOSKI.
Sworn before me at the city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba, in the year of Our Lord, 1907.

Henry Alfred Ward: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bole) allow me a question ?


David Wesley Bole: Yes.


Henry Alfred Ward: Who is the clerk of the court in Winnipeg?


David Wesley Bole: I do not know. I have other affidavits here with respect to the same Mr. BOLE.
election, but as they are not pertinent to this case but apply only to cases of corruption I do not think it necessary that I should read them. I have other affidavits sent me from other constituencies which I have not now under my hand and which 1 have taken no pains to bring, as they do not pertain to the constituency I have the honour to represent. I am ashamed that there are people in that constituency who would lend themselves to this diabolical plot. These affidavits to which I have referred, I understand, will he used by others in this debate.
I regret exceedingly that I have had to inflict upon the House these affidavits, but, when challenged by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) to give instances and state names to prove that there was bad work in connection with the voters' list in the province of Manitoba, I felt it my duty to answer the challenge and submit the evidence.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question before he takes his seat. Are not the proceedings that he has been detailing at great length to the House proceedings under the Naturalization Act enacted by this parliament?


David Wesley Bole: You say the Naturalization Act is legislation by this parliament ?


Robert Laird Borden: These are proceedings under it.


David Wesley Bole: That doesn't make any difference. The challenge which you issued was this, that there was nothing wrong with the preparation of the list. My answer is that there are 400 men whose names were put on that list fraudulently.


Robert Laird Borden: In what way would the Bill now before the House redress.Jhat?


Mr. WM. J. ROCHE.: Why didn't they protest ?


Mr. HAGGART.: Will the hon. gentleman lay upon the table of the House the affidavit he has just read ?


Mr. TALBOT.: It will he in the ' Hansard '.


John Graham Haggart: I think he should lay it on the table, and I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think it is often the case when an hon. member reads a document for him to lay it on the table when requested to do so. I am not at the moment prepared to say whether the rule goes the length of requiring it absolutely to be done by a private member. In the case of a minister who quotes from a public document, the rule requires him to produce it. I am not quite clear at the moment, that it is necessary for a private member to do so and I will have to consider the point.


Robert Laird Borden: I entirely agree that it is a point proper to be taken into consideration by yourself. But where documents of this character are read before the House accusing persons not members of this House of crimes for which they might be punished under the law, I think, if there is no precedent for it, it is time that a precedent should be established that an hon. gentleman doing so should lay the document on the Table of the House.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I cannot rule on that point at this moment, I will have to reserve it for consideration. My present view is that in the case of private members quoting documents there is nothing absolutely requiring them to lay the documents on the table. It is frequently done, but I do not think there is any absolute rule. However, I am not prepared, -offhand to give an authoritative ruling on the question.


Mr. BOYCE.: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Bole) arose about an hour ago to debate the second reading of this Bill. Although I listened attentively to what he said, I was unable to see wherein his remarks threw any light upon the provisions of the Bill which the Minister of Justice introduced into this House yesterday. The hon. gentleman comes into this House very seldom, and if we are to believe the newspapers he has decided, or those who have been in times gone by his supporters, have decided that he will not be in this House any more. But the hon. gentleman comes into this House, and while complaining of the quotation made by my hon. friend from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) of the statutes bearing directly upon the clauses of this Bill, he has no compunction in taking up the time of the House for the better part of his speech in reading names from a document which he, or somebody else, has kept concealed, and of which he is the proper vehicle for producing in this House. Why, the affidavits the hon. gentleman has read, I venture to say, he 'does not believe himself. If he did believe them, is he not particeps criminis when he attempts to bring before the House affidavits over a year old containing allegations of crime, and then pretends to say when and under what circumstances that crime was committed ? Surely the hon. gentleman is not trying to perpetrate a joke upon this House, at the same time we cannot believe that he is serious.	.
Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman has read these affidavits to show, as he says, that 450 names had been fraudulently placed on the voters' lists. It does seem to me an extraordinary circumstance that although the election in which these irregularities were committed took place on the 7th of March, 1907, and they were put in the form of an affidavit on the 8th of March, the election of 252
the hon. member who took his seat was never challenged on that ground. His election was never protested. Challenges were thrown out in the province of Manitoba, the hon. gentleman heard them, that if the irregularities could be proven the seats in question would be allowed to go by acclamation in a new election. The election is more than a year old, and not one word has been said about it in Manitoba. But now that hon. gentleman comes down to Ottawa, 2,000 miles away, and flaunts his scandal, and I submit with all respect to this House that he is a fit vehicle for the slander which he has perpetrated. My hon friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) reminds me that there has been a session of the provincial legislature of Manitoba since these offences were committed. Can the hon. member for Winnipeg refer to one word that was said in that legislature with regard to these irregularities 1 I invite him to reply. The hon. gentleman is silent ; then I say his slander is silenced. Not one of his party sitting in that legislature has been brave enough to read these affidavits there. The hon. gentleman is not going to seek reelection to this House, and I do not think that any other hon. gentleman in this House who has heard him speak, is surprised that he is not going to seek re-election. The hon. gentleman knows well that after the speech he has made in this House no respectable elector in any constituency in Canada would elect him. Now I do not intend to do more than comment upon the extraordinary manner in which this measure is being pressed upon this House, and the speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg is a fitting accompaniment to such a measure as the government is now endeavouring to foist upon the people of Canada. The hon. gentleman's speech was absolutely irrelevant, absolutely slanderous, and containing matter which no reputable man


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman should not allude to the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Bole) as slanderous.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, I say that it contained matter which was absolutely slanderous, and it would be slanderous outside of this House.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Order.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It would have been slanderous had it been stated outside of this House.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the hon. member's indirect imputation of slander should be withdrawn.


Robert Laird Borden: I think you misunderstood what my hon. friend said. He did not say that the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg were slanderous, but



that the matters contained in these affidavits were slanderous of the persons against whom they were made.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That would be quite appropriate.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That is a sample of the methods by which this measure is to be supported. Well, Sir, during the last two sessions of parliament, in the speech from the Throne, we had been promised that the government would bring down a measure to provide for the suppression of electoral corruption, and the country, in view of the number of electoral scandals which have been aired in the courts, looked for a measure and looked for it eagerly. But the Canadian people were very much disappointed last year when the government did not see fit to comply with the promise made to the country and to bring down a law then. The reason for that is very patent. Certain matters which will be disclosed in this debate, were being considered and the expediency rather than the probity of the measure was the subject of consideration during that delay, as I understand. A measure is brought down now, and in the first clause it contains extraordinary provisions with respect to the making up of the lists. We were promised an Act to suppress electoral corruption. We have been given an Act the very first clause of which promotes electoral corruption and promotes the fraudulent making of voters' lists in the most outrageous and extensive degree possible by any party. I am not saying that extravagantly because I am speaking from experience of the working of the law under the very provision which is put forward now in the first section of this Bill. I am speaking from experience drawn from the northern constituencies of Ontario where, in the last general election, this provision contained in this measure was applied and ns to the fairness of this section I will leave it to the House to judge, when I have stated the facts accompanied by sworn evidence with regard to how that law was applied. It is proposed by the Bill to amend the Dominion Elections Act by providing that:
9a. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, voters' lists for the portions of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec which consist of territory not municipally organized and where there is no regular assessment or valuation roll upon which voters' lists are based and for the several electoral districts in the provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia, shall be prepared immediately _ after the issue of any writ for an election in any such electoral district or in any electoral district composed or partly composed of such territory, or at any time when the Governor in Council so directs; and for the purpose of preparing and giving effect to such voters' lists the Governor in Council may appoint all necessary officers and confer upon them all necessary powers.


