1908-07-14

Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 212) to amend the Criminal Code, and to repeal section 415 of the Railway Act.


Mr. FOSTER.: What is this Bill ?


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: The object of this Bill is to make some clerical amendments in the Criminal Code in a number of instances in which mistakes, either of printing or of manuscript, have been discovered in the revision of the statutes. In addition, there are two new provisions, and the repeal of a section which has become effete. The new provisions will make slight changes in one of the clauses as it now stands relating to the use of trading stamps ; the other is making it an offence to obtain credit by false pretenses or by fraud. There is also a clause, as the title of the Bill indicates, repealing the section of the Railway Act which imposes what has been spoken of as the double liability upon railway men, the liability to prosecution other than under the provisions of the Criminal Code itself.


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

George Eulas Foster: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask whether we are to receive the return ordered by the House early in the session with reference to acts of clemency and pardon exercised by the Justice Department or by the Governor General ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I will take a note of it.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 115) to amend the Dominion Elections Act.-Mr. Aylesworth.
On section 1-voters' lists in unorganized territory, Manitoba polling divisions, &c.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: There are three variations which I would like to move in Mr. FIELDING
the wording of the clauses as printed. In the first subsection, line D, I would move to substitute for the words :
During the months of August, September and October,
The following :
Between the first day of August and the fifteenth day of October.
In subsection 9 at line 27, I would move to strike out the words ' of such judges ' and substitute the words * county court judge resident in Winnipeg. I understand there are two county court judges of equal Seniority, who were appointed on the same day, and to make it clear I' propose this amendment:
At the end of subsection 9, I move to add the following words :
And such distribution shaill be completed before the (first day of October in each year.


Mr. BRISTOL.: I wish to enter my protest against sections 1 to 8 inclusive of the proposed subsection 9a. These sections relate to the establishment under certain circumstances in unorganized territory in the province of Ontario and the province of Ontario alone, of voters' lists framed under the Act of the Dominion parliament. I think that such legislation is unwise, impolitic and unnecessary and is apt to cause friction and bad feeling between the great province of Ontario and the government of the Dominion of Canada. The present Dominion Elections Act, sections 1 to 9, deals with voters' lists for Dominion elections and by it, without any exception, the voters' lists for Dominion elections are framed by the various provinces concerned. But this legislation, so far as these sections are concerned, for the first time takes it out of the hands of the province of Ontario to frame voters' lists for unorganized territory in Ontario and under all circumstances and for all time that power is placed in the hands of the Dominion government.
The reasons advanced for this discrimination against Ontario, this slander on the administration and legislation of that province, are astonishing. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) at great length set out that there had been great irregularities in the making of the iast voters' lists which would be effective at the present election and said there had been dissatisfaction, but he failed to bring before the House, and up to the present there has not been brought before the House, one tittle of evidence by any man that he was in any way disfranchised. The Prime Minister was not content to stand on that ground, and I think wisely, for the obvious reason that all the complaints advanced by the Minister of Justice occurred after this legislation had been introduced. What is the obvious Inference from that ? Unquestionably every thinking man must feel that there was an inten-

tion, long before there were any facts to justify it, to discriminate against Ontario by unfair and unjust legislation in this respect. The Prime Minister has not sought to justify it on that ground but intimates that he wanted to help the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) who had some complaint in reference to the last election ; but if you examine that position you find that what the hon. member for West Algoma complained of was first, partisan enumerators, and, secondly, that only six days were given for appeal and no time for enumeration. Under the present legislation as brought in, there is practically the same power to give just as short a time, or less than was given four years ago, because in both cases the Act reads that the laws of the province are to be followed as far as possible. We heard the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) dilating at great length on the injustice of the Ontario government's present law and he said there should be at least sixty days for appeal. This Act does not provide anything of the kind ; it says the laws of the province are to be followed as far as possible, and so the same position is retained in this Act as existed four years ago. Thus if it was intended to give any fairer treatment to the candidates in these constituencies, the Act as proposed does not carry out that intention.
Let us examine the existing Act for a moment to see the present scheme. Clause 0 provides that the voters' lists generally in the organized territory must be sixty days old. That governs the whole of Canada. Then to govern the case of unorganized territory, wherever it may exist, section 7, which was acted on at the last election, provides :
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 iautho-rity, 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.
So that up to the present time if the law were unchanged, in every province where there is unorganized territory, where the lists are not prepared at regular intervals, the list remains in force one year, and without this present legislation the lists used at the last provincial election in Ontario as well as in Quebec would be the Dominion voters' lists under this statute. Quebec is permitted to retain those voters' lists, the voters there are not put to the trouble of
getting on another voters' list as they are in the unorganized territory in Ontario, which is a discrimination against Ontario. There are to-day new lists in Ontario, only two months old. Every other province, and particularly Quebec, which has had elections, can go on its way rejoicing ; the lists are satisfactory because they are prepared by Liberal governments, but we will not have the same lists in Ontario for no reason that has been disclosed unless it be that they are prepared by a Conservative administration. There is no escape from that position.
Section 8 of the existing Act goes on to say :
In case the lists mentioned in the last preceding section have been prepared for more than one year, new voters' lists shall be prepared, and the Governor in Council may, for the purpose of preparing and giving effect to-such new voters' lists, appoint all necessary officers and confer upon them all necessary powers.
2. In the preparation of such 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.
Section 9, which 9a now proposed will follow, reads :
If any voters' lists have been prepared under the section last preceding not more than one year before the date of the writ for election, such lists shall be used, unless there are lists of a later date prepared under the provincial law, and new lists shall not be prepared.
So that under the existing law, unless the lists are more than a year old, they can and must and should be used.
The reasons for such legislation are obvious. How ridiculous it would be, suppose there happens to be a Dominion election this year, that Ontario alone in its unorganized territory, should be put to the expense and the electors in those northern districts be given the trouble of the preparation of another list this year. Unless there is some overpowering necessity, I am unable to see any ground upon which it can be supported. I have read the statement of the Prime Minister that section 9a, in his opinion, repeals section 7. It does as far as Ontario is concerned, in this respect, that it makes it necessary to prepare a list In Ontario where the list Is one, two or three months old, but not in Quebec, although the list there is three months old.


Wilfrid Laurier: Are there any lists pepared in the unorganized districts in Quebec ?


Edmund James Bristol: There are.


Wilfrid Laurier: No. There is provision in the municipal code for the pieparation of lists in the organized districts, but so far as my information goes

there are none for the unorganized territory.


Mr. GAUVREAU.: They do not vote at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: They do not vote.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: Those people will be disfranchised.


Wilfrid Laurier: It has not been worth while having lists prepared. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in his speech on this question


Edmund James Bristol: Does not the Grand Trunk Pacific pass through there?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, hut it was not intended to bring in the Grand Trunk Pacific vote, that is a very gratuitous insinuation. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier said that although the power exists to have lists prepared by the municipal code, the


Mr. BOYCE.: Is the fact that no lists had been prepared in the unorganized districts of Quebec the reason this government is not interfering?


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh,' I understand there is no list.


Edmund James Bristol: The hon. gentleman is better informed than I could be as to the conditions in Quebec. We can only take the information that is given in the House, and the Minister of Justice brought into this House a Bill which provided for the making of voters' lists in the unorganized territories of Quebec. Perhaps he is equally ignorant with myself as to that province; but surely some of his colleagues from the province of Quebec could have put him right. We have this fact, that the Minister of Justice brought in a Bill which provided for making lists in the unorganized districts of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, but that, without any excuse, or for some reason best known to himself, he has decided to leave out the province of Quebec but to leave in the province of Ontario, although lists have been prepared in those districts in the province of Ontario within two months, and not one tittle of evidence has been produced before this House that those lists are unfair or unreasonable. Where lists are prepared by any provincial government, whether Liberal or Conservative, and complaints are made to the Minister of Justice that they are unfair, his first duty would be to communicate with the attorney general of that province and put the complaints before him and ask him if there is anything in them. That is tlie course he would take if he wanted this Dominion to go on without friction. But the ridiculous part of it is that these complaints did not exist at the time tlie Bill was brought in, which shows Sir WILFRID LAURIER
the animus of the Minister of Justice and his colleagues in introducing it at all. If we are going to conduct this confederation on harmonious principles, we must not encroach on provincial rights. If I were to read the many speeches the right hon. leader of the government has made in favour of accepting the voters' lists prepared by the various provinces I would keep the House longer than it would care to stay. Everybody is familiar with his utterances in that regard. I am astonished that he has departed from those principles so far as the great province of Ontario is concerned. If there is one man more than another in this country who should have been careful in this matter to have left the province of Ontario alone, in the interest of harmony, it is the right Lon. 'gentleman. The feeling will exist all through that province that there has been unjust discrimination against it, that the right hon. gentleman has not acted with the sunny ways with which he usually conducts the public affairs of this country. This kind of legislation should be enacted only as a last resort, called for only by some imperative necessity. But, in view of the facts, it will be a blot on. the statute-book of this country. To say that the government of Ontario will not have fair lists made in the unorganized districts is an insult to that government. There is no public interest to be served bv putting through this legislation. Instead of it being styled an Election Act, it should be styled an Act to insure the election of the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Con-mee). I challenge the right hon. gentleman to find the slightest complaint in regard to the fairness of the voters' lists in any of these northern ridings, except that of our loud-speaking friend from Rainy River. Hon. gentlemen may get declarations which they will not show, but that is not the proper way to deal with legislation. There should be proper evidence produced that there is anything unjust or unfair. If there was any real ground of complaint in this matter, it was possible for this government away back in May, or in June, since the election took place, or at any time up to the 1st of July, to represent to the government of Ontario that they wanted new fists made in the Rainy River district or in any other district; because, under the laws of the province of Ontario, up to the 1st of July, and afterwards if it is desired, the province can have new voters' lists prepared in the unorganized districts. If there was the slightest complaint of those lists, why, in the name of common sense, was not the attorney general of the province communicated with, and asked to have enumerators appointed and to have the judicial revision which the law provides for? It was perfectly feasible; but the hon. member for Rainy River and the

government did not want tliat. They seemed to be blind to their own interests in this matter, even if their course should put people by ears and cause ill-feeling throughout the country. Such a state of affairs is a surprise to me, because it is contrary to the whole career and to all the public utterances of the right hon. leader of the government. Without any communication with the government of Ontario, but on ex-parte statements, hon. gentlemen opposite ask this parliament to legislate on this matter, and to treat Ontario differently from any other province. This legislation is unjust and ill-advised and is going to cause ill-feeling and disturb the harmony of confederation.


Mr. WATSON.: How will it disturb the harmony of the unorganized districts?


Edmund James Bristol: 
Robert James Watson: How could there be any possible chance for an appeal when the voters' list was dated 5th June, and the elections held on the 8th v


Edmund James Bristol: What I say is this. So far as a Dominion candidate or a prospective Dominion candidate, who might have an election this year, was concerned

not a provincial candidate-he could have put in appeals undoubtedly. The right to prosecute an appeal was not affected by the fact of an election taking place. The Dominion candidate had a perfect right to have that list revised by the District Judge, and it was his duty to see that it was put into shape because he knew it must be his list unless he got legislation from this parliament changing the law. That law was not introduced by us but by the Liberal party and has been acted on for years. If the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) did not have that list put in shape, it was because he thought he would hold up the First Minister and get a list which would elect him at all costs and under any circumstances.
I fancy there are many others of my colleagues on this side absolutely opposed to this proposed legislation. Therefore I shall not at this stage take time to criticise it as it deserves, but I would say that notwithstanding the howl from the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) and his desire for sixty days appeal, this Bill does not give one day more for appeal than does the Act of 1904. It says that the laws of the province shall be observed, and you have this ludicrous result that while that is admitted, the Dominion government propose to take the administration into their own hands. For these and many other reasons which could be readily given, I am against this legislation as unconstitutional, as opposed to provincial rights, as unjust, unfair and unreasonable, and therefore I submit the clauses I refer to should be struck out
A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma). My hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) has forestalled me in the protest I intend to make on behalf of northern Ontario with reference to the introduction into any Election

Bill of this Dominion of a clause at once so unnecessary and so mysterious as the one now proposed in substitution for the one, which was even more so than the present amendment. When one comes to consider the reason submitted by the Minister of Justice for this legislation, it strikes one at once how ridiculous and absurd is the position which the hon. minister occupies in the eyes of the country. Just let us see what position he took when introducing this legislation on March 9, 1908. He then said very little about the necessity for these lists in New Ontario and very little indeed with regard to any irregularity. Not one word did he say with regard to the fastening upon northern Ontario of voters' lists to be prepared by this Dominion. It is clear from the complaints which have come and have been referred to since, that there were no irregularities in the preparation of the lists because there were no lists then prepared. There was nothing to complain of except that the appointment of enumerators was in the hands of the Conservative government of Ontario, and that was considered sufficient ground by the Minister of Justice for interfering with the right of that province to administer her own laws and prepare her own voters' lists.
The second reading of this Bill was moved on May 5; and speaking of the irregularities which justified the necessity for portions of clause 1. the minister said at page 8101 of ' Hansard ':
I do not know and I do not suppose anybody can know, without the taking of evidence whether or not that state of things does exist.
Contrast that with the very fair statement of this miuister on July 2, page 12112 of ' Hansard.' He said :
With regard first to Manitoba, I have not tried to check over those statements, but certainly they were categorically made and were backed up apparently by evidence of a documentary character, but many of them were with equal definiteness denied from the other side of the House, and I have no doubt, as I said when speaking six weeks ago on this very point, that it would take a judicial inquiry to establish in any individual case what the facts and truth may be. Enough at least at all events has appeared to demonstrate that there is great dissatisfaction and that that dissatisfaction extends to the minority of that province, a minority provincial which is represented in this House by a majority of nearly two to one seats.
. Then with regard to Ontario, the minister listened with great intentness to what the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) had to say, and I may take this opportunity of declaring that that hon. gentleman is unable to substantiate the many statements he made of irregularities in the election or the preparation of the voters' lists, which affected that election or the regularitv or validity of those lists. What did the Minister of Justice say after the hon. member for Rainv Mr. BOYCE.
River (Mr. Conmee) sat down? What he said will be found on page 12117 of ' Hansard,' speaking of the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee), he then said :
He pointed out the facts which were not controverted.
-which have never been so far as I am aware contradicted, and which I presume are incontrovertible as establishing the manner in which in his own constituency and under the present Ontario Registration Act these voters' lists were being prepared.
Mark you, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice said that the hon. member had stated facts which had not been controverted which had never, so far as he was aware, been contradicted, and which he presumed were uncontrovertible. And, Sir, he sat there, mute, absolutely senseless to the protest which I made during an hour or an hour and a half in which every point that the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River had made in the shape of complaint or allegation of irregularities was not only contradicted, not only controverted but either completely explained away or absolutely disproven. Sir, there is a Minister of Justice who is a spectacle before this country. It is upon statements and pesumptions such as that that this Minister of Justice seeks to force through, with the concurrence of the Prime Minister a measure which is a direct invasion of the provincial rights of the great province of Ontario, rights which the Prime Minister was so careful, in days gone by, to safeguard and of which he was so loud a champion. Then, at page 12118, speaking of these irregularities complained of by the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River, the Minister of Justice said :
And if we find in such an iimportanit centre as the chief place of the riding the hon. gentleman represents, lists prepared in that sort of way under the Ontario statute passed only at the recent session of the legislature, and if we find coupled with these various lists so prepared that whether by accident or by design all right of appeal is cut oft to those who would wish to appeal, and that these lists stand to-day as lists which have not had in any respect whatever the work of the judge in the way of revising or hearing objections to them, a clearer case it would be difficult to find for legislative interference.
And, Sir, instances which make this a clear case for legislative interference upou which the Minister of Justice depends- whether true or untrue-arose not merely after the Bill had been introduced but after it had received its second reading; and even the facts upon which he relied were denied and controverted upon the floor of this House. Moreover the hon. minister proceeds on hearsay, as you will find at page 12119 :
I am told that in one of the ridings the enumerator refused to go to a settlement where there was an overwhelming preponderance of voters of the adverse political party.