Robert Laird Borden: That section is very much the same as the old section 9 of the Franchise Act of Canada which was in force prior to the last general election and which reads as follows ;	[DOT]
Where, under the laws of a province, the voters' lists for any provincial electoral district or division or any of them are prepared not at regular intervals, but at such times as are fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or some other provincial or local authority, or only from time to time for the purpose of a general or other election in immediate contemplation, the last preceding voters' lists so prepared shall be used for the purpose of any Dominion election in the territory comprised in such provincial electoral district or division, or the parts thereof for use in which they were prepared, if such lists have been prepared not more than one year before the date of the writ for such Dominion election; otherwise, new voters' lists shall be prepared, and for the purpose of preparing and giving effect to such new voters' lists, the Governor in Council may appoint all necessary officers and confer upon them all necessary powers, and in the preparation and revision and bringing into force of such new voters' lists, the provisions of the laws of the province regulating the preparation and revision and bringing into force of the provincial voters' lists in such cases shall, as far as possible, be observed and followed.
I draw your attention particularly to the last paragraph of the section as it stood as section 9 of the electoral Franchise Act which was in force prior to the last general election.
For the purpose of preparing and giving effect to such voters list, etc.
These words remain in paragraph 2 of section 1 of this proposed Act:
2.	In the preparation of such lists the provisions of the laws of the province regulating the preparation and manner of revising and bringing into force the provincial voters' lists in the like cases shall as far as possible be observed and followed and no person whose name is not included in the voters' lists so prepared and revised shall be entitled to vote.
There are two lines apparently having no peculiar significance, but to my mind they have a very great significance-that no person whose name is not included in the voters' lists so prepared and revised shall be entitled to vote. It is to paragraph 2 of section 1 that I particularly desire to refer because that deals with the method that was employed by this government by virtue of an order in council which was passed at the last general election to provide, in the unorganized districts of Ontario, for making up the voters' lists in such a way as to ensure for the government the carrying of six seats in New Ontario, let the opposition do what it might to overcome the difficulty. The provisions of that law would apply up to the present time to six ridings in Ontario and to six ridings only
and to no other constituencies in Canada. It would, I believe, apply to Thunder Bay, Balny River, West Algoma, East Algoma, Nipissing, Muskoka, and, I think, to some extent, to Parry Sound. Prior to the last general election the representation from these districts was in the ratio of two to one; that is Thunder Bay, Rainy River, West Algoma and East Algoma were all one constituency called Algoma, Muskoka and Parry Sound were one and Nipissing was one. So that, by the redistribution Bill six seats were made out of three and of these three, two were represented by government members and one by an opposition member. As it is now, in consequence of the Redistribution Act and of the very drastic remedy which the government sought to employ in carrying out this proposed legislation, or rather in experimenting with it in the northern part of Ontario, the government representation has been increased to four.
Four out of six of these seats are now held by government members. The provisions introduced for the carrying out of the law, the operation of which is extended to cover the provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia and the unorganized districts of Quebec and Ontario, being exactly the same provisions as were in existence and in force prior to the last general election and which were used in the last general election, we may fairly assume that those provisions will be carried out exactly along the same lines as during the elections of 1901. That no other course than that which was pursued in 1904 is possible is apparent from the very wording of the Act itself, because it gives to the Governor in Council absolutely plenary powers with regard to the carrying out of that law. By orders in council the Governor General in Council at the last moment gives the most extraordinary directions with regard to the making up of these voters' lists, and it is unreasonable to contend that when it was done once with very great success the government will hesitate to do it again and will pass orders in council which will be any more strict than those then passed? I think the experience of the average member with this government is that on an^occasion like that they would learn wherein there might be some little weakness in the carrying out of the order in council and strengthen its effect along the lines along which it was intended to operate, rather than attempt to secure the strict and more moral operation of the law. During the summer and fall of 1904 a Liberal government was trying to live in Ontario. It had reached about the end of a very dissipated career and it is to be observed how hand in hand this government went with that government with regard to the carrying into force of the provisions of its law. I say advisedly that this government or somebody in sympathy with this government procured the 252}
province of Ontario to pass orders in council on July 14 and July 23 opening and directing that polls be held for elections in places in the unorganized districts of West Algoma, where there was absolutely no right whatever and no justification whatever for holding such polls and that the effect, the unreasonableness, the illegality and the expense under the present Act of instituting polls in those places was made so apparent to the provincial government of Ontario by protests from myself and others that that government retracted part of that order in council and modified it to comply a little more with a resemblance to what would be reasonable.
The order in council of the Ontario government of July 14, 1904, reads :
Upon the recommendation of the hon. the Attorney General, the committee of council advises that pursuant to the provisions of section 62, chap. 9, R.S.O., 1897, being an Act respecting the election of members of the legislative assembly, polls be opened and held at Searchmont, Wilds and Odigiki, in the unorganized territory in the electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie.
Those are stations along the line of the Algoma Central Railway. I presume that order in council was not supposed to be sufficient by the officers of this government who desire to see this law carried out. On July 23 another order in council was passed :
Upon the recommendation of the hon. the Attorney General, the committee of council, advises that pursuant to the provisions of section 62, chap. 9, R.S.O., 1897, being an Act respecting the election of members of the legislative assembly, that polls be opened and held in the following townships and berths in the unorganized territory in the electoral district of Sault Ste. MarieAweres, Gillmour, Hod-gins, Anderson, Curtis, Deroche, Jarvis, Whitman, Hamilton.
Those are townships with names, and names only, unless it be timber and rock.
Berth 10	Range 23
"	11	
"	25"	12	
"	21"	12	
"	21"	11	
"	25
That order in council provided for the opening of 14 new polls in the unorganized territory supposed to be in the Algoma district of Sault Ste. Marie, under the provisions of an Ontario statute, citing the section, and when you turn to that section you find that it is not applicable to the district of Algoma at all, but applies solely and exclusively to the district of Nipissing.
However, when it was pointed out to the Ontario government that they were committing a most extraordinary act in passing these orders in council, that in many of these townships there was not one settler, not a road a mile long, and that all the

land was held by the Crown subject to a timber license, with no other settlement in it than persons who were temporarily employed in transient timber operations and no buildings of any description except the shack of the lumbermen, in response to vigorous representations, the following order in council was passed on August 17, 1904 :	[DOT]
Upon the recommendation of the hon. the Attorney General, the committee of council advises that the order in council of July U, 1901, directing polls to be opened and held at Searchmont, Wilds and Odigiki, in the unorganized territory in the electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie, be amended by striking out the name ' Odigiki/
_ The committee further advise that the order in council of 23rd July 1901, be amended by striking out the names ' A seres/ ' Whitman,' ' Hodgins,' r Deroche,' ' Hamilton/ ' berth 10, range 23/ ' berth 11, range 25/ ' berth 12, range 21/ ' berth 12, range 21/ and ' berth 11, range 25/
And the committee further advise that polls be opened and held at ' Heyden station/ ' Wabos station/ and ' Mashkode station/ in the unorganized territory in the said elec-* toral district of Sault Ste. Marie.
Thus two months after the passing of these orders in council by the government of Ontario at the solicitation of gentlemen in conference with this government, the Ontario government were compelled on the representations of an enraged electorate to retract the order in council and abolish the polls they had then provided for. That was the first step this government endeavoured to take in carrying out this law, which was then applicable only to the constituencies in Northern Ontario, but which is now sought to be made applicable to such an extended area of territory.
The next step was that this government, on the 25th of August, 1004, just seven days after the last order in council of the Ontario government cancelling these polling places, passed an order in council providing for the making up of voters' lists in the districts of Thunder Bay, Rainy River, West Algoma, East Algoma, Nipissing, Muskoka and Parry Sound. I will not weary the House by reading this very lengthy order in council, but I will just state the effect of it. The effect of it is that under the provisions of section 9 of the Franchise Act, and pursuant to the powers contained in the latter part of that section, which powers are exactly reproduced in subsection 2 of section 1 of this Bill, an order in council was passed appointing officers to make voters' lists, and providing that the lists to be prepared under this section should be completed not later than the 10th day of September following the order in council, the order in council being passed in Ottawa on the 25th day of August, 1904. The section under which this order in council was passed, and which is incorporated in this Bill, provides that in the making up and Mr. BOYCE.
preparation of these lists, and in the giving effect to the lists to be made up, the provisions of the law of the province shall be observed as far as possible, that is, as far as the officers to be appointed by the government could comply with that law, having regard to the rights of the people. In short, the effect of that, as interpreted by the court, was that all that this government had power to do, in the absence of voters' lists made under the provincial law, was to appoint officers to carry out the machinery of the provincial law, but not to make any law for themselves by order in council. Under the provisions of the Ontario law applicable to the unorganized districts of the province, before the list is made up the sheriff must go round and post up his proclamation that he intends to be at such and such a place, at such and such a building, at such a u. and such an hour, for the purpose of taking the names of persons entitled to be placed on the voters' list. Then, having made up that list on that day-and he is to be there from ten to four-he prints his list and posts it; and from the date of posting, and the date of mailing to persons entitled to receive copies in that way, under the Ontario Voters' List Act, a right of appeal to the district judge exists, and thirty days is allowed for the examination of the lists, and for the putting in of notices of appeal. As my hon. friend from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) pointed out, that allowed a period of sixty days, and then the judge appoints a court, which will probably take fifteen days longer. It will therefore be seen that the laws of the province provide that thirty days shall be allowed for the making up of the list. What does the order in council say ? The order in council of this government, passed on the 25th of August, so far from following the provincial law as far as possible, immediately sets it aside by saying that * the minister recommends that a sufficient number of enumerators be appointed to enable the work of enumerating the voters to be completed not later than the 10th day of Sepember next.' So that it dispensed altogether with the idea of a proclamation. Was that a reasonable step to take, when the government bear in mind the fact that they were proposing to make up voters' lists where there never had been a poll opened since the world was created ? In practically unknown territory, they set at naught the provisions of the Ontario law, which required thirty days notice to be given to everybody, and said: No, you must have these lists made up so that they will be completed within ten or twelve days after the date we have given out. There is the initial step by which this provident and generous government proceeds to carry out the provincial law with regard to making up voters' lists. I am talking to the Bill now under consideration, which, by the very wording of subsection

2, it is proposed to repeat with regard to the province ot Manitoba and the province of British Columbia and all the unorganized portions of Quebec and Ontario ; and X say that if the government were able to do that in the last election, what will they be able to do in the nest election ? If they do these things in the green tree, what will they do in the dry ? What was the next step in chronological order? On August 25 they did not even send word by letter to anybody up there ; but the Secretary of State again, in what I consider to be a most undignified and frenzied manner, telegraphed all over the country to get somebody to make up these lists. He telegraphed to the sheriff to find out what lists were to be made up, and on the same day he got a telegram from the sheriff, advising him what lists were to be made up under the Ontario law. On the 25th of August, the very day the order in council was passed, the Secretary of State, on the nomination of the government candidate who opposed me at the last election, sent this telegram :
Jacob Stevenson, Sault Ste Marie, Ontario. You have been appointed to prepare lists for unorganized parts of West Algoma, with power to appoint sufficient number of enumerators to enable the work of enumerating voters to be completed not later than the 10th September.
Here is another frenzied effort on the 26tli of August:
Jacob Stevenson, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. So soon as a list for unorganized township or polling place is completed, have it printed and notice posted that appeals will be heard six days from date of posting.
I have said that under the Ontario law the good people in these scattered and sparsely-settled districts were allowed thirty days to inspect the list after it had once been printed, and thirty days' notice of it had to he given before it was made up. After it was made up, they had thirty days to inspect it and to appeal from it; and this government would be bound by the legislation in force to observe that provincial law as far as possible. How far did they observe it ? They were opening polls with the assistance of the provincial government at that time. They had nine polls established where polls had never been established before ; those polls were established at distant lumber townships in the fail of the year when travel was difficult and roads were well-nigh impassable. They were providing that the Ontario law first with regard to proclamation, as an initiatory step, should be set aside in toto and with regard to appeal the delay should be reduced from thirty to six days-the six days to be dated from the date of the posting of that notice in some distant lumber camp, probably twenty miles from a railway, over an impassable road, so that you would require
some transmission of the news by brain wave to ascertain the date it was posted.
On the 3rd September there was another telegram from the Secretary of State to the sheriff :
Please afford all facilities to enumerators appointed by federal authorities to obtain copies of lists in unorganized districts that you have completed. Government here will pay cost of printing promptly. If printing cannot be done promptly there send lists to Ottawa and I will have them done here.