The minister stated that he had these facts from letters and declarations in his possession. And yet, when he is asked to lay his evidence upon the table he says that it consists of private correspondence and cannot be produced in the House. I ask the committe again to say whether the Minister of Justice is endeavouring to act even with reasonable fairness towards the House and the country, but more particularly towards the province of Ontario. But the Minister of Justice does not take that position always, as has been said, and said so well, by my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol). Speaking of the position in the province of Quebec, at page 12122, he refers to the complaints which have been made by members from his own side of the House as to the disfranchisement of voters in the province of Quebec both for provincial and federal elections. And this is what he said :
The province of Quebec is possessed, according to hon. gentlemen on this side, of a considerable extent of unorganized territory, in which at present there are no voters' lists

I commend this to the attention of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in view of what he has said to-day.
-and the people who live in those districts do not vote either for the provincial legislature or this House. That seems to be an anomalous condition. My hon. friend from Wright county (Mr. Devlin) said something about the number of such persons who were residing within the limits of his constituency. The number was considerable. On attention being called to the foot that, not merely an Wright and Montoalm and the other counties alongside Montcalm, which extend into the northern or unsettled portions of the province, but in the ridings of Gaspd and no doubt of Chicoutimi and Saguenay and other portions of the province, there are possibly many colonists who, under the present system, have no means of getting a franchise-on attention being called to that fact, no doubt the provincial legislature will at once provide a remedy.
What does the right hon. gentleman say this morning ? He says that the remedy fs left with the legislature of the province of Quebec, because, forsooth, these are unorganized portions of Quebec in which voters have not voted either in provincial or in Dominion elections. I think I understood him correctly in that. He does not deny it, therefore I assume that it is correct. If that be the case why does the hon. gentleman not apply the same remedy to Ontario ? Why does he propose, by Bill passed in this parliament, to create polls and to make up voters' lists in the unorganized districts of Ontario where there have never been polls before, or a vote cast either in provincial or Dominion elections ? He cannot deny that this is what he provides for by this Bill so far as Ontario is concerned, nor can he deny that, in the case of Quebec, he leaves this remedy in the hands of the legislature of that province. The right hon. Prime
Minister says : I will not leave this in the hands of the provincial legislature of Ontario, hut I will force it with an iron hand upon that province, not merely as a temporary method of meeting a temporary exigency, but for all time; but so far as a similar condition in Quebec is concerned. I declare, through my Minister of Justice, that the legislature of Quebec shall be free to remedy the difficulty in its own way.
Again I ask the right hon. gentleman, if he applied that condition of things to the province of Quebec in 1904 when he permitted the lists to be made up in nine polls, aggregating 543 names of voters who never voted before in that district, at places where there was no settlement, in many cases no patented land, in other cases not a single dwelling house, and in most of them absolutely no roads-there were 543 names appearing on those voters' lists. The right hon. gentleman made up voters' lists where there were never any voters' lists before, either provincial or Dominion. The right hon. gentleman assumes legislative authority with regard to Ontario which he scorns to establish with regard to Quebec and leaves to the Quebec legislature. Has the right hon. gentleman laid before this House one tittle of evidence to support the statement he has made that there was dissatisfaction about the lists in Northern Ontario ? Not one tittle of evidence. The Minister of Justice is asked for the evidence on oath that he speaks about, for the letters that have been written to him containing these complaints. He won't produce them, but at the same time he says that the evidence is not contradicted. Can one imagine a gentleman occupying the position of Minister of Justice so wanting in the first principles of fairness that he would inflict this measure upon the province of Ontario and at the same time refuse to make public the sworn declarations with regard to irregularities which he says he possesses ? Will the right hon. gentleman subscribe to that sort of justice? Will he say that the Minister of Justice is justified in passing this measure upon evidence which he will not or dare not produce before this House? Would the right hon. gentleman ask this House to accept evidence that a court would not accept under similar circumstances? If I were at the bar of a court and were to tell the judge that I could abundantly prove my case by affidavits, by sworn evidence that I have in my bag, but I won't produce it, it is satisfactory to me, and therefore the court must be satisfied with it also-there you have an illustration of the position of the Minister of Justice and of the Prime Mnistsr of this country in forcing this legislation upon the province of Ontario. In the province of Quebec the Minister of Justice says that numbers of persons are disfranchised, but although hundreds are disfrnu-cliised in the province of Quebec, the Minister of Justice does not think that is a case

for interference by this House, and he is content to leave that to the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature of Quebec. But where there is a list not closed, and where only one appeal was put in against that list in the district of Rainy River, the Minister of Justice takes that one case as sufficient to justify him in going on with this legislation. I protest on behalf of the unorganized districts, and on behalf of the province of Ontario, against this iniquitous legislation, and I shall continue to so protest until the right hon. gentleman sees tit to change it.
Then with regard to the irregularities referred to by the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee), all I can say is that the irregularities were in no sense sufficient to vitiate the voters' lists that were already made up. I hold in my hand a memorandum of the dates of the courts of appeal from all the voters' lists in that district, made up under the unorganized provisions of the Act of 1893, and X And that although the list for Kaministi-quia, which is complained of by the hon. member, and the list for Simpson island and Heron bay in that constituency, were not closed at the time the provincial election was held, yet I find that courts were appointed for every place in the district where these unorganized lists were made up, and that the lists were duly revised and duly closed, and they remain now certified as good lists, the statutory time for which has completely expired, There is no reason why they should not be used for the Dominion elections except the reasons which have been referred to by my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol), namely, that the hon. member for Rainy River knows perfectly well that he has absolutely no chance, in view of the result of the provincial elections, of retaining a seat in this House, with a popular majority of between 1,000 and 2,000 against him, unless he is able to make up the lists as they were made up in 1904, to suit the constituency of Port Arthur and Rainy River and to secure the election for himself. There was a protest, I believe, filed with the returning officer by one M. J. Kenny on the 13th day of June. That was a protest against the fact that the voters' lists had not been certified by the judge ten days before the polling day, and, therefore, that the list did not come under the provision of subsection 3 of section IS of the Ontario Elections Act, and respectfully submitting that in view of these irregularities the returning officer could not make a legal declaration with reference to the election of the member for that riding. And when Mr. Kenny delivered that letter of protest he stated to the returning officer that the objection was taken by Mr. James Conmee, M.P. It is easy for the hon. member for Rainy River to manufacture complaints himself or to get them manufactured Mr. BOYCE.
over the hand of his solicitor, Mr. M. J. Kenny. It is easy for the hon. member (Mr. Conmee) to keep the sore open ; it is easy for him to hug a grievance, and the result of my investigation is that the hon. member for Rainy River would rather have the grievance than, in the public interest, find a remedy. His hope is to be able to make the lists under this Bill according to his own ideas and to go into territory where voters' lists were never before made so that he may accomplish the very thing the Prime Minister has so warmly deprecated. The making up of these lists under this Bill is open to the further grave objection that it affects 11 provincial ridings in Northern Ontario, in all of which there are regularly made up voters' lists only a month or two old and which could be used at the next Dominion election. And, Sir, in only one of these 11 ridings could the member for Rainy River or the Minister of Justice find the shadow of a complaint. Let these gentlemen give any particulars of irregularities, and I have the information here ready to answer them. But the member for Rainy River seems to dominate both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice ; he seems to hold them in the hollow of his hands and to ' boss the job,' and so in violation of all the principles of the Liberal party and in violation of all the principles laid down by the Prime Minister himself the lists in these 11 constituencies are to be taken out of the control of the province of Ontario, not only for the next Dominion election, but for all time. Against that insult to my province I protest most strongly.


Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, I still hope that the Prime Minister will see his way to prevent this insult to Ontario and to treat that great province in the same manner as the other provinces of the Dominion are treated by this Bill. A few days ago the right hon. gentleman told us that he made certain concessions in the case of Manitoba and British Columbia so as to meet the views of the opposition, but it occurred to me that in his heart searching the right hon. gentleman found that the public opinion of this Dominion was against that interference by the Dominion parliament with the provincial lists, and so he stayed his hand. If we are going to have all over Canada electoral lists prepared by Dominion authority well and good, but if this parliament declares, as it has declared that the federal lists shall be made by the provincial authorities then let us not discriminate. The Minister of Justice told us that every word of this Bill was written by his own hand and I have wondered where he got his inspiration. Surely it was not from the Prime Minister because the right hon. gentleman could have told him about the position of the Liberal party on the Franchise Act of 1885, a measure,

which the Prime Minister told us, had engendered much bitterness. Again, the Prime Minister could have reminded his Minister of Justice of what happened in 1893 when the Liberal party in convention decided to do away with the Dominion Franchise Act and to confide the preparation of the lists to the several provinces. Again, the right hon. gentleman could have pointed his minister to the declaration which he himself made in 1898 when the present franchise Act was brought into force, and when the Prime Minister said (Hansard 1898, page 4015) :
But I would not have hesitated to accept the franchise provided by the Conservative legislature in Quebec because though there were many things in that franchise on the whole to which I would have objected, still as it satisfied the province, it would have satisfied me. It is the same way as regards other provinces. It is possible the control of the several provinces may pass into the hands of the Conservative party, but still on a question of this kind I am disposed on my part to accept the franchise prepared by the legislature, whether Liberal or Conservative.
I have been endeavouring to discover what motive actuated the Minister of Justice in preparing the original Bill submitted to this House and I Can arrive at no other conclusion than that when he found a province in which the legislature was controlled by the Conservative party he aimed to have the lists in that province prepared by federal authority. He started at the Pacific coast and finding the province of British Columbia with a Conservative government he attacked that province, and when the Bill was submitted to the House it was found that nobody of any political party had any serious objection to raise to the lists in British Columbia. In Alberta and Saskatchewan there were Liberal governments ; these young provinces are still to some extent under the paternal care of the Dominion government and so they were not interfered with. Then he came to the pioneer province of Manitoba and he laid violent hands on that province and he attempted to destroy every principle laid down by the Liberal party with regard to the franchise. He essayed to wrest from the province of Manitoba the possibility of her having anything to do with the electoral lists in federal elections. Then, he came to the province of Quebec, and it is very difficult to find out just what the conditions are in that province but I presume so far as the unorganized districts are concerned they are much the same as iu northern Ontario. The Minister of Justice pretended to interfere with the control of the lists in the unorganized districts of Quebec, but as the Prime Minister announced in this House he communicated with the authorities of that province and he accepted their explanations as satisfactory and I
would withdraw that portion of the Bill which referred to Quebec. What a contrast between his manner of dealing with the Quebec government and with the Ontario government. In no way whatever has the right hon. gentleman communicated with the attorney general or with the government of Ontario to find out what were the conditions in the northern part of that province with respect to the lists or to ascertain whether if any irregularities existed the provincial government was willing to correct them. Let me tell the right hon. gentleman, in view of the concessions he has made to Manitoba, that the government of the province of Ontario are fully as competent as the government of Manitoba or of Quebec or of any other province of the Dominion to make out a proper electoral list. This is a serious matter. It is nothing short of a slur upon the province of Ontario. Surely we are as highly civilized in the province of Ontario as are the people of any other province, surely we have reached as high a state of development in that province as have the people of any other province, and yet under this Act the Prime Min-, ister easts a slur on the people of Ontario and discriminates against that province in respect to six constituencies. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that what we call New Ontario is being very rapidly developed by the present government who know every foot of that territory and who so understand its wants that there is no authority in the Dominion so competent to deal with the voters' lists there ns is the provincial government. I warn the Prime Minister that the people of Ontario will not forget this insult. We in Ontario point with pride to our sister province of Quebec and surely the Prime Minister must see that this discrimination against Ontario will create a great deal of ill feeling. I would also call attention to the fact that it is only by the weapon of the great majority which the Prime Minister has in this House that he could pei'pe-trate such an outrage. The right hon. gentleman has not a majority in this House from the province of Ontario, but by his majority from the province of Quebec and other provinces of the Dominion he is able to say to the people of Ontario : You are not competent to make fair electoral lists ; we will not trust you. The present government of Ontario singularly enjoys the confidence of the people and I believe that this slur will be resented in a way which will surprise the Prime Minister.
Now, as I have said, wherever the Minister of Justice found a Conservative government in power he laid hands on that province. He did not interfere with Nova Scotia, although as was shown by the letters and documents read by the leader of the opposition very grave irregularities ex-

ist in the electoral lists of that province. But a Biberal government is in power there anti the irregularities are not noticed by the Minister of Justice. Then, New Brunswick had a close call. You will notice that the provincial elections in New Brunswick were held on the 8th of March and this Bill was introduced on the 9th of March, and so you can imagine what would have taken place had the New Brunswick elections been held a month earlier and the Conservatives returned to power. Again, in Prince Edward Island there is a Liberal government and there is no interference with the lists there. Therefore, in looking for the reason which prompted the Minister of Justice in drafting the original Bill I can only come to the conclusion that he sought to present a thoroughly partisan measure and that the discrimination against the Conservative provinces was partisan to the last degree. One word with respect to the hon. member for Rainy River. The fallacy of the arguments which he attempted to present to this House in favour of the Bill was completely exposed when it was shown that the alleged irregularities which he pointed to as a reason for the Bill occurred long after the Bill was introduced. I believe, and I think all reasonable men will believe that the electoral lists for the unorganized portions of Ontario are just as good lists on the average as are to be found in any province of the Dominion. If there be irregularities I do not believe they occurred by intent, and at their very worst they are certainly not greater than those which are shown to exist in Nova Scotia or elsewhere. I trust that even at the last hour the Prime Minister will withdraw this clause of the Bill and refrain from doing this injustice to the province of Ontario.


Mr. WM. WRIGHT (Muskoka).: Representing as I do one of the constituencies in northern Ontario which will to some extent be affected by this Bill, I feel I am justified in uttering as strong a protest against it as I am capable of uttering. It has been truly stated in this discussion that we have as correct voters' lists in northern Ontario as we ever had, and as correct lists as are to be found in any part of the Dominion. Then, why should there be interference by this government: why should this government lay violent hands upon that portion of Ontario and say : We cannot trust you ; we will take this matter entirely into our own hands and we will put a stigma upon the government of Ontario and upon the people of that portion of the province, because after all these lists have been made up by the people who reside in these unorganized territories. Now, Sir, the strong ground of the objection of the member for Rainy River is that there was not sufficient time under the Ontario statute to properly compile these lists, but let me point out that the time given for the preparation of Mr. KEMP.
these lists under the provincial law Is just as great as the time provided for in this Bill so that this chief ground of complaint by the hon. member (Mr. Conmee) falls to the ground. But, the hon. member (Mr. Conmee) cares nothing for that so long as he gets the preparation of the lists into the hands of men whom he thinks he can manipulate. I might point out also that under the system of registration if it is at all well done we have better voters' lists than we have under the ordinary system of compiling voters' list in the organized portion of Ontario, and I think the same thing would apply to any portion of Canada.
Owing to the constant movement of population, some system of registration is necessary if we are not going to disfranchise a large number of people. I hold in my hand the voters' list for 1907 as finally completed by the judge, of one of the municipalities in my riding. I hold another as it comes from the hands of the assessor for 1908. That covers a period of between seven and eight months. In that municipality alone I find new voters being qualified to the number of over 100. That municipality is of course somewhat larger than some of the others in the riding, but it represents only about one-ninth of the riding ; so that that indicates a change in the voters of that riding of 900 voters m the space of less than eight months. If that proportion is kept up for the whole year, it will mean between 1,300 and 1,400 voters that would be qualified to vote at an election next fall if put on list who will be disfranchised should the election be then brought on. In the unorganized section, in whicli there are only a few municipalities, the same thing will not apply. In the last election the government took the machinery into their own hands, and in the course of a couple of weeks they had to do what it takes two months to do under the Act, so that the list was necessarily very incomplete. It is almost impossible to make up a proper list in that length of time. But bad as it was, there were more votes polled in the unorganized portion in proportion than in the organized portion of the riding I represent, being 72 per cent in the unorganized portion and ony 65 per cent in the organized portion, on account of the length of time required to make up the voters' lists. So I think it is absolutely necessary, if we do not intend to disfranchise large numbers of people in the organized districts, that we should bring the machinery more up to date than it is at the present time. While it may not pertain particularly to this Bill, I want to emphasize that point. This Bill, as I understand it, is to enable a few people to be put on the voters' list in the district of Rainy River and Thunder Bay. There is no complaint, I understand, in any other part of the unorganized districts.