R. W. SCOTT.
[Stage Direction]
Then comes the most extraordinary part. This order in council was passed August 25, 1904, and on the 3rd of September there is a telegram to the Hon. R. W. Scott from Sault Ste. Marie :
Have all lists about ready for printer^ Answer who appeal is to be made to so as to put it in notice. I have been asked for copy or order in council by interested parties.

[Stage Direction]
No provision of the law that the provincial law be observed as far as possible the same as It Is proposed by subsection 2 of this Bill. The provincial law requires thirty days proclamation before the making up of the lists. The polls were opened, lists proposed to be made in scattered districts where voters' lists had never been made before, order in council passed the 25th August providing that these lists be made up, telegram 3rd September, 1904, from the enumerator that all the lists are ready. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can testify that they were ready. They were good and ready. They had nine lists duly sworn to before a gentleman, who has since been promoted to the position of Indian agent and who was the returning officer at "one of the polls at Michipicoten at which all the voters on the celebrated ' Minnie M.' voted. All sworn to and some sworn to as early as the 2nd September.
Here is an example of an affidavit sworn to before this gentleman, William L. Nicolls, who since then has been promoted for his good work to the position of Indian agent there. He makes affidavit that he has set down, according to the best of his information and judgment-judgment is a good word-the name of every person entitled to be entered thereon and has not intentionally omitted the name of any person he knew or had good reason to believe was not entitled to be entered thereon. And further he swears that to the best of his knowledge and belief he discharged the duty allotted to him under the said Act.
Another provision of the provincial law fequires that appeals should be made to a district judge. The senior district judge- who until the last general election was in the habit of hearing all appeals and was always thought competent to do so even by the Liberal government of Ontario, who has always, since his elevation to the bench,
[Stage Direction]
seventeen years ago, been revising the lists and who is a most capable man to discharge his duties seriously-was, for some reason or another, set aside and a change made with regard to Algoma. The senior district judge was not thought acceptable to this government for some reason or another. Judge Johnson was ready and willing to sit. There was nothing to prevent him sitting. There was nothing to disqualify him from performing those judicial functions which properly belong to his office, but he was not allowed to hear those appeals. Before I go further I would like to refer to the very extraordinary document which was sent to the enumerator appointed by this government. It emanated from the Department of the Secretary of State. It is headed ' Suggestion only '-Dominion revision of voters' lists in unorganized territory.' It first proceeds to recite the Act under which the lists are to be made up. Then it gives a number of suggestions which I shall read :
1.	Polling divisions and polling places (stations).
2.	Enumerator for each and probable or new polling place for fifty probable voters and not more than fifty.
3.	Appointed direct by order in council on the recommendation of the candidate, care to be exercised in giving name in full, post office address and other necessary description.
Did I hear a quotation made last night in this House from so estimable an authority as the late Hon. David Mills, Minister of Justice, in which he said : Give me the appointment of the officers for making up the lists, and I will tell you how the election will go. But in this case it is the government candidate himself who appoints the officers to make up these lists, and the government is a mere machine in the hands of its candidate. This is the suggestion from the Secretary of State's Department.
12. Appeals to be beard by the district judge or stipendiary magistrate, corrected and certified to within ten days and sent through the clerk of the peace immediately to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, Ottawa.
16. The chief enumerator to perform the duties of clerks of organized municipalities as to get lists before the judge or revising official and also sent after corrections with clerks of the peace.
The Secretary of State's Department was somewhat mixed up between the clerk of the peace and the government candidate, because both parties happened to be the one and the same person. So that the lists which had to be filed with the clerk of the peace as an official of this government, were filed with the government candidate, and some delay occurred because when the Secretary of State telegraphed to the government candidate, in his capacity as clerk of the peace, he found that the clerk of the peace was out of his office canvassing the Mr. BOYCE.
district in the interest of the government. There is another instance of the kind of machinery we may expect to be employed by this government in the carrying out of this splendid election Bill. Note the appointment of appeal judges :	Nipissing.
Judge Valin, Judge Leask and John Lough-, rin; East Algoma, Judge McCallum, Judge O'Connor; West Algoma, Judge Johnson ; Rainy River and Thunder Bay, Judge Chappell and Judge Fitzgerald ; Parry Sound, Judge MoCurry, Donald Roderick McLean, barrister, Burk's Falls; Muskoka, Judge Ma-haffy. Well, Judge Johnston did not hear these appeals, because there comes a telegram from the Secretary of State, addressed to the chief enumerator, as follows :
Ottawa, September 5, 1904. Jacob Stevenson, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
See Judge O'Connor and Magistrate Quibell and on consultation with them fix places for hearing appeals.
Who is Magistrate Quibell? He is a gentleman who was prominently connected with politics both for this government and the provincial government, and who, for very extraordinary services rendered to the provincial government, was appointed stipendiary magistrate at Sault Ste. Marie.
Mr. FOWLER.: By the Ross government?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Yes. And he held office until the Ross government met its defeat on January 25, 1905, when, very much to his disappointment, he was immediately relieved of the duties of the office to which he had been appointed. But after he had performed the duties of appeal judge in conjunction with Judge O'Connor he was immediately made returning officer for the election. That is to say, after having acted in the revision of the lists he was made returning officer to carry out the election on that list. What a medley ! And what a contrast with the professions of these hon. gentlemen when in opposition, when they were in a high moral frame of mind and talked about the sacred rights of the franchise and of how iniquitous it would be for the government to interfere in any way with the making of the lists ! They declared that they would not make up the lists themselves-but now they decide that their candidates should name the men who were to make them up and they would appoint these men. Then they take the official by whom the lists are to be handled to be the government candidate. But even that is not all. They remove a judge from ids seat in order that they may put a hireling of the provincial government in his place, a man signally useful to that government and promoted for party services, and they appoint that man in place of the judge who has held office and revised the lists for fifteen years. And after that substitute had revised these lists, after he had
ruled, as he did, that the provisions of the Ontario Voters' Lists Act should not apply he was made returning officer at the election, to carry out the will of the people with regard to these voters' lists. I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if he conscientiously, as a man-not as Prime Minister, but as a man-endorses acts of this kind?


Robert Laird Borden: Why was the judge passed over?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The right hon. Prime Minister may be able to tell. I am informed on very good authority that Judge Johnson was not a favourite with the Liberal candidate, who was clerk of the peace, and with whom he had differed on occasion as to the way in which the administration of the law was carried on in the district of Algo-ma. And that was the reason why, at the nomination of the candidate, the judge should be deposed from these official functions of his office of revising the voters' lists. It is possible that these things are authorized and carried out by the same hon. gentlemen who declaimed against making lists by Dominion authority, who decried the principle of appointing judges as revising barristers to make up lists under the Franchise Act? Is it possible that this is the party, and that the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is the leader of the party, that at one time declared that it was contrary to good principles that the Dominion government should interfere in the making up of lists?
Well, let me proceed with this history. The lists were made up. Nobody saw these lists until they were made up and sworn to. The provincial law provides that there should be a King's proclamation thirty days before the man starts to make them up, informing every man of the locality where the sheriff's officer is to be between certain hours, so that the voter may see to it that he has the right to vote, that his neighbour has the right to vote and that any trespasser or unqualified person is deprived of that right. Nobody saw the lists until they were printed. I, as a candidate, knew nothing whatever about them until I was confronted with nine lists aggregating 543 names all sworn to. That is the way the voters' lists were made up- all solemnly sworn to by men whose connection with the provincial election of 1903 -made memorable by the ' Minnie M.' expedition-was altogether too clear to be questioned. And there was just six days' notice of appeal, dating from the time when the lists were posted up in some distant lumber camp, and this in the fall of the year when the roads were well-nigh impassable. A vigorous attempt was made in West Algoma to meet this outrage, and I am quite sure that the right hon. Prime Minister, in the inner chamber of his heart, concedes that it was an outrage. I do not
know of any hon. gentleman who would have declaimed more loudly or more vigorously or more eloquently against it than he would have done if he had happened to be an opposition candidate for this House in that riding under such circumstances. But this matter was brought to the right lion, gentleman's attention two years ago, and still he sits there and says nothing. With all due deference, and with all the respect which I have for him as Prime Minister and as leader of this House, when such facts are called to his attention and he not only does not denounce the wrong, but gives his vigorous support to a clause in this Bill which will perpetuate the outrage, I can only say that I am astonished at the right hon. gentleman. And what about appeal? Surely it was only fair to allow the time for appeal which was allowed under the Ontario law-thirty days. It was little enough, as I can testify, for I have lived in that country for twenty-three years.
Little enough, and it has always been found that the time Was short enough. But six days were allowed by this autocratic and tyrannical government within which people could appeal against 543 names, and the six days were to be reckoned from the time these lists were posted in that distant lumber camp. Well, we endeavoured to meet the situation as well as we could, and we met it in two ways. We appealed every one of the 543 names, and sent an army of men to the woods to try to find them. In the second place, we took prohibition proceedings against the officers of the government, the Secretary of State, the Minister of Justice, and the enumerators appointed by them, to test the validity of the proceedings which they were taking. I will not weary the House by telling how these men went through the woods to try to find the so-called electors, and found that many of them had gone long ago, and were not in existence in the district at the time they were put on the list and sworn to. I myself attended the hearing of every one of these appeals. I say there was not one, not ten, but a score of instances where it was shown that the enumerators had taken the names of men and put them on the list and swore to them, when these men, to their knowledge, had only been resident in the province of Ontario two days, in the lumber camp. There was at least one instance out of the 543 of a man who obeyed the subpoena. He wjis a Frenchman from France. I had taken the precaution of subpoenaing the enumerator and paying his expenses, to confront him with the man whom he had sworn was entitled to be on the list. In this instance this man said that the enumerator had come to him and said he was going to put his name on the list. The Frenchman said, I have no vote. Why ? Because I have just come out from France*