Mr. CONMEE.: I may say to my hon. friend that there are similar complaints from other ridings.


William Wright: If there are, they have never been laid before this House, it may suit some hon. gentlemen very well to keep in their pockets the complaints and bring them down at the last moment, when there is no opportunity to defeat them. That may show a high degree of cleverness, but I do not think much of it. Suppose you do put on a dozen or half a dozen voters for the Rainy River and Thunder Bay district, I have no hesitation in saying that in some of these northern ridings there will be at least a thousand people disfranchised. Perhaps there will not be that many in the district which the hon. gentleman represents, but there is a great difference in the number of voters when the election is held at the proper time of the year, say in the month of June, as compared with late in the fall. In the recent election held in the province of Ontario by the Whitney government there were over 50,000 more votes polled than there were in the last Dominion election, which was held late in the fall. In the riding which I represent hundreds of people had gone to the woods at the time of the election, and found it impossible to get back to vote. The right hon. gentleman brought on the election in what is called the deer season. All over this country we have men enduring the burden and heat of the day with the hope that in the beginning of November they will have a couple of weeks of hunting in the northern woods of Ontario. These men come from all parts of the province. If the right hon. gentleman again brings on the election late in the fall, it will have the effect of disfranchising thousands of people in this way. What are the votes of a few people in one riding compared with the disfranchising of thousands of people throughout the province ? Under the terms of this Bill the revising of the lists is put at such a date as to make it impossible to avoid that sort of thing, because in spite of anything he can do, it will take from now till the 1st of November to prepare the list. Then hundreds of men go into the lumber woods late in the fall, and these people will be disfranchised as well. With regard to the actual working out of this measure, we shall have this condition of affairs. Under the local Act notices are put up in the month of July in the various ridings throughout that northern country, and the enumerators who will be brought in under this Bill will go to work a few weeks later, so that ypu will have two sets of officials at work, and the public will be put to the inconvenience and trouble of looking after two sets of courts to see that they are on both lists. That may look very easy to the people assembled in this parliament, but it is far from easy in those scattered settlements of
northern Ontario, where the distances are so great and where the conditions are such that sometimes travel is almost impossible. I want to point out another defect in this Bill, I find no provision in it making it necessary to take as a basis the present voters' lists as compiled by the province. Every man in these unorganized districts will have to see personally that he is put on the list. As it is to-day, a man who has been on the list knows that he has the qualification, and the chances are a thousand to one that he will remain on the list unless there is some reason why he should be put off. Under this Bill that cannot be, but every man will have to see for himself that he is put on the list. This is a very distinct hardship to the people, and I appeal to the right hon. gentleman to take the voters' lists as compiled by the province of Ontario as a basis, if he must put the Bill through, so that every man will feel that he is already on the list unless for some reason his name should be removed. That would do away to a large extent with the difficulty of making every man go and see that he is put on the voters' lists of an unorganized portion of the province. As regards the courts necessary to be held, I have made a calculation and find there will be an average of fifty enumerators' courts for each one of the Dominion ridings represented in this House. Only a small portion of the district I represent comes under the scope of this Bill-some eight polling places. In my experience that means an enumerator's court for every polling place, and our plan has been in the past for a judge to have a court of appeal in every place where the enumerator sat. A hundred courts will have to be held by the judges over that northern district in a short space of time and the same number of courts in connection with the provincial lists. The judges will have in addition to their ordinary division courts and quarter sessions and will have to crowd into that two and a half months perhaps 125 courts in some ridings. It would be physically impossible for any judge to hold all these, and I do not know whether you can make a provision lor the work to be divided between two or more judges even if they do happen to live in the districts they preside over.
All these things considered carefully should lead the right hon. gentleman to decide to remove clause 1. While that might be found objectionable by two or three of his friends, I believe that in the province and particularly in the unorganized districts, he will make more friends and stand better in the public estimation. There has been no hardship in any quarter of that section of country with regard to the lists compiled by the late government. They are as correct as one can reasonably expect and certainly as correct as they are anywhere in the or-

ganized portions of Ontario or the Dominion. Under all the circumstances it would be well for the right hon. gentleman to remove this clause, to take away this stigma from the province of Ontario, especially northern Ontario, and let us make the Bill as perfect as possible. I am not asking too much wheu I ask the right hon. gentleman to appeal to his Minister of Justice to remove this clause and treat the province of Ontario the same as Quebec or any other province. If the province of Quebec can be trusted to make her own lists, why cannot Ontario? Surely the minister will not say that he cannot allow a Conservative province to control its own voters' lists.


Mr. ALCORN.: As a representative from the province of Ontario, I desire to register my personal protest, in the strongest possible terms, against the insult placed by this government on that province. Surely the government are not going to cast this stigma on the province of Ontario of declaring that its provincial government and officials are not to be trusted and that they are incompetent to compile fair and reasonable lists which may be used both in Dominion and provincial elections. I am not aware of any ground for this particular clause in this Bill except that in the opinion of hon. gentlemen opposite, a province, presided over by a Conservative cabinet, cannot be trusted to make up its own voters' lists. The justification for this Bill must be some wrong which requires a remedy. Well, what is the wrong? We have no information on that score. We have had no specific allegations made to the House by the government or any member of it, not even bv the Minister of Justice. Then why should Ontario be treated in a different manner from the other provinces? It has been stated in a general way that dissatisfaction exists with regard to the lists in northern Ontario, which were prepared for the purpose of the provincial elections on June 8 last. Well, I suppose that a certain degree of dissatisfaction will always exist against the party which has the making up of the election lists. The Minister of Justice told us that certain information had come to him by letters and other written communications, and that certain Irregularities were said to have existed in ceitain polling divisions in the northern territory. But he gave no detailed information to prove these charges. Speaking on that subject, at page 8101 of ' Hansard,' on May 5 last, he said :
I do not know and do not suppose any one can know without the taking of evidence whether or not that state of things, as so described, does exist or not.
But no evidence was taken, and the taking of evidence was the very proper means, as pointed out by the minister himself, by which the House might have been informed whether the legislation now proposed is necessary. It has been said that certain Mr. W. WRIGHT.
appeals were, in some nebulous manner, not particularly described, impeded in respect of the lists made up in northern Ontario last June. That objection however can have no force. /If the judges did, in one instance, or possibly two, certify lists as to which appeals had not been heard, that did not impede going on with the appeals in the ordinary and proper way and holding courts of revision and disposing of any appeals that any person chose to make. Whether the list had been placed in use for provincial purposes or not did not prevent the courts of revision from going on and appeals being had in the regular way for the purposes of a Dominion election. Now, as this Bill must be based upon some wrong requiring a remedy, one would have supposed that the remedy applied would be commensurate with the wrong complained of. I have heard no specific complaint other than that the lists in one or two instances were certified by the judge before the time for appeal expired. It seems to me that, if the government, in their unwisdom, conceive it necessary to bring in such a measure as this covering the whole ground of the preparation of lists, their revision and bringing them into force, they entirely overstepped the wrong of which they are complaining. Their proper course would be to take such measures with the Ontario government as would induce that government to right any such wrong as that to which I have alluded; and if that course was not effective, if the Ontario government refused upon proper representation being made, to right the wrong, then a Bill might be brought in covering the. irregularities which the government might be able to prove to exist. But it seems to me that the revolutionizing of the whole electoral courts in northern Ontario and imposing upon that portion of the province entirely new lists, with all the attendant labour and expense- and, it seems to me in trying to work out the particulars, hardly workable at all-cannot be justified as commensurate with the wrong of wThich the government complains.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at'three o'clock.
On section 1,


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I beg to move that for the reasons stated, subsections 1 to 8 both inclusive of section 1 of this Bill be struck out. In making this motion I desire to point out the difference between this law as it stood prior to the advent of the Whitney government in 1905, and the present law. In the elections of November, 1904, the law stood as it is now, with this amendment, accepting the provincial voters' lists in their entirety, provided they were not more than a year old at the time of the issue of the writ for a general election. So whenever there were provincial lists in the unorgan-

ized territories under the old law which were not one year old at the date of the issue of the writ, those lists were used for the Dominion election. Now I fail to see that any argument has been adduced in support of this legislation, any sound reason put forward upon which that basis should be changed, any logical ground for the change of basis and the non-acceptance of the provincial lists for federal elections, any ground upon which to reverse the principles which the Liberal party enunciated in their platform of 1893, and which they emphasized in 1898 when they repealed the Franchise Act and provided for the acceptance of the provincial lists. If this law were to pass, although you approve of the provincial lists and accept them, in almost ail cases, if you held an election, although the provincial lists were only three months old and properly prepared, under this amendment you would provide that those provincial lists shall not be used, lists that had been prepared three months, or perhaps only 60 days, before the issue of the writ. But the right hon. gentleman proposes to ask the province of Ontario to put aside those lists for all time, and to accept lists which may be eleven months old, thereby disfranchising ail those who became entitled to vote since the last lists were made up. The right hon. gentleman will see what I mean, by referring to subsection 7 :
Where, within one year prior to the date of the writ for am election in any electoral district composed wholly ot partly of such territory not municipally organized, voters' lists for any such territory have been prepared under the provisions of this section, such lists shall be used fotr such election and new lists shall not be prepared therefor.
That emphasizes the right hon. gentleman's intention absolutely to discriminate against lists nrenared under the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario, although in the case that I have mentioned, nine months more recent, regular provincial lists have been prepared under the laws of the province. Mv risrht hon. friend would absolutely discriminate against those, ignore them, cast his professions to the winds, and use lists which were eleven or eleven and a half months old, and thereby disfranchise all those who became entitled to vote in the meantime.


Hr. J. D. REID.: Before this Bill is passed I want to enter my protest against the reflection that is being cast upon the province of Ontario. The only reason I can see why Ontario is being treated in this way is that the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Coninee) has insisted that he be looked after in the next election. I am surprised that the Prime Minister has listened to the hon. member for Rainy River in this matter. Here is an election Bill prepared, and the only province in the Dominion of
Canada that is reflected upon, I might say insulted, is the province of Ontario, by these words :
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, voters' lists for the portions of the province of Ontario which consist of territory not municipally organized shall be prepared during the months of August, September and October in each year.
Now I assert as a citizen of Ontario that it is most unfair to our great province that tile Prime Minister has seen fit to yield to tlie solicitations of the member for Rainy River and insert that clause in this Bill. I have not heard one word throughout the whole province of Ontario complaining of any unfair treatment under the last lists. I do not believe there is a man in the province of Ontario who believes that Mr. Whitney, the Prime Minister of Ontario, would allow a single improper act to be committed in the preparation of the voters' lists. Even if there had been a little trouble in a couple of polls in the Rainy River constituency, I think myself that the Prime Minister, being a resident of the province of Quebec, would have been the first man to let the province of Ontario alone. The hon. the Prime Minister has tried to lead the people of the province of Ontario to think that he wants to be fair and just, but in this matter it is the only province at which he is hurling this insult. I think the hon. member for Rainy River has been well treated, he has had public works given him up there, enough to carry his constituency without having to he assisted in this way. So far as I am concerned, I think the Prime Minister should name this the Coninee Bill, because it is simply a Bill passed by this House to elect the hon. member for Rainy River.


Mr. BENNETT.: A Bill for the relief of the hon. member for Rainy River.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. In getting this Bill through the Prime Minister hopes to win four or five more constituencies, in some way. I think the Prime Minister is most unfair towards Ontario. As regards the province of Quebec, he sees that a Liberal government is in power, and the voters' lists will be prepared within the next month or so just as he wishes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


John Dowsley Reid: The Prime Minister thinks he is safe there, so he is willing to withdraw Quebec, but in Ontario, where lists have been prepared and the Prime Minister cannot say that anything has been wrongly done, he wants to have five or six members elected simply by this Bill. I am surprised that the Minister of Customs, who represents Ontario in the cabinet, and who, I am sure, is proud of his province, has not prevented this slur being cast upon it. The Minister of Railways and Canals

and other ministers from Ontario seem to be afraid to protest against It. It may be that there is truth in the story that an effort is being made to get the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Trade and Commerce out of the cabinet and that therefore these gentlemen are afraid to stand up for Ontario. The Prime Minister has evidently decided that we will have an election this fall, a year before we should have it, and he hopes by thus taking an unfair advantage through these lists to carry six counties.


Mr. BLAIN.: Mr. Chairman, as seconder of the amendment of the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) I wish to express my disproval of the course pursued by the leader of the House in introducing legislation to deal especially with Ontario in respect to voters' list. In the last session of the legislature, prior to the election just held, not a word of protest or condemnation of the Whitney administration for their preparation of the voters' lists was presented nor has any complaint been heard since the .election. I have not heard a valid argument advanced why Ontario should be legislated against in this respect. The right hon. gentleman knows that the people of Ontario are anxious for a fair and honest voters' list. His own party had charge of the preparation of these lists for over thirty-six years, and since this party came into power in 1896 elections have been held on the voters' lists prepared by the legislature of that province.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Richard Blain: The Prime Minister says ' hear, hear.' Why is he not now willing to trust himself and his government to a voters' list prepared by a provincial government in Ontario now? There can be but one reason. I do not wish to single out my hon. friend trom Rainy River (Mr. Commee) but my hon. friend has a history in Ontario, he was a prominent follower and supporter of Sir Oliver Mowat in days gone by and continued a support of the Liberal party in the legislature. He has a record that is all his own, peculiarly his own, I do not wish to refer to it, but if the right hon. gentleman had turned a deaf ear to my hon. friend and had asked the honest people of northern Ontario whether they thought federal lists should be prepared for the coming election, I am sure the answer would have been that they were quite satisfied with the lists they had and did not ask the government to go to the expense or to single out that part of Ontario which will soon become an organized district. This course will not bring support to the right hon. gentleman when he appeals for support to the people of that district. I think he could afford to trust the people of Ontario. They applauded him in days gone by, he announced himself prior to 1896 as a champion of provincial rights. That was his great cry in Ontario and other Mr J. D. REID.
provinces and many people in that province,
I think too many, trusted him and voted for him-the right hon. gentleman may smile, he has heard predictions before, but I venture this prediction that when the election comes my right hon. friend will receive from these northern districts a rejoiner such as he never received befoie, because of this Bill. Neither in the discussions in this House nor in the newspapers of Ontario, even the ' Globe,' have any valid reasons been given why the government should not adhere to the policy of provincial voters' lists for federal elections as they did in 1897. Why do they depart from it ? Because a Conservative administration controls affairs in Ontario now; there fore my hon. friend asks for special legislation providing for special lists in northern Ontario in order to give the Liberals a better chance. I am surprised that gentlemen from Ontario on the other side of the House have not protested against this invasion of the rights of that province, they sit quietly and allow this Bill to go through without a protest. The Minister of Customs who is well and favourably known in Ontario, whom the people have honoured, who has called loudly for provincial rights and has told the people of the fairness of the right hon. gentleman and of the government he is supporting, sits quietly by and says : It is all right, we shall have a special voters' list for my own province in the unorganized district. I want to say a word or two to the Minister of Justice. I am sure when at the close of the session the Minister of Justice reflects upon his position he will have cause to regret that he was the father of this Bill which strikes at the province of Ontario. Evidently one reason for the action of the Minister of Justice was that he might save the hon. member for Rainy River, but I venture to think that although that hon. gentleman may put on the voters' lists all the employees of the Grand Trunk Pacific in his constituency, it will not save him at the next election.


Mr. MILLER.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) think that the judges to whom this matter will be entrusted would put on the voters' lists employees of the Grand Trunk Pacific who have no right to be there?


Richard Blain: I do not know, and I am not going to speak for the judges. My argument is that the preparation of these voters' lists should be left to the province of Ontario, and the hon. member (Mr. Miller) has supported that principle in the days gone by.