796*
I am not a citizen of this country. And the enumerator, Mr. Speaker, used a word that rhymes with lamb. He said it didn't matter a damn whether he was a citizen of Canada or not. And that man's name went on the list, was* sworn to by the enumerator and he became a duly constituted voter. The people had only six days to appeal against his name, and had they had not appealed he would have been entitled to vote, according to the rulings of this government. Then prohibition 'proceedings were taken. I may say in passing that the Minister of Justice was ably defended, and the Secretary of State was ably defended ; they were defended by separate counsel, and each counsel was a partner of the Minister of Justice. The firm of Aylesworth & Co. defended the Minister of Justice, and my hon. friend the Minister of Justice knows full well that one of his partners appeared for the Secretary of State, and all the bills were paid by this government.
Now I will refer to the result of that appeal. The appeals were directed against 543 names, and instead of having the senior judge of the district to perform his usual functions with regard to those appeals, we had a board of two. You see the sinister motive of that. Instead of having one judge whose duty had been for years to revise these lists, who knew the law, who knew what the qualifications were, wrho knew all the tricks of getting men on the list and making an improper list, who was the one man who was competent to sit on these lists, this government deposed him and got two. And why two ? So that in case of a disagreement the names should stand on the list. That is the law. If Judge O'Connor differed with the police magistrate with regard to the right of John Jones to be on the list, and the judge said he had no right to be there, and the magistrate said he had a right to be there, he is there, and his name remains on the list. The appeal is against his being on the list, and if the judges disagree the appeal is dismissed and the name remains. Well, Sir, 543 names were appealed against, and I will just read the result. It was proven beyond peradventure that the names of those who were struck off were absolutely without qualification. Some of them had'never been known or heard of. Take the list for the township of Jarvis. Ninety names were on the list as originally made up and sworn to, and seventeen were allowed by the judges on appeal-seventeen Rames out of ninety. Look at this list, Mr. Speaker. Talk about your Thin Bed Line, and look at this. There is an instance of the working of subsection 2 of this Bill introduced by the Minister of Justice, and which is going to work such wonders with regard to electoral reform. It will work wonders for the government in electoral reform. I now refer to the list for Breckenridge, a well Mr BOYCE.
known camp in the township of Anderson. The list was made up by one James E. McClury. He was engaged with the Lake Superior Company, and was a very influential gentleman in the cruise of the famous-Minnie M.' He swore to the list of thirty-four, and by the time this appeal board got through with it there were seven names left, and of those seven I doubt whether five of them were entitled to remain. Seven names remained out of thirty-four sworn to, and only six days allowed for appeal. Another instance of the way in which this Bill will be carried out when it is foisted upon the good people of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. In the township of Mashkode, ninety names were on the list and only twenty-six remained. In the township of Gillmour thirty-seven were sworn to and eighteen allowed. Only thirteen voted. In the township of Curtis sixty-three were on the list and sworn to and twenty-six were allowed. At Wabose station ninety names were on the list and thirty-eight allowed. At Heyden station twenty-three were on the list and fifteen allowed. At Wilds twenty-five were on the list and nineteen allowed. At Searchmont ninety were on the list and forty-five allowed, the net result of the appeal being that out of a total of 543 names on the list made up and sworn to as being the list 332 were struck off and 211 remained, that they were allowed by a board on which sat one gentleman who certainly was not in a judicial frame of mind at the time these appeals were taken.


Mr. CONMEE.: Before what judge or board and at what date, were the lists revised to which the hon gentleman is referring? Would the hon gentleman kindly state who composed the board to which he has been referring ?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I thought I had been vei'y plain and had taken up a great deal of time in setting out what these were. My lion friend understood the manner in which the lists were made up. He nominated some of the enumerators in his riding, and I can tell you there were some beautiful lists made up in that constituency. The hon. gentleman knows better than any member in this House the splendid efficacy of those lists in electing supporters of this government.


James Conmee: That is not answering my question. I want to know what was the date of the lists and who revised them. Was it Judge Johnson, or who else constituted the board ?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I did not catch the latter part of the hon. gentleman's question.


James Conmee: I wish to know the date of the lists and who constituted the list of revisers ? Was the revision before Judge Johnson or before whom ?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: No, it was not before Judge Johnson. Judge Johnson is the officer who ought to have revised these lists my hon. friend knows, but, on the recommendation, nay, upon the appeal of the government candidate, who was the clerk of the pence of the district, who did not like Judge Johnson and who had reason not to like him, Judge Johnson was debarred from performing the duties of his office. Does that satisfy my hon. friend ? I will tell my hon. friend who was appointed in his stead-a gentleman whom he knows very well, an officer of the Ross government, Mr. W. A. Quibell who was the returning officer in this district. My hon. friend wants the date of these lists and I will give it to him ; thev are dated all the way from the 2nd to the 9tli September, 1904, and they were appealed during the month of September.
As a sample of the political complexion of the remainder of the voters of these polls we find that the vote stood as follows :
Mashkode	Govern- ment	
11	Opposi- tion. 7Wabose	.. .. 23	9Searc-hmont .. ..	.... 30	2.Tar vis	11	2Heyden	4Wild	.. .. 13	3Anderson	3Gillmour	.... 9	4Curtis	2128	36
There were 164 votes polled at these polls out of 211 left on the list and that left the unfortunate present member in a minority of 92. What would have been the result if the 543 names originally on the list, prima facie valid, sworn to and put in the hands of the clerk of the peace, had been allowed, and supposing that the strenuous efforts of the government to prevent an appeal had been successful and that the Conservative party in West Algoma had not used the vigilance that they did in order to overcome them. Again, I ask the right hon. First Minister whether he thinks that is fair play, whether that is the fflir play that he contended for in opposition in this House, whether he considers that it is the fair play that should be meted out to this country in making up the voters' lists, or whether it is the fair play upon which, he as Prime Minister of this grand Dominion of Canada, can appeal to the people at the next general election. Will he have the heart or the courage to go before the people and attempt to defend an Act containing a provision, an experiment with which in my district and in five other districts in northern Ontario has demonstrated to his own satisfaction the enormity and iniquity of it in every pne of its provisions ?
Now. let jpp say a word to the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth). He talks about the Thjp Red Line in Manitoba. He
said that the time for the making up of the lists in Manitoba and the time for appealing and for the completion of them was too short. Will he attempt to defend the iniquities I have spoken about in Algoma ? Manitoba is a well settled country ; there are railways, roads, settlements, buildings and it is a fairly well settled country. Will he attempt to defend the provisions of this order in council and the carrying out of this provision under which no time was allowed for the making up of the lists and but six days was allowed for appeal ? The hon. gentleman pays no attention and he has paid very little attention throughout this debate. This is the worst spectacle that this House has ever been called upon to witness. The Minister of Justice, after bringing into this House a Bill which revolutionizes the franchise of the people of Canada and imposes upon them iniquities so enormous as those which I have spoken of, inioui-ties that deprive the majority of the right of electing the candidate of their choice, and after delivering himself of an oration which would put Demosthenes in the shade, sits down and remains quiet, or leaves the House. But, when the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Bole) comes into this House and reads a scandal more than a year old which no man in Manitoba dared to read before the Manitoba government, the hon. gentleman pricks up his ears and listens with the most rapt attention. The right hon. First Minister ought to give a hint to his Minister of Justice to show more respect for and more decency in this House than he is doing at the present time. If he expects to get this Bill through he will have to give more consideration to it himself and pay more attention to the criticism of the opposition than he has done. The trouble with the hon. gentleman is that he treats the opposition with contempt which he would like to regard as being supreme, but which is something very much the reverse. The hon. gentleman, in the course of a somewhat extraordinary speech, said that the ground of complaint against the present system of making up the voters' lists in Manitoba was that it had proved to be an engine of tyranny.
What does the right hon. the Prime Minister think about the engine of tyranny contained in and represented by the order in council passed upon his direction and instruction on August 25, 1904? Where is the engine of tyranny? Will the right hon. gentleman say that was not an engine of tyranny? I trow not. There is no man in this House more sensible of the fact that these proceedings were wholly illegal, Wholly outrageous and in violation of every right principle of bestowing the right of franchise than the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). But the Minister of Justice gives us no answer. He referred to the fact that one salient provision of this