An hon. MEMBER.: He will support anything.


Richard Blain: Of course, he will be compelled to support anything that comes from the government.	.

An bon. MEMBER. He was independent once.


Richard Blain: We have not seen any evidence of that since he came to the House. 1 tell the First Minister that he is making a serious mistake when he presses through parliament legislation which is an invasion of the rights of the people of Ontario.


George Eulas Foster: Before the motion is brought to a vote, I desire to add a word to the protest which has been made by my colleagues from Ontario. It is rather a singular thing that nobody finds a word to say in support of this clause. The Prime Minister has no word in support of it; the Minister of Justice is dumb on the question and he cannot hear anything we say ; and the Solicitor General, who ought to be in his place earning his money, is out of the House successively and continuously. I protest, in the first place, against the unfairness of making us discuss a question with a man who cannot hear us and with a sub-otticer who ought to take this legislation, being well paid for his job, out of this House and shirking his proper duty. What use is there in addressing an argument to a man who has got to wait until he reads ' Hansard,' and then maybe to-morrow he will vouchsafe an answer. We could avoid f3hat by having the Solicitor General put in charge of this Bill. But the Prime Minister does not give us either a chance to discuss the matter or to put a man before us who can discuss the matter with us. In that he is unfair to this side of the House, which at least does wish to discuss and put its reasons with reference to these various measures before the government and parliament. Of course, it makes no difference-to men on the other side of the House. They have no criticism to offer ; they are not supposed to offer any ; they are not invited to offer any ; their's is simply to vote whatever the Prime Minister wants, and it makes no difference to them whether the Minister of Justice can hear their arguments or not, or whether or not there is a Solicitor General in his place who can hear. But with us it is a little different, and I protest against this abuse of his position by the Prime Minister. We must not forget the legislation with which the right hon. gentleman came down to this House, on March 9th, and we must not forget the legislation with which he came down some two months after. And we cannot help expresing the opinion that if he had climbed down just a little bit further it would have been better for his own reputation and better for the public life of Canada. He and his Minister of Justice came down with a proposition to invade their old code rig|hts, the provincial control of franchises, in the case of four provinces, three of which are now administered by their opponents and the other of which is still in their grasp.
The Prime Minister, more than any other man, at one period of his career, took tihis simple and logical position:	I
prefer to trust the provinces in the matter of these franchises and in the matter of preparing the voters' lists. The right hon. gentleman went further and said : I will trust these provincial governments, even though they are opposed to me, for although in some cases wrongs may be done, yet upon the whole I believe the virtue of the principle will overweigh occasional wrongs, and even with that in view I argue for provincial franchises and provincial control of the lists. But a change came over my right hon. friend's vision, and this legislation was introduced on the 9th of March ; introduced in all its boldness-so bold that my right hon. friend was himself a little terrified when he came to look at it. lam charitable enough to think that he did not give that legislation thorough personal revision until it had been discussed many days in this House. If I am wrong in that it makes it no better for my right hon. friend. But the bold proposition he came down with was : To seize the making of the lists in the province of British Columbia, from which no single note of dissatisfaction or protest had ever come to him or to any member of his government. Why did he single out that province? For no other reason than that he did not want to single out the province of Manitoba alone, and so, for the sake of company, he added in British Columbia. And when some few of the members from British Columbia gave a tardy and lukewarm submission to the measure, not one of them made a note of strong complaint, and in fact the consensus of their opinion was that both sides of politics believed there were fair and just voters' lists in British Columbia. But he proposed to take hold of the province of Manitoba. He grasped the province ' of Manitoba in 1904 through a subclause in the present election law, and by means of a forced revision, a partial revision, a scandalous revision, in which the thin red line outrage was perpetrated to his knowledge and to the knowledge of his colleagues March 9th, 1908, he proposed if possible to get a legal way of doing what he did before in an illegal manner, and so avoid the judgment of the Supreme Court of Manitoba, which pronounced that the thin red line action was illegal. And so he proposed to put his own partisans in charge of British Columbia, in charge of Manitoba ; men appointed by himself, started in after the writ had issued to do the whole work of enumeration, of notification, of revision and of notification again, in the short period which elapses between the issuing of the writ and the holding of the election. No amount of argument of the Minister of Justice, specious as it is. that they were allowed to do it either before or after the issue of the writ affects the question at all. You must



take the maximum of the power that the government takes in any legislation and criticise it upon that, and the maximum of the power they took was to place their own creatures in charge of this matter after the writs for the election were issued and to do the whole work of notification, and enumeration, and revision, in that short and impossible period of time.
Then, Sir, they took hold of the province of Quebec as to its unorganized districts and of the province of Ontario as to its unorganized districts. That was the intention of the right hon. gentleman and his Minister of Justice ; that is what they proposed to push through ; that is what their following in the west, outside of the British Columbia province, assisted them in attempting to push through, and for which they fought week after week with the strongest of language and the stoutest of backbones, determined to push it through and to teach the Conservatives what they ought to be taught in the province of Manitoba. Well, Sir, something happened. My right hon. friend, began to sense what he was trying to push through, and the fair-minded men in the country began to say that he had gone further than he should have gone, that he had bitten off more than he could chew without injuring his political digestion ; and after a month and a half or two months he came down. He left the province of British Columbia alone ; he left the province of Manitoba alone; he deserted the stalwarts of the province of Manitoba who had made their plaints-one, two, three, four, half a dozen of them, set out in long affidavits and in long statements that they read in the House; what was, according to the Minister of Justice, incontrovertible proof of the terrible wrong that was being done to them. He deserted them all, he climbed down, and he is hanging now by the eye-lids to the little unorganized territories of the province of Ontario. Why did he not drop that, and complete his reputation for being honest and fairminded. Having let all the rest go, why does he hang on to this ? There is the same obloquy, the same unfairness of spirit, the same lack of argument to back it up that there was in the other case. Why did he desert the stalwarts from Manitoba and cling to the one lone man from Rainy River ? How do these gentlemen feel about it ? After all their partisan support, after eating the leek and being dragged through the mire at the heels of my right hon. friend's devious policy in the west, to be sacrificed on the altar of seeming fair play, and yet to have this spotless dove from Rainy River made their particular favourite and put up on high. How do they feel about it ? My right hon. friend has not only to square his accounts with the ' Free Press ' of Winnipeg and with those ardent followers of his from the west, but he has to square the Mr. FOSTER.
account which yet remains with reference to his treatment of the province of Ontario. They will not discuss it here. His followers from Ontario will not open their mouths here. Let me tell him that this discussion has only begun, and that before this year is over there is not a hamlet or town in the province of Ontario that will not hear of this insult to the government of Ontario, and fully heed it. My right hon. friend snaps his fingers in the face of public opinion. Once when I was talking to him across the floor of the House, when I put his pledges of 1896 before him, and his performance of none of them, the right hon. gentleman pulled himself up and said : ' Well, Sir, what are you going to do about it ?-we are here and you are there.' Yes, my right hon. friend is there ; he has his majority behind him, but it is a majority which he got in 1904. Another question is, how the country feels in 1908 ? My right hon. friend is bucking up, without the best backing, against a government which has the very best backing. He, the leader of a moribund and disintegrated government, is bucking up against the Hon. Mr. Whitney and a fresh, vigourous government. He, with a majority in a moribund parliament, elected four years ago, is bucking up against a government in the province of Ontario which has the verdict of the people of a little more than a month ago, and an overwhelming majority in favour of that government-95,000 of a majority in the province of Ontario, formerly his right arm ; and is it because that has been lopped off from his support that he visits with this petty revenge, if I may call it such, with his puny punishment, the province which had refused to recognize his lordship and refuses to bow to his sovereignty ? Well, if he does, he will only find after the next election record is placed on file, that his majority from the province of Ontario will be still less. There are fairminded people amongst the Grits in the province of Ontario. Mr. Whitney's majority of 1904 and his majority of 1908 show that there are more than Tories in the province of Ontario that will vote against a party which has been false to all its pledges in provincial matters, and much more against a party which has been false to all its pledges in federal matters. My right hon. friend has not given a reason. The Minister of Justice has not given a reason. He visits with that superior smile of his any objection which is taken from this side of the House, and deigns no answer. But my right hon. friend and his Minister of Justice have to get out before the people of this country, before the universal trial judges of this country, and have got to answer there for this legislation against the province of Ontario. I ask my right hon. friend whether this was not his position in 1896 ; did he not say : We will take the provincial

franchise and the provincial arrangement of the list ? He did. Did he not say : We hold power in our hands, and If we find that these are violated and gross instances of injustice are shown, we will have a chance to remonstrate with the provincial authorities, and if they do not conform with what we believe to be right, we have then the further right to take the matter into our own hands. That was his position; how has he carried it out ? I ask him to say whether or not he has had the courtesy to communicate with the Hon. J. P. Whitney or the attorney general of Ontario, giving them the grounds on which he thinks wrongs have been done in those constituencies, and asking them to examine into them, and if they find that these wrongs have been perpetrated, then to provide the means for redress.
Such I venture to say he has not. I venture to say that neither he nor his Minister of Justice ever had the courtesy to approach the government of Ontario and put the case before it. Why ? Because they had no case. When a case is to be put, it must be a reasoned one, based upon substantial evidence. But the Minister of Justice takes this absurd and petty position that because the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Con-mee) has said something in this House and read something in this House, both of which he may believe to be true, but which have been absolutely and categorically denied by my hon. friend from West Algoma (Mr. Boyce)-and one member's word is just as good as another's in this House-because that hearsay statement has been made, my right hon. friend and his Minister of Justice take it as evidence upon which they can base this extraordinary piece of legislation. Why, the Minister of Justice gave away the position himself. He said he had heard nothing that could be called evidence and that evidence was the only thing that should guide one. I have no evidence, he said, and without evidence we cannot properly ascertain the true facts of the case and the basis of the difficulty. Yet he has not seen fit to take evidence. Neither has the first minister. The government has not proceeded in that way at all ; but on a mere expression of dissatisfaction, on the mere assertion of one member met by the equally positive denial of another, just as intelligent and just as well posted, he has brought in this Bill. That is all there is, and yet on that evidence, which in a court of law would not hang a cat, which would not be permitted to have the least weight before any judge, our Minister of Justice-save the mark-in this Dominion parliament has thought fit to interfere with the sacred right of the franchise and attack the honesty and administration and good intentions of a local government. What answer has my hon. friend ? There can be none. He has not been courteous nor honest nor fair. What he should have 411}
done, when the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) made the statements he did-what he should have done, if he thought there was a possible case, was to-collect the data, put the case before the Hon. J. P. Whitney, and then if nothing were done, he would have some reason for grasping power which otherwise he has no business to lay a hand upon, and in laying hands upon which he is going against his own principles and his own record.
Then I asked my right hon. friend a question regarding the unorganized districts in the province of Quebec and what reply did I get ? The Minister of Justice replied, and his reply shows the bareness and the baldness of the whole case. He said there were hundreds of people in the unorganized districts in the province of Quebec who could not vote. What does the right hon. gentleman propose to do in their case ? Or is he only looking after those whom he expects to vote for the Grit candidate. Is it not as much the business of the Minister of Justice to see that the hundreds of voters in certain unorganized districts in the province of Quebec are given votes as to see that some voters who, it is alleged, have been left off the lists in the unorganized districts of Ontario, should be put in a position to vote. Is my right hon. friend solicitous that these voters in the unorganized districts in the province of Quebec should be In a position to exercise their franchise? If so, there is just as much imperative necessity that they should be looked after and organized and put in a position to exercise their rights as it is that these voters in the unorganized districts of Ontario should enjoy the franchise. But what has been done ? My right hon. friend has dropped Quebec but hangs on to Ontario. Why has he dropped Quebec ? He gives a very ingenuous reason. He says that the party friends who lead the government in that province may be trusted to make matters right, but in the case of Ontario the hon. Mr. Whitney, just returned by an immense majority, and his government cannot be trusted to do what is right. Why, the right hon. gentleman never asked him, never gave him the opportunity, and up to the 30th of June of this year, Mr. Whitney, both by his declarations and the power he possessed, could have remedied this matter of appeal, if my right hon. friend had deigned to enter into communication with him. Mr. Whitney had the power, the will and the desire, but my right hon. friend seems as anxious to keep a grievance as my hon. friend from Rainy River (Mr. Conmee). Both of them cherish grievances. They can give over the unorganized districts in the province of Quebec to the provincial legislature but they refuse to trust them to the province of Ontario.
The right hon. gentleman has gone too far in this matter, the defect alleged is that there are voters in the unorganized dis-

tricts of Ontario who have been left off the list. But why were they left off ? Because the local elections were held on the 8th of June, and consequent!}' there was not sufficient time to take appeals and have lists revised. But that is a difficulty only for this year, if it be one, and what is the hon. gentleman's proposed legislation ? Does it confine itself to remedying that grievance this year ? No, but the right hon. gentleman makes that pretense to grasp the unorganized districts, eleven of them, for all time to come. His measure goes immeasurably beyond the grievance and proves that it is not a desire to remove a real grievance which animates the right hon. gentleman but a desire to grasp the voters' lists. Take all your newspaper statements and the statements made in the House, and you have only one or two or three places where any grievance is alleged, but you see that as a pretext to grasp the whole eleven unorganized districts. Why do you do that ? Not because you want to remedy a grievance localized in two or three places but because you wish to have the organization of those districts permanently in your hands. That will not appeal to the peonle of Ontario. It will not appeal to fair minded men throughout this Dominion. And after all, take out your partisans on the one side and the other, and you have the salt of the political earth in the shape of that large number of thinking people, growing every day larger, who hold the balance of power and who exercise an independent spirit of criticism and judgment with reference to both political parties. That you are outraging. The public sentiment in this country will not go with you. It will go against you and you feel it has gone against you when you give the people a chance to speak by their ballots.
I protest as strongly as I can. I make my protest here, throughout Ontario and this Dominion : and if these hon. gentlemen will not give a reason for the belief that is in them, they will be obliged to give it when we meet them at the poll.


Mr. PATERSON.: It is well understood that it is highly desirable no lengthy speeches should be made at this stage of the session, and therefore I suppose many members may keep quiet who otherwise would feel it incumbent on them to take part in the debate.
But It seems to me that hon. members opposite want some one from the province of Ontario to speak on this subject. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has gone into one of his paroxysms, one of these streaks that at times take possession of him, and has tried to wax indignant about a thing that, it seems to me, can be treated reasonably. What is this fuss about? What is it that he is going to discuss with the electorate?-and that, I suppose, he will give us the privi-Mr. FOSTER.
lege of discussing with him. He tells us that some outrage is being committed, that war is being entered upon against the Whitney government, tie says that we will find that we are up against the Whitney government. We are evidently up against some individuals in this House who hope some time to form a government, my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) being one. It is with them we will have to fight; we are not fighting with Mr. Whitney at all. We are seeking to have our own rights in this matter. We are not departing from our principles-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Paterson: I think hon. gentlemen opposite have admitted that we have kept that one plank in our platform.


Mr. BERGERON.: You are spoiling it now.


William Paterson: Then do not hon. gentlemen opposite see how wrong they were for years in stating that we had not kept even this one? If they were wrong then they may be wrong now. We are seeking to have the new lists in places where there are no municipally-prepared lists. We have said in the past, and say now : Adopt the lists which are municipally prepared and upon which the local elections are held. But 'there are no municipally-prepared lists in the unorganized districts. There was special legislation by the provincial legislature to deal with these unorganized districts and provide for making up the lists. Hon. gentlemen say this Bill is special legislation. We are proposing to do the same thing with reference to Dominion lists. Is there anything wrong in that? The special legislation providing for making the lists for the Ontario House was carried out by partisans. I am not going to say they were unfair men, but they were men of the provincial government's own choosing, meu who did not occupy judicial positions. These men prepared the lists, and on those lists the elections were run. If this Bill passes, it will declare the sense of this House that while in the organized counties the lists of the provincial elections should be used, yet in the unorganized districts where there are no municipally-prepared lists this Dominion legislature shall direct how those lists shall be prepared.


George Eulas Foster: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) allow a question? Does he propose to move an amendment to apply this to the province of Prince Edward Island?


William Paterson: I am not proposing any amendments to the Bill. We are discussing this question of Ontario and this alleged outrage of which hon. gentlemen talk.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) probably did not catch the drift of my question. He said the government proposed to take charge of the making of the lists where lists were not municipally prepared. I supposed, of course, he would move to apply it to the province of Prince Edward Island where the lists are not municipally prepared.


William Paterson: I will do the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) the justice to say that he is not so dense as not to understand what I said. We are discussing Ontario


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Why not apply the same to Quebec?


William Paterson: The subject under discussion now is Ontario. According to hon. gentlemen opposite, if we were trying to do this thing in Quebec we would be doing the monstrous thing that they declare we are doing here. Now, whether a monstrous thing or not, we are doing it only in Ontario, and, therefore, the discussion can be confined to Ontario. There was necessarily special legislation by the provincial legislature to provide for the making of these lists for the provincial elections. I maintain the right of this parliament, in perfect consistency with the principles we announced in the past in favour of municipally-prepared lists, to legislate specially for the preparation of lists for the Dominion election. It has been argued by hon. members opposite that this is done for the sake of the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee), that this Bill, if rightly named, would be called : A Bill to elect the present member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River. They say that the hon. member has asserted of his own knowledge that the lists are unfair as they were prepared, at least in some of these districts, for the last election. But they say also that he has given no proof, and therefore that the facts as he presents them should not be accepted. I do not deal with this matter on the basis of the statements of the hon. member (Mr. Conmee). I take the statements and arguments of hon. members opposite on the floor of this House. And I ask these hon. members to judge by inference from those statements whether the lists prepared in the last provincial election were just, honest and complete lists.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, they were.


William Paterson: The hon. member (Mr. J. D. Reid) says they were. Now, what is proposed under this Bill? Is it proposed that the government shall appoint its own creatures to prepare lists? Nothing of the kind. It is proposed that three judges of the land shall be selected and that they shall select enumerators who shall prepare the lists.


George Oscar Alcorn: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


William Paterson: Let me go on


George Oscar Alcorn: I would only say that-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order. Sit down.


William Paterson: The enumerators are to prepare the lists, and when they are so prepared they are to be revised by the judges, so that only such names as are proper to be on those lists shall remain on.


William Wright: May I ask the hon. member (Mr. Paterson) a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order. Oh, oh. Sit down.


William Paterson: My hon. friend from North Toronto alluded to that class of citizens who, as he says, are distinct from political parties and who, he claims, are the remnant that save the country, and declares that the people will condemn this Bill. Will the sane and fair element in the community, the people who view questions fom a non-partisan point of view, say that a measure which provides that the judiciary shall prepared the lists is a partisan outrage? Will these men say that the judges will prepare the lists in such a way as to give the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River a seat that he is not entitled to? I am a layman and I have always had an exalted idea of the judiciary of Canada. It has remained for members of the legal profession-who may aspire to positions on the bench themselves some day-to attempt to change my feeling on this subject. Is this their estimate of the judges of this country? Can they imagine themselves raised to the judicial bench, and willing, in that lofty position, to act as mere creatures of the government to make a list for the election of men to parliament who could not be elected fairly? The statements of these hon. gentlemen make me more suspicious of these existing lists than anything that the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River has said, for they tell us that on lists prepared by the judiciary, Liberals can be elected, but that Liberals would have no chance of election if the provincial lists were used. There can be no stronger argument. The hon. member may go from one point of Ontario to another-I trust I may be able to follow him or accompany him-and he will put this to the people of Ontario. What is the matter with this? Well, you are seeking an undue advantage. How so ? Because you have appointed the judges of the land, according to these gentlemen, to prepare the lists, and that task being confided to their hands, they are going so to manipulate these lists that the hon. member for Rainy River and others can be elected when the people don't want them. Will he not be in

a nice position in making that argument on the platform before the people?


An hon. MEMBER.: That is not the point.


William Paterson: It is the point, and the only point that is going before the people of Ontario, that clear distinct point, and all the worked-up indignation that the hon. gentlemen get off now or will be able to get off in the future, will look very cheap and very silly in the presence of men who will understand that the whole pretended outrage consists in this, that instead of having the lists prepared by partisan officers of the government, they are prepared by the judges of the land.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


William Paterson: 
Mr.   SAM@: 
William Paterson: there are eighty ridings in Ontario in which you use the lists prepared by the local government, and in the other six ridings you have a special preparation of the lists. There, instead of having the lists made by partisan officers of the local government, we propose to have the lists made for these constituencies by the judges of the land. That is the proposition that goes before the people, that and nothing more; and instead of being an insult to the Whitney government, their lists being right and proper, when the revision of these lists take place, the judicial revision which every man must admit will be honest and fair, and when that confirms the righteousness of the Whitney lists, why, the Whitney government is exalted and we will be cast down, especially the member for Rainy River who does not believe that this is the case. Now is not that the whole matter, notwithstanding all the indignation that you may attempt to arouse? There is one thing to be regretted, that is, that we find gentlemen of the legal profession in this House committing themselves to this bald statement, that the judges of the land, whose selection is not ieft to the government, but is determined in the Bill, that these men can so forget their duty, to forget the responsibility that rests upon them, that they will deliberately prepare lists that are false and wrong in order to elect members to this House that couhl not be elected on proper lists. We will await the result of this revision when it is made, and if it turns out that the lists that have been prepared by the provincial House are just and right, then hon. gentlemen opposite will be able to charge that we have entailed upon the country whatever expense there may be connected with this revision, and that is the only thing they can charge us with. The whole question is simply the small amount of money thnt it will take to bring about these judicially revised lists in the unorganized districts, that will, or ought to give absolute satisfaction to every man in this country, whether he be Grit or Tory.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: The Minister of Customs has been as amusing as usual. He told us in the commencement of his remarks that he did not desire or expect to be up against the Whitney government. He did not remind us that he had already been up against the Whitney government in the two ridings of Brant, and had come back with a very crestfallen appearance..


William Paterson: We all meet with such accidents in elections.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and the hon. gentleman has met with a great many. So far as I understand his argument, it is this, when you condense it. that because the lists in the unorganized districts of Ontario are revised by the judges, and are therefore honest and good lists, it is the duty of this parliament to disregard them and to propose this measure. He has declared most

emphatically, so far as we could follow him, that the lists prepared by the officers of the Whitney government and revised by the judges of the land, are fair and honest lists. At all events he said no word against them and he argued that because the proposed lists to be prepared under this legislation will be equally fair and honest, therefore this legislation should go on.


William Paterson: I said more than that.


Robert Laird Borden: He said not a word against their accuracy or fairness.


William Paterson: Yes, I said that the inference and the only inference that could be drawn from the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite was that these lists were unfair.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman seriously ask the House to believe that this legislation is being based upon the statements of hon. gentlemen on this side ? The hon. gentleman seems to be very much in error as to what the policy of his government has been in the past. He says it has been their policy to abide altogether by municipal lists and to legislate whenever they were not municipal lists. Does he not,know that from 1897 to the present time, in the unorganized districts of Ontario, where the lists are not municipally prepared, the lists have been respected if they are less than a year old? That is the present law by section 7 of the statute.


William Paterson: 'I know it.


Robert Laird Borden: Then he is not abiding by the principles of the past when he proposes this legislation which provides that even where there are provincial lists less than a year old, those provincial lists in those unorganized territories shall be disregarded, although they are made to-day under the sanction and supervision of the judges, and that new lists prepared by this government shall take their places. Thus it may happen that these federal lists will be made in August, September and October of this year and new lists will be prepared under the provincial government next spring ; then if a general Dominion election should take place next July or August the lists nearly a year old, prepared by this government, shall be used and not the new lists prepared by the provincial government and approved by the judges. That is the effect of this legislation. The hon. gentleman proposes judicial lists, lists having judicial authority. What has he to say to the action of his friends in Nova Scotia, who, year after year, have denied any appeal to the judges with respect to the electoral lists of the province ? The Conservatives of Nova Scotia would be delighted to have a chance to appeal to the judges in respect to the preparation of the lists, more than once have
they made that motion in the assembly since 1882, but on every occasion it has been voted down. This Bill cannot be justified under present conditions. The Minister of Justice himself has declared that these matters which have been brought to the attention of the House, asserted on one side, controverted on the other, could not be determined except upon evidence before a committee of* the House. No one will gainsay that.


William Paterson: We had that evidence inferentially to-day.


Mr.   R.@: Ij. BORDEN. The minister differs from his colleague the Minister of Justice, who, in putting forward these stories, on July 2nd, said that he did not put them forward as evidence of any facts, except the one fact that there was dissatisfaction on the part of some hon. gentlemen opposite. We do not know how many people were dissatisfied, it may have been one or half a dozen or fifteen in the northern ridings of Ontario. But there are the words of the Minister of Justice that these matters upon which this Bill rests are matters that cannot be known except by inquiry on evidence and that inquiry has not been made. Further than that, we have the distinct admission of the Minister of Justice that, so far as he and the government and this House are concerned, that evidence is not forthcoming and has not yet been placed before parliament.


James Conmee: It has been stated that there is a properly prepared list In the unorganized territory and that no evidence was produced in this House to show that that list was defective, unfair, improperly and illegally prepared and- stuffed. I made assertions on a former occasion that it was an unfair list, that it was illegally prepared, that it took an unfair advantage of one political party, that it was prepared by political partisans, the enumerators being the nominees of the Conservative candidates in the local elections.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Would that be the reason for introducing this Bill ?


James Conmee: No, not the whole reason ; the hon. member himself gave the reason for its introduction ; two years ago he spoke for nearly three hours discussing and showing the imperfections of our present Act in regard to the preparation of lists for Dominion elections. He claimed that gross injustice had been done to him in his riding. He repeated those arguments during the present session, and if a strong case could be made out for a change in the law, he is responsible for making such a case. His whole argument led to that point.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The very provisions that I complained of are continued in this Act.


James Conmee: I entirely differ, they are not. The Act he complained of provided that the lists must be prepared after the writs were issued and the accusation was made against this government that It was a partisan list, hasty and therefore an imperfectly prepared list, and there was a good deal of ground for some of those allegations. It was in view of that that the government, as far as I [DOT]know, undertook this legislation, in order that they might be relieved from allegations of that character. in order that they might have a fair and reasonable list which would be regarded by fair-minded men as just, as between the political parties. Such a list should not be prepared during the heat of a Dominion election, when perhaps men go to greater extremes than they would at other times. These were some of the reasons, if I understood the Prime Minister aright, which justified the introduetoin of this legislation. It was timely and much needed legislation, as the present law is defective. The legislation was brought down before the statements were made by me, but the reasons given, I think, are sufficient to show the necessity for it and they are additional evidence that this legislation is absolutely necessary if we are to have a fair list. Does my hon. friend think that the present Dominion law if acted upon in the same manner as in the past would produce a fair list? He is on record as saying it would not.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What I complained about was the corrupt administration of the law by this government, and my words are ou record.


James Conmee: And what I am complaining about is the corrupt, partisan, and fraudulent administration of the provincial law. Now I call tlie attention of the leader of the opposition to some remarks he made in this House. He criticised the reasons for this legislation as paltry and in support of his contention he read the following statement Which was placed in his hands by the Whitney government:
The enumerators for the making of the voters' lists in territory without municipal organization were appointed by a general order in council dated the 18th day of December, 1907. At this time J. Gartforth was appointed to make the list for the old district of Port Arthur and Rainy River. The work was not commenced at Port Arthur, and it was afterwards found that the name of the enumerator had been received by telegram as ,1. Gartforth, where it should have been J. Ashforth. On the 6th day of January an order was passed correcting the name and appointing a separate enumerator, Frank Stain, for the Fort Frances district. It was supposed by the department that there was no further difficulty; but in March it was found that Ashforth was apparently incompetent and incapable of doing the work, and on the 25th day of March his appointment was cancelled, and Mr. BOYCE.
he was instructed by telegraph to hand all papers and money to Mr. Donald Hogarth. On the same date Mr. Donald Hogarth was appointed enumerator for the east part of the lading of Port Arthur, and Thomas Cummings was appointed enumerator for the western portion. Both were instructed to see Mr. Bang worthy, the Crown attorney and the clerk of the peace, for advice.
In the first place when I was accusing the enumerators of being partisan and of pre-pa ling lists without any notice and stealing a mean advantage over their opponents, the hon. gentleman from Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Boyce) was quick to jump to his feet and contradict that statement because he said that he knew Mr. Ashforth would not be guilty of such a thing. Well that is correct. In the statement read by the leader of the opposition it is claimed this Mr. Ashforth was incompetent and incapable of doing the work, but I think my hon. friend from Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Boyce) will admit that there is no more capable man in the country than Mr. Ashforth. It was not because he was not competent that Mr. Ashforth was dispensed with : it was because he was too high class a man to do the work of the machine. That is why he never got the instructions he should have got from the clerk of the pence.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: My hon. friend has before him a statement that Mr. Ashforth did not get the letter.


James Conmee: I have no such thing before me; I have Mr. Ashforth's own statement that he did get the appointment.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: My hon. friend has heard it stated several times that the reason Mr. Ashforth did not act was because he did not get the letter, which was incorrectly addressed to him as ' Gashforth.'


James Conmee: No such statement has been made and no such statement is true if it is made.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It is on ' Hansard.'


James Conmee: My. hon. friend is wrong. It is on ' Hansard,' there was a mistake as to the name and that might have misled the gentlemen at Toronto for a short time, but nobody claimed it mislead Mr. Ashforth, so far as I remember, who told me himself he was appointed enumerator.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: When ?


James Conmee: Last February ; and the document read by the leader of the opposition is proof that he had no instructions. He was referred to Mr. Langworthy for advice and instructions and he never got them Why did not he get them ? I leave hon. gentlemen to answer that question for themselves. He did not get them because he was not the kind of man they wanted. Let me illustrate that by another instance. We hear a good deal from gentlemen opposite

about the virtue and righteousness of the Whitney government and their officials and their administration. I have never attacked that administration and its record and I do not think it is a fair thing to do ; and I am going to make the remarks which I feel called upon to make now because the name of a respected citizen has been attacked in this document read by the leader of the opposition. Mr. Ashforth was a member of their license board and it was proved up to the hilt that two members of the board were bribed and had received money. An investigation was called for and a gentleman came up to hold the investigation and when he got to Port Arthur he found there was something in the rumours, and where do you think he held the investigation? In a back room 7 feet by 6 feet of Mr. Garrick's office. Two or three bold spirits found their wav in there and the commissioner was just about to close his books as there was no evidence. when they called on him to subpoena Mr. Downing and Mr. Downing's evidence disclosed that he gave $400 to one member of the board and $200 to another. The man who got the $200 admitted it ; the gentleman who got the $400 did not deny it but lie said it was given for another purpose. The commission of that officer was to investigate not that one charge but all the charges in regard to the license administration in that town, and he has never done it. The court was adjourned for ten days and the court never sat again and they have never come back to finish the investigation because there are lots more behind the scenes. I have the report here of the evidence taken and one of the witnesses was asked : Why did'nt you go to Mr. Ashforth, who is another member of -the board. His reply was : Why. Mr. Ashforth was regarded as a particularly honest man and there was no use going to see him. That is evidence as to the character of Mr. Ashforth. And if the newspapers are correct, within the last few days they have dismissed that board and they have dismissed Mr. Ashforth along with the two men who had received the money. And why ? Because he was honest ; because the public had respect for him; because even those who were conspiring to bribe the board could not get near him because of the high character of the man. He could not be tampered with. That man is dismissed from office ; and in this House his name is dragged in as that of a man incompetent to prepare the voters' lists.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Who dragged it in but the hon. member himself?
Mr. COX-MEE. The hon. leader of the opposition read the report. I am not responsible for it ; I am repudiating it. I want to go a step further on that point. I have under my hand a quotation from the 'Conservative newspaper of Port Arthur, the 1 Herald,' which verifies the statement
I made. The declaration I made was that Mr. Hogarth, who, according to the reports, was the office man and the partner of the candidate, and was appointed enumerator, was acting the part of a partisan by canvassing for Mr. Carrick while in the pay of the people of the province. That was my allegation. I did not make it of my own motion. I read from the newspaper in which that charge was made. As against that charge, the hon. leader of the opposition read a statement showing the date of Mr. Hogarth's appointment and giving the reasons for his appointment. Now, let me give the reasons which the Conservative paper of Port Arthur gave for his appointment. It makes this statement:
Mr. Carrick's personal agent has not assisted in the compilation of the voters' lists. It is true that Mr. Donald Hogarth was appointed enumerator, but without the knowledge of either himself or Mr. Carrick. on April 21. Immediately after Mr. Carrick's nomination the government was wired by the candidate -to this effect: 'Can you cancel Mr. Hogarth's appointment -as enumerator?'
According to the document read by the hon. leader of the opposition-and I will show by sworn testimoney in a minute or two that that is corroborated-Mr. Donald Hogarth was appointed enumerator on the 25th day of March, nearly a month before the date that the Conservative paper claims that he was advised by telegraph that he was appointed enumerator. What was he doing in that month? Exactly what he is accused of doing-canvassing and preparing the list for the Conservative candidate. There can be no controverting of these facts.