Bill was that responsible officers of the Crown would make up these lists, men who would be answerable to the Crown for their appointment and who would faithfully discharge their duties. I suppose the hon. gentleman believed what he said or meant what he said, but if he will consult ' Hansard ' to-morrow, and see the indisputable facts I have advanced, he will realize how abundantly the falsity of the presumption has been established by the experience that has been demonstrated when this experiment was tried, for that it was an experiment in 1904 I make no doubt whatever. In 1904, we heard something about a Sif-tonian Bill. But there were hon. gentlemen sitting on that side of the House then, one as Minister of Justice, who would not tolerate the Iniquities of such a Bill. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) knows what I mean, he knows what was proposed in 1904, and he knows better than any one else what was the fate of that Bill and the reason for that fate. What was the result? After the election the then Minister of Justice stepped out of public life, and went to a seat on the Supreme Court bench, which he has since adorned with his signal abilities. In his place a gentleman Is appointed more pliable, more complacent and more easily convinced of the necessity of regarding the political exigencies rather than the great good of the people of this country. Therefore when the Sifton attempt failed and was blocked, when it was still-born, an experiment was made. The Franchise Act was patched up. A patch was put on section 9, apparently harmless; it went through the House. But the order in council of August 25, 1904, was the experiment made to try how this thing would work in the territories where it was intended to operate. Experiment was made in only six constituencies, but it got four out of the six for the government and now, at the closing session of this parliament the right hon. gentleman allows his Minister of Justice to bring down a measure which makes that applicable to all seats in British Columbia and in Manitoba, and in the unorganized portions of Quebec, besides the six to which he had already applied it in 1904. Does the right hon. gentleman think that is fair? Can he pledge himself to this House and this country that there will be any better carrying out of the procedure in making up lists in British Columbia, Manitoba and northern Quebec, than there was in northern Ontario? I fancy that experience is a great teacher and that no matter what my right hon. friend said and promised with regard to what would be done in the future to avoid the abuses and enormities that have taken place, the people of Canada will take it with a grain of salt, knowing the many promises he has made along this and other lines which have been broken. One of the remedies taken was for an action of pro-Mr. CONMEE.
hibition to the Minister of Justice of Canada and to the chief enumerator and others who were engaged in the work. Notice of motion for the prohibition was dated September 12, 1904. The lists had been sworn to about September 3, and that was the first we heard of them. The notice was for :
An order that Jacob Stevenson be prohibited from taking any further proceedings in ,the preparation of voters' lists for the unorganized territory in the electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie, in the West Biding of Algoma, and His Honor Edward O'Connor, junior judge for the district of Algoma, and William A. Quibell, police magistrate for the district of Algoma, be prohibited from holding courts for the purpose of revising lists prepared by the said Jacob Stevenson, and from certifying to and confirming such lists or from otherwise acting in connection with the preparation or pretended preparation of lists for said unorganized territory, and that the said Jacob Stevenson and the said Edward O'Connor, junior judge of the district of Algoma, and William A. Quibell, be prohibited from proceeding with the preparation, revision and bringing into force of such voters' lists, otherwise than under the provisions of the laws of the province of Ontario regulating the preparation, revision, and bringing into force of the provincial voters' list in such oases, and for such further and other relief or order as to this honourable court may seem proper.
Upon that motion we had the pleasure of an examination of the enumerator, Mr. Stevenson. Mr. Stevenson is a gentleman who is entitled, so far as I know, to the respect of every one, and is not responsible, otherwise than as chief enumerator, for what took place; but therein lies the iniquity of the whole thing, that the chief enumerator could not himself supervise the making up of those lists, and that the order in council did not compel him to be responsible for that work. That was done by six hirelings, six ward politicians, six ward heelers, all belonging to the political party of the government, and their work was done when they brought their lists into town and swore to them. What could the enumerator do? He could not be on the ground, he was not required to be, the whole thing was left to a pack of party heelers. He was examined for discovery as follows :
Q. Mr. Stevenson, you purported to prepare voters' lists for use in the West Biding of the district of Algoma, as the same is constituted for Dominion purposes?-A. Yes.
Q. Under what authority did you pretend to act in the preparation of those lists?-A. The authority from B. W. Scott, Secretary of
^Q^Broduce the authority?-A. The telegrams are on file.
Absolutely nothing but the telegram was the authority for making up these lists.
4.	Q. The original authority that you received were marked as exhibits to your affidavit?-A. Yes.

5.	Q. And they consist of three telegrams? -A. Yes.
6.	Q. Signed by R. W. Scott?-A. Yes.
7.	Q. Did you get any other authority other than what was contained in these telegrams?- A. No.
8.	Q. Did you get any other instructions to guide you in the preparation of these list ? -A. I got some suggestions after the work started. I did not use them.
9.	Q. Where did you get these suggestions? -A. They were handed to me by Mr. J. J. Kehoe.
10.	Q. Mr. Kehoe is the crown attorney and clerk of the Peace for the district?-A. Yes.
11.	Q. He is also the Liberal candidate for the approaching elections for the Dominion House?-A. It is said he is.
12.	Q. You know that Mr. Kehoe has received the Liberal nomination for this riding?-A. Yes.
20.	Q. Did you receive any letter enclo ing
these instructions?-A. It was handed to me by Mr. Kehoe.
21.	Q. What instructions did you get when it was handed to you by Mr. Kehoe?-A. None.
22.	Q. Anything said about why they were handed to you?-A. Said they might lie useful to me. that is all.
32.	Q. When did you learn that the appeals would not be before Judge Johnston as mentioned in exhibit 1 but before Judge O'Connor and W. A. Quibell ?-A. When I got the last telegram. I wired for that purpose to find out for myself.
33.	Q. On what date did you wire?-A I wired on Saturday night and I got the ans wer on Monday.
^34. Have you a copy of that message?-A.
35.	Q. Do I understand you to say that it was until September 5 that you knew who would hear the appeals?-A. No, I didn't
ooWTTXCep*:	I saw in that document.
36.	Had you any reason to believe that exmbit was incorrect?
This is the document I read, with Judge Johnston's name as the appeal judge.
A. There was something said by Kehoe- I would not be sure what it was- something about Hamilton and some one else hearing the appeals. He said you had better wire and find out. That was the day I wired.
The man was handed a list with Judge Johnston's name, the senior judge of the district, the man who had heard appeals ever since he was judge, for seventeen years, and this man, the clerk of the peace and the government candidate, said : ' Yon had better wire to the Secretary of State and find out,' and he wired to the Secretary of State, who knew what the government candidate wanted, and he got a reply back on the same day saying that it was not Judge Johnston at all, hut a Ross government official. Does the hon. gentleman think that was fair ? Does he justify that or would he attempt to justify it ?
43. Q. Now you simply adopted the lists pre" pared by the sheriff under the Ontario Act for all polls for which lists have been prepared?-A. Part of the lists I had prepared
myself and knew they were correct. I spoke to Norris and the sheriff about the others.
44.	Q. So you simply mean you inquired of the men that did the work-they had already sworn they were correct?-A. Yes.
45.	Q. You took no means to satisfy yourself whether these lists were correct on the date you certified to them-whether some of the men had not left the place?-A. No.
46.	Q. The polls that you prepared lists for personally were what?-A. Maskode, Waboose, Searchmont, Curtis, Wilde, Jarvis, Haydon, Anderson and Gilmore.
47.	Q. No lists had ever before been prepared for these places?-A. Not as separate polls. Some names had been taken and put on the Boulais bay list in 1901-some of those around Searchmont on the Algoma Central Railway.
50. Q. With that exception no lists had ever been prepared for any of these nine polls before?-A. INot to my knowledge.
54.	Where is the township of GilmoreP-A. Up the Echo river-about ten or fifteen miles from Alex. Findlay's, that is about seventeen miles from here to Findlay's and about fifteen miles from there as near as I know.
55.	Q. From Findlay's up there would be a lumber road?-A. Part of the way. About six miles up there is a settlement. From there it is a lumber road.
56.	Q. Do you know any of the people in the township?-A. No.
II' 8' Tou have n6ver b;en there?-A. No.
56. U. Are yon personally acquainted with any of the voters?-A. There are three or rour men whose names I know.
59.	Q. What are they doing-the three or
enr A r, you know?-A. I can't tell you.
60.	Q Do you know what they went up there to do?-A. I know they were up there last winter for McFadden & Malloy.
Q- And on the whole list there are only some three or four men whose names you recognize?-A. That is all.
. 62. Q. And all the men in that list are work" mg in McFadden & Malloy's camp ?-A. Yes supposed to be.
63.	Q. And there is not a single farmer or settler or anything other than a lumberman whose name is on that list?-A. I understand not. If there is I do not know of them-do not show on the list?
64.	Q. And there are none so far as you know ?-A. So far as I know.
65.	Q. Take the township of Anderson-for what territory was that list prepared?-A. For the township of Anderson.
66.	Q. And in that list there is not a single farmer or settler put down?-A. Not so far as I know.
67.	Q. And there are none such there that you know of?-A. There is no one there except men working in the lumber camps.
68.	Q. Do you know these men?-A. In all these lists there are odd names that I know.
69.	Q. Where is this township?-A. Back of Garden river. I am told sixteen or seventeen miles, but I can't say, I have never been there myself.
70.	Q. Nothing but a wood road from Garden river?-A. That is all.
71.	Q. And Garden river is twelve miles from Sault Ste. Marie?-A. Twelve miles by the road and nine miles by the railroad.
72.	Q. No public buildings of any kind in