Mr. W. WRIGHT.: The hon. member states that Mr. Hogarth was canvassing for Mr. Carrick during tuat time. Where is his proof of that?


James Conmee: I will not give any proof of that. I make the statement. The newspaper here accuses him of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


James Conmee: Yes, I can snow it from the Port Arthur 'Chronicle,' which is on tile -in the library. The Conservative paper denies it.


Edmund James Bristol: Had the Conservative candidate been nominated at that time?


James Conmee: Yes, he was nominated previous to this article.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What is the date of that article?


James Conmee: The 28th of April.


Edmund James Bristol: The hon. gentleman said that he was canvassing for Mr. Carrick from the 25th of March.


James Conmee: I think I understood the hon. member's question quite correctly. The hon. member did not fix the date in March.


Edmund James Bristol: I thought I did ; I endeavoured to do so.


James Conmee: If that is what the hon. gentleman meant, there was no candidate at the time the enumerator was appointed. I am not talking about when the candidate was nominated ; I am talking of the time when the enumerator was appointed, which Mr. Hogarth and the Conservative party and paper denied.


Aaron Abel Wright: How could he be canvassing for a candidate when there was no candidate?


James Conmee: Is my hon. friend so very innocent? When he is a little longer in public life he will get wise on that subject. I do not think I need waste any time in giving an answer to that question. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie has stated that he has not only contradicted but disproved everything I stated, and I suppose lie thinks he has. I also made the statement that the enumerator, Gumming, posted his list in Port Arthur for the riding of Fort William, fifty miles away from the polling division to which that list referred-fifty miles in some cases, sixty miles in others, forty miles in others, twenty miles in others.


Aaron Abel Wright: Does the hon. member make the statement that it was not posted at the other places as well?


James Conmee: I did not previously make the statement but I now make that statement. I stated then that I had no knowledge of that, and the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie dared me to say that it was not posted there.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I say it was posted there.


James Conmee: It was not posted there. There was an investigation as to that matter, and here is a memorandum sent to me by Mr. Dowler, one of the attorneys who appeared in the action. He is a responsible man, and he is quoting the evidence. He mentions some of the cases, and then he says :
Mr. Cummings was called. The following proceedings took place. The enumerator, J. H. Cummings, was sworn, produced telegrams covering his appointment, showing appointment for part of Port Arthur and Rainy River riding west of Port Arthur.
The same evidence that the hon. leader of the opposition brought down, showing that this man was appointed by telegram, dated the 2oth of March. The document from Toronto turns out, on sworn testimony, to be correct. The 25th of March is the date that both Cummings and Hogarth Mr. BRISTOL.
were appointed, and both of them concealed that date for nearly a month and went on with the preparation of the list without any notice or any warning to their opponents and behind the backs of their opponents :
And staffing tha,t he had a letter affirming it, but had not brought it with him.
I may say that later on this document shows that he did produce the letter.
No further appointment or change in territory had been made, that the two polling subdivisions, of Mattewin and Kashahowie were first visited by him between March 30 and April 18.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What is the hon. gentleman reading ?


James Conmee: I am reading from the report of the evidence taken in the trial that took place last week.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Is it the evidence or Mr. Dowler's opinion ?


James Conmee: It is a quotation from the
evidence.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: By Mr. Dowler ?


James Conmee: If the hon. gentleman wants to cast doubts on a written document sent by a reputable lawyer, he is per-pectly welcome. I am reading the statement to the House and not to my hon. friend because he seems to be privileged to deny anything and make any assertion in the most flippant manner.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I have not done so to the extent my hon. friend has.


James Conmee: At any rate that Is my opinion, and I stand in the judgment of the House as to whether I am warranted in making that statement.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. gentleman's statements have been proved not to be worth much on many occasions.


James Conmee: My hon. friend is often a little too bumDtious and free with his denials and assertions.
(reading) :
Were first visited between March 30 and April 18, and were visited the second time by him, between May 2 and 9. These lists or parts of the Cummings list were posted in his office about May 14. The other polling subdivisions were visited by Cummings on the first occasion between April 18 and 23, and on the second occasion between May 20 and June 3. When he was making the second visit to several of the polling subdivisions on the P. A. D. Dr. Smellie was with him.
Dr. Smellie was the Conservative candidate of the riding of Fort William.
(reading) :
The lists prepared by him, ot the parts rather, for the different polling subdivisions, were prepared separately, and posted in his

office separately, and as each was posted from time to time, copies were delivered by him to the judge, the sheriff and the clerk of the peace, Mr. Langworthy, but no copies were either mailed or delivered by him to anybody else.
That is evidence positive that no copies went to or were posted In these electoral divisions of the riding.
(reading) :
Except he thought he gave a copy to tMr. Mackenzie, of Port Arthur.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Is that the proclamation or copies of the list ?


James Conmee: Copies of the lists. He mailed them to the sheriff, the clerk of the peace, Mr. Longworthy, and the judge, but no copies were either mailed or delivered by him to anybody else.
A completed bound list of the different polling subdivisions as prepared by him had been made, and he had copies of the same in his office but had not posted them up, nor delivered them to anybody, neither had he advertised the completed list.
Neither has he to this day signed the declaration the law provides he should for the completion of liis list.


Robert Laird Borden: Whose affidavit is
this ?


James Conmee: The enumerator Mr. Cummings.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: If the hon. gentleman will not state it. I may say, for the information of the leader of the opposition, that the hon. gentleman is quoting from the report of somebody else as to what that evidence is and not the evidence itself.


James Conmee: My hon. friend may hold his soul in patience. I am not going to deceive the leader of the opposition or the House.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: You are trying to do it.


James Conmee: This is a report of the evidence sent me by Mr. Dowler, a reputable lawyer, who acted on the part of those who made the appeal.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Employed by you.


James Conmee: By the Liberal party, I
suppose.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: By you.


Mr. CONMEE  B.@: y me if you like. I should not wonder if I had to help to pay tlie bill. But that does not make this lawyer a dishonest man. We may possibly find an honest lawyer in this province. I have had considerable trouble to find one on some occasions, and I think I could bring that a little closer home if I wanted. I have no objection-although there are some statements in this not for the public-to hand this to the leader of the opposition if
he would like to see it. Here is another little piece of evidence, and I cannot imagine that this gentleman would send me a statement of the evidence which was wrong. I take it for granted that it is right since I am reading it, and if Mr. Dowler is deceiving me or this country, that will not do him any credit as a member of the bar.
Francis Dubois, of Silver Mountain, was sworn and stated that there were fifty-two names on the Silver Mountain list, composed altogether of river drivers who were simply making a drive of logs down the river and were probably not in the riding over a week, and none of whom were there at the time of the election. Though there were ninety-nine names on the list, including these fifty-two, there were only seventeen that voted.


Mr. TAYLOR.: They did not have a ' Minnie M ' up there.


James Conmee: Evidently not.
(reading) :
He also stated that there were in the neighbourhood of eighteen to twenty names that should be on, that no voters' list came to the polling subdivision until the morning of the eleotion, when Dr. Smellie's scrutineer brought up some copies, and that no appeal was made.
I do not wish to detain the House by reading these documents. There are other witnesses and they all say the lists were not posted in the riding. Let me say this to the committee. Will it be believed-I am repeating the statement I made previously-


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. gentleman has offered to send the document over. Will he kindly do so ?


James Conmee: No sir, I did not offer to send it to you at all. I offered to hand it to the leader of the opposition if he wished to read it.


Robert Laird Borden: I should be very glad to have it.


James Conmee: I am making a statement because I see the hon. gentleman in his seat now and he was not there a moment ago. At that time 1 pointed out that this particular enumerator was appointed for a ridding to which he did not belong. He was making up the lists in the Fort William riding, and he posted them only in his office in the Port Arthur riding. That is clearly proven by the evidence. But now there appears even a worse case than that. Mr. Cummings was appointed to make up the lists for	the	west
division of the riding of Port Arthur. He did not make up that list at all, but made up the list for the west portion of the riding of Fort William, in which he had no authority. I think that will be seen by the documents to which I refer. The man was appointed and the division of the district took place afterwards, but no change was made. Iam told, on wbat I

believe to be reliable authority, that the reviser for a section of the Kenora division was not appointed for that division, but made up lists for a large section for which he had no authority.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Have you your lawyer's statement for that?


James Conmee: No, but I have lust as good. Now, I state further, and I think I shall be borne out by the facts, that the reason why these appeals were not taken was because the whole thing seemed to be in confusion. Even lawyers could uot tell us what steps to take ; they did not know where they were at. The law had not been distributed ; nobody could get it; nobody knew how to proceed in order to make an appeal. The only purpose in maintaining the appeal that has been made is to expose the conditions under which the lists were prepared. Judging from a letter which I have, I take it that the appeal will go on, but that will depend upon the judge. But I am told by members of the legal profession that, notwithstanding the defects, notwithstanding that the list was prepared by the enumerator for a riding to which he was not appointed, notwithstanding that it was never a posted list, notwithstanding that he has never made the affidavit that the law requires before the judge can give his certificate, yet the election was held. We cannot have a proper revision because the law deprives us of the opportunity. Here is a section of the Ontario Act of 1908 :
The non-performance by the enumerator of any of the duties under this Act within the time appointed shall not affect the validity of' the list nor shall such list be void for any irregularity if there has been a substantial compliance with the requirements of the Act.
I am told that because of that section we are actually shut out from anything further than merely an expose of the manner in which the list was prepared.


Mr. LANCASTER.: That would be because there was substantial compliance.


James Conmee: If the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) will pay attention he will see that there are two sections in that sentence :
The non-performance by the enumerator of any of the duties under this Act within the time appointed shall not affect the validity of this list-
There is a stop there.
-nor shall such list be void for any irregularity-
That is another point.
-if there has been a substantial compliance with the requirements of the Act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In every case if there has been substantial compliance.
Mr. CONMEE


James Conmee: In the first you are positively shut out. At least that is the interpretation given to me. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) shakes his head. He is a lawyer and I do not pretend to argue the point with him ; I leave him to his fellow lawyers. I have here a number of newspaper reports, but I shall not take up the time of the House by reading them. It is claimed that at Ignace the enumerator posted up his notice that he would be there on a certain day. He did not come until three days after the date fixed, and when he did come he took a leaf out of the Roblin enumerator's book, he secretated himself in the office of some political friend and made up his list there, and the Liberals did not know anything about it-did not even know that he was in town. Now, with regard to Mr. Eoll's list I have a fair knowledge of the facts because I took a great deal of pains to find out whether I was warranted in the statement that I made in this House on a former occasion. Mr. Eoll was appointed in December, but did not start to prepare his list until some time later. He went his first round and had begun on his second round and completely closed a number of polling subdivisions before any of the Liberals knew that he had been appointed enumerator or that any notices had been posted up.	It
may be asked :	How could that happen ?
It certainly did happen, whether hon. members are satisfied with my explanation of how it could have happened or not. Mr. Eoll is not a very well-known man-I have nothing to say against him, I am not using his name for that purpose, but I never knew there was such a man until I heard that he was enumerator after this had occurred. It is claimed that he posted up on his own door the announcement that he had posted up the voters' lists at certain places at certain times. These places are isolated, some of them are twenty or thirty miles from a railway-mining camps, lumber camps or settlements. Take, for instance, the township of Marks, which is a long way from any of the towns or cities. The enumerator goes up there. There may be no school-house on which to post the notice. He posts it, perhaps, on the door of some citizen-perhaps some good Conservative, though I do not make that statement, but the fact is that nobody saw that notice and no news came to the Liberals of Port Arthur or Fort William that that notice was up. That has been done over and over again, purposely, enumerators concealing their appointment and carrying on their work in such a way that the public knew nothing of it. The document which the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) read, showed that Mr. Hogarth was appointed a month before he began his duties, and the Conservative newspapers were denying it all the time. The enum-

erator would start out like a thief Iu the night to prepare his list unknown to the opponents of the ruling party and would make an unfair list. Hon. gentlemen opposite say to us :	You ought to be content
to accept these lists. I say : No, they are not fair or just lists. Surely it is within the power of this parliament to remedy an evil of that kind. No lion, member on the other side has contended that the present law relating to Dominion lists is a proper law or one that works fairly. Its operation in the past has proven it very defective indeed. I want to point out that the Ontario law is no better. What did the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Wright) do today? What has the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Boyce) done every time he has got on his feet? Both these gentlemen have argued that there was not enough time given to prepare the Dominion lists. The hon. member for Muskoka tried to persuade the Prime Minister that under this Bill he would only have about two months and a half to prepare his lists, and that it was much too short a time.


William Wright: Did I not refer to the Bill as introduced, providing for making those lists after the writs were issued, and it was in that connection I stated that there was not sufficient time.


James Conmee: I understood his argument to be that if elections come on this fall, this Bill will only give you two months and a half to prepare the lists.


William Wright: When the hon. gentleman spoke some time ago his principal grievance was that there was not sufficient time under the Ontario Act, and now he is willing to adopt the same time.


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman is entirely wrong. The Ontario Bill provides that there shall be only fifteen days from the time the enumerator posts up his ists for the people to appeal to him when he holds his court the second time, to have their names put on the list, or others struck off which ought not to be there. Then there may be an appeal to the county judges if any one believes he has not received fair-play at the hands of the enumerators, or the district judge can fix ten days. I say that is not sufficient time. Whether my hon. friend takes his position on the Dominion Act, it is defective ; if he chooses to take the Ontario Act, it is still more defective, you cannot have a proper list under it, there is not time enough.


William Wright: Then the hon. gentleman does not endorse this language of the Bill iu subsection 5 :
In the preparation of such lists the provisions of the law of the province regulating the preparation and manner of revising and bringing into force the provincial voters' lists in like cases shall as far as possible, be observed and followed.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It provides that the Ontario law shall be followed as far as possible.


James Conmee: It is not the case now. This law will govern. Hon. gentlemen say :	You are doing an injustice to tfhe
province of Ontario. How ? The hon. member for North Toronto and others charge this government with treating the province of Ontario with indifference, that we are casting a slur upon Ontario and upon her government. I would like to know how. Why should Ontario feel wounded if this House chooses to take charge of its own electoral lists ? What business is it of Ontario's, if the provincial government is not iu politics to interfere with Dominion elections ? The Ontario government do not want to dictate to this House as to how the lists shall be prepared on which members are elected to this House. Hon. gentlemen opposite ask : Where are your principles of provincial rights ? I would like to know where provincial rights are involved. Wherein are the principles of the Reform party involved in this Bill ? The Reform party was never committed to anything beyond municipal provincial lists. Where does the provincial rights question come in ? The hon. member for North Toronto grew eloquent on that question, and directed toward me some remarks that I don't think he should have used. I want to say to him that I do not think his reputation is improved. I do not think he is any more spotless than a good many other members of this House. I doubt very much if there are not more dark spots on his hide than there are on some other members. He grew eloquent about the way Manitoba was going to be treated. The hon. gentleman has forgotten not so long ago when he was willing to take Manitoba by the throat and force her by coercion. The hon. gentleman made a reference to me which I feel disposed to resent. I do not usually sling out uncomplimentary remarks to members of this House. I do not think it is altogether becoming to the hon. member for North Toronto, because if there is one member of this House who lives in a glass house, it is that hon. gentleman. He has not shown that spotless character that he talks about, in the positions of trust which he has occupied, in politics or otherwise. When he was Finance Minister of this Dominion was just the time when the McGreevys and others were getting in their best work. His record is not very good, either.