the judgment of the enumerators, the provisions of the Ontario law had been complied with, though the enumerator swore he had not complied with them and did not intend to.
2. Whether this court has power to prohibit such proceedings.
The more correct way of dealing with these questions is to consider the latter first, because, if this court has no jurisdiction, it is better to express no opinion on the merits of the application:	If there has been bad
faith or any sinister or improper conduct such as has been charged, in matters quite within the power of those whose conduct has been called in question, they are answerable, not to the court, but to parliament, and parliament to the people:	And any alleged
wrong doing may perhaps also be the subject of investigation and of some measure of relief if established in the federal election court.
Then is there jurisdiction in this court:'
If the circumstances which warrant the governor in council in acting under section 9 of the Franchise Act, section 398, never existed, I would have little doubt of such jurisdiction. One of the foremost duties of this court is the prevention of the exercise of wrongful judicial power. It can hardly be doubted that if any one, without colour of right, should usurp the judicial functions pertaining to the preparation of voters' lists, the power and duty to prohibit must rest somewhere; and I know of no other court than this in which such power and duty rest in respect to such an usurpation within this province.
But it is said that in the North Perth case there was a decision of a divisional court to the contrary. With that statement I am unable to agree. The two cases are widely different. When that case was decided there existed officers and courts appointed and constituted under federal legislation for the very purpose of dealing with the whole subject of voters' lists for parliamentary elections: the whole of that legislation has been repealed: no such officers or courts now exist. The holding in the North Perth case was that this court could not interfere with such federal courts in respect of such voters' lists. In this case the main question is does any federal court exist? Have the respondents any authority whatever in law for the exercise of any judicial function in respect of such lists? If not, there must be power somewhere to prohibit, and that power can be found in this court only.
Whether the respondents have, or have not, any such power depends upon the proper interpretation of section 9 of the Franchise Act, 1898. That Act entirely repealed the Electoral Franchise Act under which the federal courts were constituted. It changed completely the whole ffiw in regard to the preparation of the voters lists, adopting the provincial lists instead of _ having parliamentary lists prepared as provided for in the repealed enactment. But, to provide against the possibility of there being no sufficient recent provincial lists in some of the electoral districts, the 9th section of the Act was passed:
This I have read to the House. The judgment proceeds :


Arthur Cyril Boyce: For the district in question there are in existence no lists prepared at any regular intervals, but there are lists in course of preparation under a provincial enactment which requires their preparation at regular intervals.
The purpose of the section is to insure reasonably recent lists for parliamentary elections : it can, therefore, hardly mean that when a provincial enactment requires the lists to be prepared at regular intervals those lists only shall be used, no matter how long it may be necessary to wait until they are prepared: it means rather that where such lists exist-
' are prepared ' in fact-they shall be used, but where they do not exist the mode of preparing them provided in the section may be adopted. It was, therefore, in the facts of this case, within the power of the Governor m council to appoint all necessary officers for the preparation of the lists this making them-
Mark you, Mr. Speaker

-this making them officers of a federal court, just as the revising barristers were under the federal enactment; but they are expressly required by the enactment to observe and follow as far as possible the provisions of the laws of the province regulating the preparation and revision and bringing into force of the provincial lists.
But it is said that the order in council appointing the respondents presumes to give directions to them in conflict with the latter statutory requirement. The answer to that is if it be so, the order, to that extent, has no effect, the statute, not the order in council is to be obeyed.
That is, the provincial law must be obeyed, and this government cannot lay violent hands upon the rights of the people of the province of Ontario under their own law.
That it is urged that, assuming the appointment of the respondents to 'be valid, they are not proceeding in some respects in accordance with the statute, but are acting to some extent in contravention of it. The answer to that,-if it be so-is the answer which was given to the applicant in the North Perth case. The subject is one affecting matters peculiarly within the exclusive powers of parliament; they are answerable to parliament, not to this court, in such an application as that.
A point of some importance-not argued- is whether parliament has, in section 9, delegated to the Governor in Council the constitution of a federal court, and if so whether there was power to do so. The answer is there is no such delegation, that this enactment itself constitutes the court and prescribes its procedure, and that to the Governor in Council is committed nothing substantially but the appointment of the officers, the putting in motion of the provincial machinery operated by federal officers.
Now, the right hon. Prime Minister had that decision read to him two years ago and placed upon the records of parliament. Does he still insist in pressing upon this House section 2 of the Bill which provides identically the same machinery, the same

way of making up the lists as that covered by this decision of the judge? If so, what may we not expect of him? What respect has he for his position? What respect has he for law, order and decency? He might have found shelter prior to the decision, behind a question of interpretation. But here is the judicial interpretation from which there has been no appeal, placing upon parliament the duty of remedying this wrong. And how does he remedy it? By bringing in a Bill which contains the very same provisions, which provisions he proposes to make law. The right lion, gentleman has seen what has been done, and how this clause has operated to the benefit of his party. It has been used, not only as an engine of tyranny, not only as an engine of oppression, but as an engine by which the people of Ontario have been deprived of their franchise. Take, for instance, the settled portion of the district of Algoma. There, rolls are made up upon which the voters' lists are prepared; but the hon. gentleman gives his orders, and away back in the bush where no one can get to them, he opens polls and makes a voters' list, and 500 voters are put illegally on that list. There were 343 struck off. Of what use are the votes of the fifty good men who have gone into that country, of what use is their franchise, when 343 names without the slightest qualification were put on the list to overbalance their bona fide votes ? I say that the right hon. gentleman has laid violent hands upon the franchise of the people, and the people resent it very much indeed.
To sum up. The provincial law is required to be observed as far as possible. Let us see how it was observed. It was ignored altogether. There was no sheriff appointed to make the lists, there was no proclamation or notice of any kind before making the lists. They were made up and sworn to, and the enumerator had to accept them prima facie as the lists of voters. No adequate provision was made for appeal. The time for appeal was cut down to six days, from thirty days which was the provincial requirement at the time, and they began to run from the date that the lists were posted up in a distant polling place The reviser of the list under the provincial statute, the judge of the district, was deprived of his office by the interference of this government, he was deposed in favour of an appointee of this government, who was afterwards appointed returning officer, and who, for those services, has been made commissioner of police on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.
Now the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues, when they were in opposition, took very high moral ground in favour of the observance of the sanctity of the ballot, of the sanctity of the franchise in this country. He spoke eloquently, his words
sounded well, and they read well. The right hon. gentleman and his colleagues took the highest ground of public morality. He argued that the government should not interfere in the making up of voters' lists to which members of parliament owed their election ; that it should not be possible for any government to appoint an officer or henchman to make up these lists ; that it was contrary to parliamentary and constitutional doctrine, and would ensure the continuance of a government in power which had lost public confidence. The right hon. gentleman and his colleagues insisted on the right of the provinces to make up their lists, and that upon these Jists members should be elected to the House of Commons. At that famous convention in 1893, when that magnificent Liberal platform was constructed, there was no more important plank in that platform than the repeal of the Franchise Act as it stood at that day. Those were the pretensions, that is what the right hon. gentleman theorized should be done, and which he promised would be done if he came into power. Well, he came into power, and that promise is the only one that the right hon. gentleman has kept to the people of this country up to the present time. One by one the planks of that platform have become separated from it, they have been cast into the drift on the turbulent sea of political expediency, they have been wrenched from their fastenings by the demands and exigencies of his political friends, by the necessity of continuing in power. Up to the time this Bill was introduced, the right hon. gentleman had just this one cord by which his political tabernacle was held down to the ground ; and now, by bis insistence on this Bill, that cord is cut, and his political tent now flutters in the breeze. No longer can the right hon. gentleman say that at least he has observed one of the planks in that platform, and that he has "repealed the Franchise Act. It is time that be repealed the Franchise Act, and he repealed it upon the promise that he would give the people a better system of franchise. But what did he do ? He brought down in 1904 a measure which provided for all the iniquities, all the enormities and all the atrocities I have detailed in my remarks. And now in 1908, in the closing session of this parliament, he has brought down and proposes to force through this House a measure which will perpetuate all these iniquities. Sir, I assert my right as an independent member of this House to object, and to continue objecting to the right hon. gentleman taking any such course as that. I will say in all solemnity, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, that had I known when my right hon. friend asked for a vote of one-twelfth of the Supply Bill, that he had behind it the intention of forcing upon this House a measure so

iniquitous, one which so absolutely violates the rights of the people of this country, I certainly would have been here night and day to oppose that vote, and I would not have consented to its adoption. I do not consider that the right lion, first minister treated this House at all fairly in asking that vote. I may be wrong. I may be carried away by my earnestness at this moment, but I say that from_ the experience I have had, from the evidence which there lies and which cannot be controverted and from the working of the measure X am satisfied that it would be an enormity to perpetuate such legislation as that. I desire to refer to one more section. That is section 17 :
Provided that no ballot paper shall be rejected on account of any writing, number or mark placed thereon by any deputy return* ing officer.
There was an agitation many years ago in this country, at the time of open voting, for a ballot, and that ballot having been accorded to the people it was urged that the secrecy of the ballot should be preserved at all costs. Tampering with the ballot, or the non-secrecy of the ballot, or the permitting of any mark upon the ballot by any person, puts a premium upon bribery and electoral debauchery. We have had that demonstrated before in this country. My hon. friend from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) read some of the evidence in the London election case and the very thing which was done by Pritchett and O'Gorman in that case illegally this government propose to allow them to do under this section and to do it lawfully. It is proposed to allow a ballot to be counted if it has any mark upon it at all. As my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) said, it is possible for me to write on the back of the ballot, ' This is Boyce's ballot ' and the ballot is counted good. Any writing, any number, or any mark on the ballot does not invalidate the ballot. Does the right hon. First Minister not see the extent to which that provision will be taken advantage of? Surely he can see what that means, surely he can see that it will mean that the man who is bribed, the man to whom it is said : You will get $10 if you write the number ' 2 ' or any other number on the back of your ballot, can in this way indicate the manner in which he has voted. Does he not see that this is assisting that kind of work? Does he not see that it is assisting the government ^contractor in coercing and intimidating all those whom he employs to go and vote for the government candidate ? Does he not see-I venture to think that he sees it quite well-that all the employees of the Grand Trunk Pacific and all the employees on other great works will be kept in order and made to know that that mark which can be legally placed upon the Mr. BOYCE.
ballot will serve as a sign of identification and will disclose whether they have voted right or wrong. What about the civil service? Are they going to be left free to vote as they like? According to all human nature the civil servant will know that if there can be placed a mark on the ballot somebody will know how somebody has voted and then there will be trouble for somebody. What about the homesteader in the Northwest, the man who perhaps has not performed all his settlement duties and is probably asking for an extension of time, or who has some application before the government inspector in regard to the inspection of his homestead? There is the gentleman who has got a larger quantity of seed grain than he should have received or who wants an extension of time in which to pay for it. That gentleman is asked : How are you going to vote? I want you to vote so-and-so. Very well; I want to tell you that I shall know how you have voted and whether you have voted for the government candidate or not. Do you understand that, Mr. Debtor? Do you think that is a method which should be employed throughout this country? The hon. Minister of Justice talks about an engine of tyranny. An engine of tyranny forsooth ! What greater engine of tyranny could there be than this provision of the law? The people want a secret ballot. They demonstrated that by the popular vote in the province of Ontario. There was a ballot in Ontario that had a number upon it. It was defensible upon certain grounds and to a certain extent, but there is absolutely no justification for the iniquitous clause which the hon. Minister of Justice seeks to force upon this country now. If wre are to have open voting let us have open, honest voting. Do not let us have a sinister, miserable attempt, the hypocritical profession of secrecy which is contained in this Bill under which we know there will be actual1 openness and a knowledge of how every vote is polled. The number on the ballot was bad enough, but this is ten times worse. It is an engine of oppression which permits certain cabalistic signs to be placed upon a ballot. If the law had permitted only a number to be used that might have been used or it might not have been used. It might have been used by those in power, by the government, but this can be used by government contractors, government servants, homesteaders and all the army of government agents who are active at the time of a Dominion election.
I might occupy the time of this House with other clauses of the Bill but other gentlemen will doubtless give them further consideration. I wish to say in conclusion, that it must appear to the House and to the country that when the right honj gentleman delayed giving to this House a Bill for the suppression of electoral corruption last year he had some object in view

in keeping that back. His Minister of Jus tice, the hon. gentleman who now occupies that position, was then but a short time in office and he had not got well seated in the saddle. He perhaps did not possess the amount of experience which the right hon. First Minister felt would be necessary before he could be entrusted with the preparation of just that kind of a Bill that the right hon. gentleman wanted for use at the next general election. We were, therefore told, notwithstanding the speech from the Throne last session, that we were not to have an election Bill last year. This year we were again told that we were going to have a Bill for the suppression of electoral corruption. Well, we have a Bill, but if any gentleman can say, after he reads the two clauses on which I have touched, that these are clauses which tend to suppress electoral irregularities and corruption, then, I say he is a very extraordinary man indeed. The right hon. gentleman has doubtless come to the conclusion that some drastic measure is necessary, some peculiarly strong engine is required in order to again sway the people of Canada in his favour the next time he appeals to them for a renewal of their confidence. At the last election it was the Grand Trunk Pacific and a number of other matters that swayed public opinion. At this coming election my right hon. friend must necessarily, he feels, owing to the weakening of public confidence, have something with which he can sway, aye, even force a majority of the votes in his favour.
How was he to get it ? There have been revelations here of graft, irregularities, departmental corruption and debauchery in government contracts, revelations of his own commissioners, a lifting of the lid which disclosed a most awful state of affairs in the Department of Marine and other departments, and he knows that public confidence in his government is waning and has been waning for some considerable time. In this House and during this parliament it has been demonstrated to the right hon. gentleman that he has graft to right of him, graft to left of him, graft behind him and that every one wonders. Every one wonders how he is to justify himself before the country, how he will appeal to them. I would quote to him some of the votes which he has given in this House, for instance where a public official had stolen money and was convicted and the right hon. gentleman voted to retain him as a public servant of this country. We wondered what he was going to do about that when he appealed to the coup*' try ; but he knew what he was going to do, he called his Minister of Justice, a gentleman whom he had put there for a purpose, to do that which Sir Charles Fitzpatiick would not do : he calls in this Minister of Justice, this sapient, grave and reverend seigneur, this gentleman who would do no 253	'
wrong, and the result is this mixed-up election Act which we have to-day. That is the measure by which the right hon. gentleman expects not only to appeal to this country but to coerce the people of this country to sustain him in power. Where is all his profession of high policy ? Farewell to those professions, farewell to all his high principles, farewell to his electoral promises, farewell to the pledges he gave to the people. He has abandoned them all, all the pledges he gave to the people of Canada in which they showed their confidence by placing him in power? He bids farewell to all, he casts them behind, grasping greedily at a Bill supplied by the hon. gentleman who sits behind him, put there for a purpose, supplied by that gentleman in the form of his election Bill which will be undoubtedly the means by which the right hon. gentleman will seek to retain power. The greed for power from which the right hon. gentleman has been suffering has carried him to great lengths, but I never thought it would carry him to this length, that it would carry him to the length of allowing violations of the constitution, the taking away of the franchise, the violation of the laws of the provinces. But he has used it, he has sacrificed his loftiest aims, his highest ideals and principles, for power. Power he wants, power he must have, power he will have. His high principles, his good name politically, his political kingdom, all he will give for a renewal of power.


James Conmee: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend who has just sat down has made my task rather easy. If the hon. gentleman has proved anything, if his argument is sound, he has justified the passage of this Bill. I think I will be able to convince him of that in a very few minutes. Before taking that up I wish to correct a remark which he made. I asked him a question and in reply he stated that I had recommended certain of the enumerating officers in West Algoma, which constituency he has the honour to represent. In that he is entirely wrong. I never had anything to do with the recommendation of any of the officers in any manner whatever in connection with that election, in fact I never knew, until I heard from him, just who those officers were.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Does he suggest that I said or thought he had anything to do with the appointment of the officers in West Algoma ?


James Conmee: You did say so.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I had no Intention of doing so. I meant his own riding. I beg his pardon if I conveyed the other impression to him.


James Conmee: I accept the explanation. I presumed at the time he did not mean



*vvhat he said, but he gets a little excited once in a while and fins is one of the occasions. The argument of my hon. friend, in my opinion, has justified the passage of the Bill. What are the conditions ? He has pointed out that a condition of law exists which is very bad according to his story. I expect that this measure will remedy that condition. What occasioned the interference with the provincial law of which the hon. gentleman has made such strong complaint ? I apprehend that it was the fact that the provincial .lists were more than a year old in his riding. I represent a riding in northern Ontario. I think the hon. member gave the House to understand that the same condition that existed in Algoma existed elsewhere. That is not entirely correct, we did not have any revision of the lists in Rainy River district for the reason I have just stated, that'the lists were not over a year old and therefore the provincial lists prevailed. If that is an evil, then it is an evil with which this parliament should deal.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Does the hon. member say that the lists were not made up in his riding under the law at the last election ?


James Conmee: Yes, I have made the statement that there were no appeals.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I am very much surprised to hear it.


James Conmee: I was the candidate and I have no knowledge of any lists being made under Dominion officials, that is appeals taken.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken.


James Conmee: That is a matter of evidence. All I can say to my honoured friend is that there was no complaint about the lists and I am quite positive that lam right. I do not think the lists could be made up in that way without my having some knowledge of it. I refer to revisions. The evil the member complains of, if it is not remedied, will be repeated. It will altogether depend on when the provincial government makes its list or when this government may appeal to the country. It may be that in a great many constituencies we will have the application of the Act of which the hon. member has so strongly complained. Which position does he choose to take? Does he want a repetition of what happened in Algoma, or does he prefer that we should have a law, fairly well worked out, under which there will be proper machinery for the preparation of such lists. On his own argument he has made out a strong case in favour of the Bill. But that is not the only point on which the hon. member has rather assisted the argument of this side of the House. He criticised the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Bole) for having made reference to conditions that existed in the province of Mani-Mr. CONMEE.
toba some four years ago, and the hon. member himself took up more than two hours of this House in telling us about his election that took place four years ago.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: If my. hon. friend will read ' Hansard,' he will see that several pages of the records of this House were devoted to this very matter three years ago.