George Eulas Foster: What is the matter with it ?


James Conmee: There is this matter with it, that he was supposed to be the guardian of the people's funds, and those funds were pilfered from his treasury by political friends, and either the hon. gentleman did not have ability enough to detect it, or he did not have the will, whichever position he

chooses to take. The facts are there. No one has accused me of being a traitor to my leader or to any one with whom I was associated. So I think so far as that kind of thing is concerned my hon. friend would be just as well off if he left out some of those sharp sayings. I want to say to him and to hon. gentlemen opposite that I have been in public life for a considerable time, and I defy any man, I do not care on which side of the House he sits, to bring against me anything that I am ashamed of. I do not say I am perfect, I make no claims. But some of the remarks directed against me to-day are ungentlemanly, are uncalled for, but I do not intend to refer to them any further at this moment.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have verified by documents and by the various Acts my contention in regard to these lists. If the statement the leader of the opposition read in this House is true, and 1 think it is, as to the dates these enumerators were appointed, then it is time that t|hey were directed to go to the Crown Attorney for instructions. The Crown Attorney is a Conservative. I do not say that he is a bad man at all, but he is a strong Conservative. It appears that that was either deliberately or stupidly done, because the instructions were not given. The fact that these [DOT] gentlemen were appointed enumerators, and that they were dealing with the rights and liberties of the electors of that district, was concealed from the opposite political party for more than a month. I want to ask hon. members if that was a fair thing. If the documents which have been brought down here have any foundation at all then these lists are the very worst kind of lists that could be prepared. They are partisan lists. In a division where there are only 99 names more than half of them were there wrongfully. In the Rainy River district I am told there was an appeal against one of the two polling divisions in which there were 180 names struck off. These are the only two polls in the whole four ridings of Thunder Bay and Rainy River, in which appeals could be taken. Under these circumstances, -if hon. gentlemen can have the face to say that they should force their opponents to an election on lists of that character, then they are not the fair men I have given them the credit of being.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: 1 wish to enter my earnest protest against this piece of legislation. It is most unfair, unreasonable and uncalled for. After listening to the arguments of the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) and others who have spoken on the government side, I am forced to the conclusion that the Prime Minister must share that view, and feel that these clauses should not be passed and that we should vote for the amendment. The Minister of Customs in the old days Mr. CONMEE.
went about the country telling what great things the Liberal party would do when in power, on behalf of the provinces ; they came into powrer and have gone back on every promise except this one. To-day the minister attempts to defend the action of the government, saying they are standing by provincial rights, but surely his conscience must tickle a little. This appears to be only opening the door in northern Ontario to such men as the O'Gormans, the Pritchards, the Prestons, the Jacksons, the Conmees, and all the rest to go into that country, to take advantage of the electors, and when I see the Prime Minister attempt-


James Conmee: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member has used my name in connection with corrupting the electorate. 1 want that statement withdrawn.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I did not hear the hon. gentleman suggest corruption.


James Conmee: He mentioned my name as going into that country and corrupting.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. gentleman is a little sensitive, because there are other people of the same name.


James Conmee: The hon. member used my name and I want it withdrawn. I Ihink I am within my rights.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: But if I did not use it in connection wdth the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee)-there are other Conmees.


James Conmee: You mentioned it.


Charles Marcil: I think a statement of that kind about a member of the House is out of order, a statement charging the member with going into the constituency and there corrupting.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I did not charge him.	1


Mr. CARVELL.: Will the hon. member say he did not mean the member for Rainy River 1


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I was going to say


Charles Marcil: To be in order the member should withdraw the expression.	,


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If he wdshes me to w ithdraw a statement I did not make in regard to the hon. member, I am willing to withdraw it.


Mr. TALBOT.: Don't be half a man, be a w^hole man.


Charles Marcil: That language is altogether unbecoming and must be withdrawn.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am sorry to have used that expression if it Is out of order, but I cannot help feeling-


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman has not withdrawn.


Charles Marcil: I understood the hon. member to withdraw.


James Conmee: He said he would but he has not done it.


Charles Marcil: I think the hon. member knows the rules.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I withdrew any application to the member for Rainy River some time ago, how many times does Jbe want it ? The singling out of Ontario in this legislation is unfair and uncalled for and I cannot help protesting against it. The hon. member for Rainy River talks about the machine being used by the Conservative government in Ontario. Let him go back to the days of the Ross government and remember how elections were carried on under the instructions of that machine working under the men then in office. I appeal again to the Prime Minister to leave Ontario alone, to take the position that was taken many years ago. ' Hands off Manitoba,' was the cry then and on that cry we were able on this side to obtain justice for Manitoba within the last few weeks. The Prime Minister on investigation will be convinced that practically only one man behind him is attempting to defend this measure, and he cannot come to any other conclusion than that this legislation would be an injustice to the province of Ontario and that these clauses should be struck out.
Mr. MeCOOL. I am surprised to hear hon. gentlemen opposite speak of a slur being cast upon the government of Ontario by asking the passage of this Act. It cannot be claimed that the reference of the list to a board of judges is casting a slur upon the provincial government. I have been amused to hear speakers opposite repeating that only the member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) was being ill treated in reference to the preparation of the lists. The enumerators appointed for the district of Nipissing did not wear wings any more than those in the Rainy River district. I have hundreds of letters here but shall read only a few. including an affidavit illustrating the evils that have existed there. I shall first call attention to the most northerly district. I have here the oath taken by the enumerator for that district, Mr. Williams Hugh, who swore, I,
I,	Williams Hugh, make oath and say :
4. That I have set down in the voters' list for the townships of Pense, Ingram, Hack, Robillard, Harter, Chamberlain, Truax, and all territory north to proposed junction of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacitc, according
to the best of my information and judgment, the name of every person entitled to be entered thereon.
2.	That I have not entered upon the said list the name of any person which I have reason to believe ought not to be entered thereon.
3.	That I have not intentionally omitted from the said list the name of any person which I_ had any reason to believe ought to be entered thereon.
4.	That I have to the best of my knowledge and belief discharged the duties required of me by the Ontario Voters' List Act.



WILLIAMS HUGH.

[Stage Direction]
Sworn before me at North Bay in the district of Nipissing, this 13th day of April, 1908,

[Stage Direction]
District judge, district of Nipissing.
The instructions received from the department in Toronto were that he should do what has been incorporated in this affidavit. Here is a copy of the affidavit sent to Judge Valin after the list was made.
Robert Laird Borden: Is there any objection to the oath or to the instructions; what is the point ?
Mr. MeCOOL. I will leave the hon. gentleman to judge of that when he hears the affidavit.


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking of the form of oath and form of instructions.
Mr. MeCOOL. The affidavit I have read declared this man carried out his instructions and had proceeded to the junction of the Transcontinental and Northern Ontario ,Railway with the Grand Trunk Pacific. This affidavit shows whether he did or not :
Original sent to Judge Valin, North Bay.
In the matter of the Ontario Voters' List Act.
I,	George Shortt, of the township of Marter, in the district of Nipissing, make oath and say:
1.	That I am entitled to be a voter.
2.	That Williams Hugh, an enumerator for preparing voters' lists for the unorganized portion of the district of Nipissing, north of Englehart, has as I am informed and verily believe, included in his list a number of voters residing in the organized town of Englehai t-and the organized township of Evanturel. In the voters' lists of said organized municipalities the names of said persons should be included.
3.	That as I am informed and verily believe the said Williams Hugh has never posted up a list made by him for said unorganized territory but has kept same locked up in his safe and it has been impossible to inspect the said list.
4.	That as I am informed and verily believe that the most northerly point which the said Williams Hugh visited was Driftwood City on the construction of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway.
This is 30 or 40 miles from the point he states in his affidavit he visited. All the people in that section were disfranchised.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is the hon. gentle-mail (Mr. McCool) asking us to take the oath of a man who speaks from information and belief as against the oath of a man who positively swears he did something ?


Mr. McCOOL.: 'Evidence can be brought that this man never visited that section.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Well bring it and do not ask us to believe such an affidavit as that against positive evidence.


Charles Arthur McCool: But he does not say in his affidavit positively that he did visit this place.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Is not that the statutory form of affidavit ?


Charles Arthur McCool: I have no time to be bothered answering your questions.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Because you do not want to know the truth.


Mr. McCOOL (reading) :: 5.	That the said Williams Hugh never visited any point on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway where there are a large number of voters and the said persons were never aware of the said list being prepared, and unless the said Williams Hugh goes further north, at least to the junction of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway with the proposed line of the Transcontinental Railway a large number of persons will be disfranchised.
6.	That mining operations are being carried on on Lake Abitibi, and a large number of persons are employed in the vicinity thereof transporting freight.
7.	That the said Williams Hugh never visited the vicinity of Lake Abitibi, and unless he does so and prepares lists, there are a large number of persons will be disfranchised.
(Sgd.) GEORGE SHORTT.
The line of the Transcontinental passes north of Lake Abitibi and this affidavit states positively that the man never went to that section of the country at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How does he know what the other man did.


Charles Arthur McCool: What does the hon. gentleman know about it anyway ? This affidavit says positively he never visited that section.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And the man who went there swears he did.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCool) give us the date of that affidavit ?


Charles Arthur McCool: The original of this affidavit was filed with Judge Yalin at North Bay and the date is omitted from this copy.
I think we could get the original if necessary.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The original of that affidavit has been before Judge Valin, the district .judge ?


Charles Arthur McCool: 


Charles Arthur McCool: Yes.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then Judge Valin has seen the original and has passed upon it ?


Charles Arthur McCool: I do not know whether he passed on it or not. The enumerator never went up into that district to make lists.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It is like the affidavit read by tile member for Winnipeg


Charles Arthur McCool: When the friends of the Liberal party appealed to Mr. Hugh to have the names of men who were well known to be qualified placed on the list he said he would receive no names in that way, although they were supported by affidavits, and that these men would have to appear before the judge. That would mean a loss of four days and there are not many voters who would lose that time to go before a judge in support of an appeal. That kind of thing was done throughout the whole district. In another case a notice was posted on a school house that the enumerator would be there at a certain hour on a certain date, but it did not say what territory would be embraced, and a number of voters appeared for miles round and they were told by the school teacher that nothing was known about the enumerator except what was posted on the door. After waiting for two or three hours they went home, but the enumerator came later on and made up a numerous list supplied by one or two of his friends who happened to be there.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What place was that ?


Charles Arthur McCool: North of New Liskeard, in Nipissing.
-Mr. BOYCE. That does not give us much information.


Charles Arthur McCool: Here is a letter X received from a very prominent citizen of Nipissing and this is what he says with regard to the lists :
The lists in this riding are a disgrace. In some oases the lists have been changed after the enumerators court was held. In McPherson and Kirkpa/trick the names put on at the enumerator's court were afterwards left off the list, thereby disfranchising a large number of Liberal voters. About forty were left off in McPherson and Kirkpatrick, and thirty in Hugel, and the same thing occurred all through the unorganized townships. I am getting a large number of charges prepared and will be able to prove scores of cases of corrupt practices.
These names were not placed on the list and the enumerators kept them off. The enumerator was E. A. Wright who holds a dozen positions under the present government, and I think he is under suspension at present for some wrong-doing in connection with the license board, he being chairman of the license board of the district of Sturgeon Falls.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That shows the Whitney government punishes wrong-doing.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What is the name of the writer of that letter ?


Charles Arthur McCool: The name of the writer of the letter is Mr. H. E. McKee of Sturgeon Falls, barrister.
Some hon. MEMjBERS. Oh.


Charles Arthur McCool: Yes, and he is as reputable a man as there is in this House or out of it, that is who he is.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: We saw him down here the other day.


Charles Arthur McCool: I can give you another and the hon. member, for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Boyce) will probably find some fault witb this man because nothing is right in the eyes of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) unless it emenates from one of his own peculiar friends. This letter says :
In New Ontario the Liberal candidates can attribute their defeat to two things, viz.:
.1. Voters' lists prepared by enumerators who did not display even the slightest degree of fairness. Liberal voters in large numbers were left off lists, while many Conservatives were placed on lists although there was not any qualification possessed to entitle their names being added to lists. Foreigners in large numbers were placed on lists and they voted for Shillington, the Conservative candidate. Here in the town of New Liskeard, Wing Deer (a Chinaman) who is not a naturalized subject voted for the Conservative candidate. Let me say just how these names were collected. The police magistrate, the road inspector, the homestead inspector, the Crown lands agents, division court, clerk, division court bailiff, license inspector and in fact every government official collected the names of Conservative voters for enumerators.
Lists were carelessly made up. In on9 poll here there was a case of one elector voting twice. The Christian names of two electors were E. and E. R. and the same individual voted at two different times in the same poll. Instead of posting lists as required by Act. some enumerators kept them locked up in safe so our men could not have access to them.
To accept such lists for Dominion election purpose? would be utter nonsense. Why it would mean defeat before the campaign started.
Hon. gentlemen opposite boast of the majority of the Whitney government. I can tell them that if it were not for stuffed lists in Temiscamingue, Nipissing, Sturgeon Falls and Sudbury, Mr. Whitney would have four supporters less than he has today.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is thatr an affidavit which the hon. gentleman has just read?


Charles Arthur McCool: No, it is not necessarily an affidavit. Hou. gentlemen opposite are 412
as hard to please as the enumerators in that district. They want an affidavit to place any Liberal voter on the list, but any old name handed in by a Tory heeler goes on me list at once. That accounts for the fact that the lists in the district of Nipissing to-day are stuffed to the number of over 1,000. Here is another piece of rascality :
I wish to call your attention to the state in which cur voters' lists are in this district. As it is likely that there will be a Domin'on election in the near future it is important that new lists be made. In this small town of onrs where the lists were to be made up independent of 'politics, we find about 25 Liberal voters' names left off, out of a total of about 125 voters. Here is the list of names omitted:
Robert Jamieson, livery owner; Henry Yar-kie, livery owner; Thos. Inglis, livery owner; Thos. Barret, butcher; W. Whelan, teamster; P. Savord, boarding house; Geo. Vaillaneourt, boarding house; Joe Milway, restaurant; J. Milkie, pool room; W. Searson, baggage man; Fred. Deacon, clerk ; S. Fielding, carpenter ; Joe Beaudry, labourer ; D. Rouileau, restaurant ; R. Robertson, labourer; W. Klntrea, clerk; W. Lett, clerk; Thos. Code, clerk; Arthur Deschaut, labourer; R. Bruyere, labourer.
I can't just remember all of the names, but there are several more, and that is only in the little town here. All through the country it is the same way.