James Conmee: That makes it all the worse. My hon. friend to-day went over what happened four years ago, doing what he found fault with another hon. member for doing in a less degree, and he has repeated what he said previously in this House. If he thinks that good judgment or an argument in favour of the defeat of this Bill, I shall have to leave him to his own opinion. All I can say is that it does not look very reasonable to me.
Now, I do not intend to discuss the Bill at any great length. I did not rise for that purpose. I merely rose to give reasons why I am prepared to support it. I am not going to say that the Bill is perfect as introduced. There may be improvements made. I have no doubt but that the hou. member who has introduced the Bill is quite willing to accept any fair suggestion that will improve the Bill. His closing words were these-that they wanted a square deal and an honest election. My hon. friend rather sneers at that. Let me tell my hon. friend and other hon. gentlemen opposite that if I chose to take up the' time of this House in detailing the iniquities of the Conservative party with which I have had to deal in elections in my riding, I think I could make every honest man on that side of the House hang his head in shame. But I am not going to do that, because I do not think any good purpose could be served by so doing. As I understand the situation, the Liberal party is not committed entirely, without consideration of conditions, to the provincial lists. I quite agree with the previous history of the Liberal party in that respect. I quite agree with the statements made by my leader, not only in this House but throughout the country on that great question. But, Sir, this Bill does not propose to break the record ; it does not propose to withdraw from the provincial lists. In the great majority of cases they are not interfered with ; they are accepted. What are the cases in which they are not accepted ? In the case to which this Bill applies, I think there is a justification for the course which has been adopted, and it is quite time that this parliament should deal with the question. At the time of the repeal of the Dominion Franchise Act, under which revising barristers appointed by the government in power made up the lists, not only in certain sections of the country where 'there were no municipal organizations or in provinces where the provincial lists were

not considered to be fair and just, the position that was taken was well stated by the Minister of Justice yesterday, and I may be pardoned for referring to his words :
It was pointed out at that time, in answer to an observation by the present hon. leader of the opposition, that if, notwithstanding the fears which he then expressed, the time should come when any provincial government or provincial legislature should by its legislation, or by its administration of that legislation, so interfere with the course of the preparation of the voters' lists in that province, or if there was not an acceptable list, or there was ground for belief that the list so prepared was not of a fair and satisfactory nature, then this House always had it in its power, this parliament at any time could rescue control over its own lists and over its own franchise, and prevent the apprehended evil from taking place.
That was the position of the two parties at the time of the Dominion Franchise Act, or the Revising Barristers' Act, as it was generally called, was wiped off the statute-book ; and I submit that the time has now come and the conditions have now arisen, not only in Manitoba, but in other provinces, including the province of Ontario, when it Is right and proper that this parliament should Intervene in order that there should be a fair list that would be satisfactory, not only to one party, but to both political parties in this country. My hon. friend has made reference to the Ontario law. He has pointed out the machinery of that law, as applied to the unorganized territory, by which the enumerator posts up his list, and has to give a certain length of time for hearing the cases of any who have been wrongfully left off or wrongfully put on, as the case may be. When lie prepares the list, he sends it to the clerk of the peace. It is then open to an appeal by any who may not be satisfied. After it is' printed, it is posted for thirty days in order to give an opportunity to those who have been improperly left off to be put on and those who have been improperly put on to be struck off. The hon. gentleman said that thirty days was not too much. That law provides that the judge, after the list goes to him, shall give thirty days in which parties can appeal ; then he shall hold his court, and give notice of the time and place of holding it, in order that appeals may be heard. The hon. member protested strongly that thirty days was not too much and said he knew it very well from the experience he had had in the new section. If his argument be good-and I submit it is on that point-then I ask him to direct it against the provincial government of Ontario because they have violated every principle, they have set aside every protection that Act gives the people in those new districts, and they have brought in a measure, which is now in force, that robs the people of the -253}
rights they formerly possessed with regard to the preparation of the lists. To illustrate what I say, let me read an article from the Port Arthur ' Chronicle ' of May 2 :
The conditions surrounding the preparation of the voters' lists in the unorganized districts are even worse than we stated yesterday.
The editor was there referring to a previous issue of his paper, in which he had pointed out that having regard to the time limit between the posting of the printed lists, the return of the lists to the clerk, and the posting of the notice previous to appeal, It would be physically impossible to hold the elections at any time in June, [DOT]and that if the provincial government persisted in holding them at the date announced. those constituencies would be disfranchised.
It has been thought that fifteen days was allowed after lists had been prepared in which to make appeals, but this is not so.
I may say, with regard to the fifteen days, the statute provides for thirty days, but in its last few days of sittings, the Ontario legislature passed a new Act revising the law, by which they gave power to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to issue a proclamation reducing the time, and I believe it was reduced to fifteen days. Of that, however, I am not certain, but that is the statement made here.
According to the Act passed in the last hours of the legislature, it is provided that no appeals can be made after the 15th May. According to this paper, as the enumerator will not have his preliminary lists prepared in several cases, possibly a majority of oases, it will be seen that there is practically no appeal possible from the lists as prepared by the enumerator.
According to the new Election Act, certified copies of the voters' lists must be in the hands of the clerk of the peace before the date of the writ calling an election and there must be an interval of at least sixteen days, after the date of the writ, before nomination day. It is a physical impossibility that the law can be complied with in either this riding or the riding of Fort William, so that if the government persists in holding the elections on the 8th of June as announced, it must smash its own laws to smithereens and disfranchise practically the whole country.
I believe, from what little knowledge I have of the operation of the present preparation of the list in these ridings, that that statement is substantially correct, but I give it just as it appears here, and there may possibly be some difference. But even if the statement be not correct, even if a shorter time, even if ten days, nay if one day were given for the appeal, it would be physically impossible to have a properly prepared list by the 8th June. It would be impossible because the enumerators have not yet completed their lists. Here is a letter from a gentleman giving me the

dates of the sittings of the enumerator for : holding of their courts for the preparation of the lists. He gives a number of places, and I notice one sitting is at North Lake on the 29th May. It will be clearly understood that if the hearing is on the 29th May and the list is to be print- . ed and has to go to the clerk of the peace and from him to the judge and the judge gives any appeal at all, that cannot be done before the 8th June, and the list cannot be in the hands of the returning officer before the day of nomination if the case is as stated. There can be no doubt about that. Some time ago I gave my opinion to certain members of the provincial legislature that there was no intention on the part of the Ontario government to hold the elections in the new ridings on the same date as they would be held throughout the province. Mr. Whitney was cornered by the leader of the opposition and he made the statement that the elections would be held on the same day. I ask hon. gentlemen to take note-I give my opinion for what it is worth-that the elections will not be held in the new ridings on that date, Mr. Whitney to the contrary notwithstanding that is upon a fair list. They will discover that irregularities exist, and that the lists are not prepared, and will And ways and means of holding these elections after the date fixed for the general elections. I have it from very good authority, from a gentleman I believe to be in the confidence of the Conservative party, that such was the intention, and I leave hon. gentlemen opposite to deal with their own friends in regard to that matter.
If that condition of things exists in all sections of New Ontario, involving seven or eight constituencies represented in this House, I want to ask fair-minded men if it is not a reasonable proposition which is contained in this Bill. Not that new lists be prepared, because that is not the purport of the Bill, when the election comes on if there is a reason for making an order for a revision, the provincial lists are taken as the basis for the Dominion list. The names on that list are still entitled to vote until it can be shown before a court of competent jurisdiction that they are not, and any names omitted on that list of men entitled to exercise the franchise can be put on. Why should they not? Will any hon. member opposite tell us that men who are entitled to the franchise should be disfranchised because there is not machinery provided by either provincial or Dominion parliament to prepare a proper list? The voter is not to blame for that. His inalienable right is to exercise the franchise, and it is the duty of parliament, whether Dominion or provincial, to see that every man has a fair opportunity to exercise that right.
My hon. friend laboured considerably to Mr C.ONMEE.
show that in this hurried way the list was prepared in his riding last time. Well, that was a peculiar circumstance which never occurred before in the history of this country and I do not think it ever will again. If I am not mistaken, the officers_ of this government learned only at a late date that the lists were beyond the date. There could be no legal election held upon these lists. If the elections in these ridings were to be held upon the same day, then the lists had to be prepared hurriedly, and it appears that the officers did their best. Now, I think that my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce) did not do himself credit, I do not think he advanced his standing in this House or in the country, by the course which he pursued this afternoon in one particular. He repeatedly stated that the revising officer was a servant of the Ross government, an appointee of the Ross government. That is not correct. The revising officer was Judge O'Connor. Associated with him was Mr. Quibell, who was police magistrate at that time, if I am not mistaken. Why should that not be the case ? It is the case Iji the revision of every list under the provincial law in the province. The judge is appointed, and side by side with him sits some other gentleman who may be named. I have been in Judge Johnston's court when he was conducting these hearings, and with him sat Mr. W. H. Hamilton, barrister, of the Sault. That is the position Mr. Quibell occupied, practically it may have been a silent pne, speaking generally; the judge was the man who conducted the revision. And yet the hon. member misled this House in statement after statement that this revision was carried on by an official of the Ross government. I do not think that was fair criticism. My hon. friend spoke strongly ; I have no doubt he felt moved. He thought that some injustice had been done him, perhaps, and on that score he may be excusable for remarks he made on this point.
Mr. Speaker I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Robert Laird Borden: What business tomorrow ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Same thing.
At six o'clock the House adjourned.

Thursday, May 7, 1908.