H. O'GRADY.

[Stage Direction]
Here is something from another portion <TC the district:
Warren, Ontario, June 15, 1908. Mr. C. A. McCool, M.P.
Seeing the approach of the federal election, I will take the liberty to notify you about the voters' lists which has been used for the provincial election in this distriot of Sturgeon Falls. It has been so tampered with that quite a few names have been taken out of it. People who have been voting for some forty years '(Liberals) are missing. I consider it to be my duty to post you and the other members on these facts. Hoping to be of service, I remain truly yours,

[Stage Direction]
Here is another case from the Temagami district :
In Temagami and vicinity about 100 Indians voted. They were all sworn, but took the oaths in Harley township. The poll was not opened until a quarter to ten o'clock, and some of onr good friends left and came to town thinking it was not going to be opened. We have cases in which men had their fare paid and in which men voted under other men's names. When you consider that the government officials in this district, including the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway employees, amount to about 600, and the way the province went in general, what can you expect?
With regard to the Indian vote, I may say that these Indians are wards of the
[Stage Direction]
12979 .
[Stage Direction]
government who receive their annual treaty money. At the last election X venture to say that the same trick was played at Temagami that was played at Haileybury in 1890. The Indians were on the list by virtue of the revising barrister, and three men did duty for forty voters in the town of Haileybury. I venture to say that the same thing happened at Temagami, because you could not otherwise get the Indian vote at that time of the year. I venture to say that not more than half a dozen were present. A particular friend of the party opposite has since boasted to me how he did the trick ; he took the Indians each time and redressed them and got them to go and vote. The men who do such things are rewarded by the local government. I have here the ' Haileyburian,' which ought to be sufficiently Conservative to carry weight even with the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, and in it there is a letter from Williams Hugh to his friend Mr. Farr, which reads as follows :
Englehart, Ontario, July 6, 1908.
Dear Mr. Fairr,-The Hon. Frank- has, through the department, directed me to open a land office at MoDougall chute-now Mathe-son.
This is a news item, you will of course put this in your own peculiar way. I regard Mr. Cochrane's action in transferring me as approving my efforts in the settlement of this district, which you have done so much to bring to the notice of the landless.
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Cochrane approved of Mr. Hugh's election work.
William Humphrey Bennett: When your reputation is as good as Mr. Cochrane's, it will be a good deal better than it is now.


Charles Arthur McCool: I do not have to go to the hon. member for East Simeoe to get a reputation in this House dr out of it. While Mr. Cochrane is an old friend of mine, he is no angel with wings any more than is the hon. member for East Simeoe. The hon. member for North Toronto repeated what he said were the words of the premier, that occasional injustice with regard to the lists by zealous friends might be overlooked. I say the same thing. But the matter is different when it affects a whole district from one end to the other. The district of .Nipissing is not all unorganized.
I think only about one-third, or 7,000 or 8,000 voters are in the unorganized section. There might be an occasional slip on the part of the enumerator, an occasional leaving off of names, but when the thing Is done from one end of the district to the other, it is high time the government should step in and do something to protect the lists. I am not surprised at hon. gentlemen opposite wanting to hold on to these lists, 1 Mr. McCOOL.
for they know just as well as I do .what was done in the last election.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: W'hat was done ?


Charles Arthur McCool: I will tell you what was done in one case to my own knowledge, in the hon. gentleman's district. We have a number of men working up there in our lumber camps at Searchmount. Out of 150 men, only one man was singled out to be put on the list, and that was because the bush rangers informed the enumerator that he could be counted on to vote Tory. Just one man out of 150. It is all very well to say that these lists can be appealed, but unless the voters really entitled to vote are placed on the list in the first place, it is almost impossible to get them on later because, in the majority of cases, they have to go ten, twenty or forty miles to be registered. How many voters can afford to lose two or three days' time in order to go and register ? Is it expected that the candidate will bear that expense ? Why, it would cost thousands of dollars. All we ask is a fair list, a list prepared, as this Bill calls for, by enumerators appointed by a bench of three judges. We make no complaint whatever about the municipal lists, but on the other lists it is not possible for us to have .a fair election. I therefore trust that the amendment will carry.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: If there is any man who has a little to complain of in connection with the lists, it is the hon. member for Nipissing, and right well does he know it. There is not a list made up in that district as he well knows, which was not criticised in the making and which was not the subject of- appeal, or in respect of which there was not an opportunity for appeal. The hon. gentleman has nlaced himself in a very invidious position-in exactly the same position as the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Bole) did with regard to the Manitoba lists. Did he use that declaration where it would do any good ? Yes, he took it to the district judge. He or his minions took some evidence before the district judge on an appeal from the very same list, and having heard that he had some declarations, I made inquiries from reputable counsel, who was present at that court, and that gentleman said that these affidavits were laid before the court and the judge did not believe one word of them.


Charles Arthur McCool: Where did the hon. gentleman sret that information ?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Yet the hon. gentleman has no hesitation in coming to this parliament and reading copies of declarations which were repudiated by the court of record on which he tried to foist it.


Charles Arthur McCool: Will the hon. gentleman


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I will not be interrupted. My hon. friend would not answer me a

question wittr regard to tne authorship of his document and I refuse to allow him to interrupt. Forsooth there Is the evidence upon which this great high and mighty .Minister of Justice based his Bill. Here is the declaration and the evidence, which I presume he could not use because it was labelled with the cloak of privacy. There stands this great Minister of Justice who said that this Bill was rendered necessary by reason of certain information-some of it in letters and some of It on oath-referring to the district of Nipissing. But when asked to produce that evidence, he was ashamed to do so. But he can get it through another avenue and that is the avenue of the hon. member for Nipissing, who has no shame or scruples in endeavouring to lead the House to believe affidavits which the Judge repudiated. When the hon. member for Nipissing tried to make the House believe that the enumerator had refused to go to portions of the district where there was a population and where it was his duty to go, he merely repeated what his master, the Minister of Justice, said. The Minister of Justice said that the enumerator in Nipissing did refuse to go to a district where he should have gone and where there was a large number of Liberal voters. Has there been a word to substantiate that ? The enumerator is bound by the Act, and the hon. member for Nipissing knew well that neither the enumerators in the district of Nipissing or in any other district declined to go to every place where they were required by law to go. That the enumerator in Nipissing did go to every place and district set down correctly all entitled to be on the list and wilfully omitted none is absolutely proved by the affidavit of the enumerator himself. Surely that should avail against a declaration repudiated and rejected by the district judge. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that there is not one place in that district he was required to visit to which he did not go.


Charles Arthur McCool: That is not true.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then the converse must be the case, and my hon. friend must assert that, of his own knowledge, there were places where it was the enumerator's duty to go and where he refrained from going. Will he state what places they were ?


Charles Arthur McCool: Yes, at the junction of the Temiskamingue and Northern Ontario Uailway with the Transcontinental Railway.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Will my hon. friend tell me whether that was a polling place? I am asking for information. The hon. gentleman has made some serious charges. He said that, according to his own knowledge, this enumerator had refused to go, or bad refrained from going, to a place to make an enumeration where, by law, it was his duty to go. Is that correct ?


Charles Arthur McCool: I do not know that I catch what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) is saying.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I am talking at the top of my voice.


Charles Arthur McCool: I understood him to ask if there was a polling place at the junction of the Temiscamingue and Northern Ontario Railway and the Transcontinental. How could there be when there was no list ?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then my hon. friend (Mr. McCool) is lamentably displaying his absolute ignorance of the law when he states that, to his own knowledge, an enumerator refused to go to a place where, by law, he was required to go. The hon. gentleman made that statement, and he displays his ignorance of the Act in making the charges in this wild and reckless manner. Section 60 of the Act says :
The enumerator shall visit every part of the territory where by the statute or by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council there is required to be a polling place.
What was that enumerator to do? The Ontario government had not appointed a polling place, and he would have been derelict in his duty had he gone where there was no polling place. Let the hon. gentleman place the responsibility where it should be placed ; let him go to the Ontario government and ask why a polling place was not established there, and he will get his answer from the very gentleman whose name be has reviled, Hon. Frank Cochrane, than whom there is no more honest or more capable administrator in the government of the province of Ontario. And I say it ill-becomes my hon. friend from Nipissing to revile the name of the Hon. Mr. Cochrane or to cast a slur upon him in this House. He dare not do it in the presence of or in the hearing of Mr. Cochrane. But I, for one, will take good care that the hon. gentleman's words and mine are conveyed to that hon. gentleman.


Charles Arthur McCool: I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member (Mr. Boyce) is putting words in my mouth that I never uttered. I never said a word against Mr. Cochrane.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. '


Charles Arthur McCool: I did not say a word about him at all until his name was interjected here by the hon. member for Simcoe, except to read a letter in a newspaper.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I am putting my construction, for which I am responsible, on what the hon. gentleman said concerning Hon. Frank Cochrane. Was there a protest entered against the election in Nipissing? The time for it has gone by. Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCool) going to be like the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Bole)? These

hon. gentlemen make charges of Chinamen voting, aliens voting, and all voting Conservative. How he knows which way their votes are cast I do not know, for there are no numbers on the ballots now, thanks to tlie Whitney government. The hon. gentleman makes these complaints here, but where these claims would be pertinent and proper, in the courts in Nipissing or Thunder Bay and Rainy River, they are not heard of. My hon. friend from Nipissing cannot point to a protest in a court of law to show that the election was attacked there.


Charles Arthur McCool: It is not too late yet.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then I put it to the hon. gentleman : If he has the public interest at heart, and if anybody besides himself !s enough interested in these grave offences to come forward and present the protest, let him go on and claim justice. But for nearly two hours hon. gentlemen on that side of the House have detained this committee and kept back the progress of this Bill by retailing statements on hearsay about matters concerning which they have little or no personal knowledge. The hon. member for Nipissing did pledge his personal knowledge to one statement, but it now turns out absolutely without a shadow of justification; and the hon. gentleman stands In the Invidious position of not only taking up the time of this House, but of stating facts which he knew had been repudiated where they were pertinent, trying to drag them in here after they were repudiated where the facts are best known.
Amendment negatived.


Charles Marcil: Shall section 1 be adopted?
Some lion. MEMBERS. Six o'clock.


Robert Laird Borden: It is understood that we were to go into Supply.


Mr. FIELDING.: The leader of the opposition is right in that respect, but I thought it would be approved by the House if we yielded the committee for the purpose of this Bill. My hon. friend from West Al-goma (Mr. Boyce) was accorded the floor for a short time, and I thought that that would be a compensation for the change made.


Mr.   I@: Compensation for the time being, but we might go on with the matter after eight o'clock.


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) would prefer going on with the Bill, but admits that the arrangement was made, and, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) presses it, we will agree.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not make very much difference when it is done. We can go on either to-day or to-morrow.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: 


William Stevens Fielding: We could arrange to call it up to-morrow, the first order.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for West Algoma has been disappointed two or three times. Once he was told that there was a cabinet meeting and that the minister concerned could not be here, but it turned out that he was here. Yesterday we understood that the Opium Bill was going on, but another Bill was brought on and


Mr. LEMIEUX.: The Opium Bill was passed.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, but another Bill was taken up instead of going into Supply.


William Stevens Fielding: We will be ready to proceed either at eight o'clock or, if the hon. gentleman wishes, the first order tomorrow.


Robert Laird Borden: To-morrow.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 196) for the relief of Arthur James Townsend-.Mr. Copp.
Bill (No. 198) respecting a certain patent of William B. Smith.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 207) respecting certain patents of the Metal Shingle and Siding Company, Limited.-Mr. Galliher.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 115) to amend the Dominion Elections Act.-Mr. Aylesworth.
On section 1,
George Oscar Alcorn: The expression used by the right hon. leader of the government in the earliest stage of this Bill with reference to the character of the lists which are to be produced under this Bill, namely, that they were to be made entirely on judicial authority, is altogether incorrect. One would hardly believe that the government would be disposed to descend to the practice of the deceit involved in that expression. To the extent that appeals are made from the lists as prepared by enumerators under this Bill, the lists will be prepared under judicial authority. The judges will hear and dispose of such appeals as are made, but only in case either party sees fit to appeal. Apart from that, the only connection which any judge will have with any list produced
129S5

under this Bill, will be that he will appoint the enumerators. Except for that relation with these lists, the judges will never see any of them, and have no connection with them whatever. That expression has been used, apparently and necessarily, with the intent of producing in the minds of those to whom the expression is addressed, the belief that the other lists, that is, the lists produced under the provincial Act, are not the work of the judges, and that the judges have no part, lot or interest in the preparation of those later lists. The right hon. gentleman himself in using that expression, was doubtless well aware of these facts. The Minister of Customs this afternoon, who dwelt at great length on the same subject, and played upon the same string, is perfectly aware, and the press supporting the government throughout the country who have rung the changes upon that expression ever since the Bill was introduced, are perfectly well aware that the self same judges who, if there are appeals, will deal with appeals under this Bill, and with the lists produced under this Bill. These self same judges are the judges who in the past, have produced, and in future will continue to produce the lists under the provincial Act. The self same judges sitting in the same building will perform the same functions with regard to the lists which are made under this Act as they have always performed, and now perform, with regard to the provincial lists produced under Mr. Whitney's legislation, in fact, under the legislation which obtained in that regard before Mr. Whitney's government came into power. It is to be hoped therefore that no one will be deceived by being told that the lists under this Act differ in any respects as regards their judicial origin, or any part the judges may have in their preparation, from the lists which are at present produced by the same process under the provincial Act.
Now, with regard to this section 1, I wish to make a few observations, and I invite the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the points which I propose to raise. In paragraph 9 of section 1 power is taken to judge of the time of the year when this revision shall be made, and new lists made under this Act. The time of the year when these lists are made should be the same in every year, that is, In every year when the power "of suspension is not exercised. The provincial Act does not contain such a clause as this, allowing the government to order lists to be made any time and every time thev see fit, they are made at a particular time of the year, the enumerators are to begin their work not later than July and thereafter the procedure goes on as provided under the Act. In subclause 1 of 9a the government have taken power to make theses list* at any time, not limiting themselves to the months of July. August or September mentioned in the former part of of the subsection.
With regard to subsection 2, the committee will observe that we are to have for the production of these lists in the unorganized territory a board of registration composed of the various district court judges. It has not been explained why such an innovation is necessary, why there should be a Board of Registration in unorganized Ontario while the County Court judge, each in his own county, in all other parts of that province, performs the entire function of revising the lists in organized Ontario. I subrnh there is no necessity for forming this Board of Registration, but that each district judge in his own county is quite as competent as the county judge in his county throughout the rest of the province to do the necessary work under this Bill if it becomes law. It has been suggested and probably with a great deal of force, as this Act has been styled an Act for the relief of the hon. member for Thunder Bay, that this innovation is introduced for his benefit; because he is not satisfied to have the district judge in his own district act in reference to the list in that district, but desires that some person else should be called in to assist. Under section 57 of the Ontario Voters' List Act the judge does the work, and 1 see no necessity for the formation of a board of registration. The more reasonable course and the course consistent with uniformity would have been to have adopted the provisions of the provincial law with regard to the making of these lists and that the work of the enumerators in making their enumeration should have been conformable to the provincial law, not that these enumerators should go on and do their work of enumeration subject to the supervision and according to the directions of the Board of Registration. Surely it is preferable that the work of enumeration should be laid down in the statute and not be left to the dictum of a board of registration or of a judge. The. enumeration is much more likely to be made in a uniform and proper manner, the same in each district, if it is done under a statute than if it is done under the direction and supervision, as laid down in subsection 4, of a board of registration or of a judge.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. In what respect does the hon. gentleman refer to this ?


George Oscar Alcorn: Subsection 4 says :
4. Such board of registration shall appoint for its electoral district as many enumerators as are necessary, and it shall be the duty of such enumerators, under the supervision and in accordance with the directions of such board of registration, to prepare the voters' lists for those parts of the province without municipal organization in such electoral district.
The Ontario Voters' List Act lays down a procedure for the enumerators to follow. They are, within a certain .time, to issue

notices that they will be at certain places at certain future times and will there make up the enumeration and place upon the list those entitled .to go on. I think it would have been better to have followed that procedure in this statute rather than place the enumerators under the supervision of a Board of Registration. The effect of allowing this to be done, according to subsection 4, will be to produce a result which will not be uniform in the various districts.
With regard to subsection 5, it is provided that the provincial law is to be observed as far as possible.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. Will not that govern as to procedure?


George Oscar Alcorn: It will probably govern just as far as the judges and enumerators see fit to observe it, but if any difficulty arises the likelihood is that it will not be observed. The statements of the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) with regard to the lists made up in his electoral district in 1904 show the manner in which the same provision, which was in the law under which that list was made, was laid aside.


James Conmee: There was no variation from the provincial law in my riding in 1904.


George Oscar Alcorn: If the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) is prepared to make that statement after listening to the facts given in minute details by the member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) I am satisfied that he should take that position.


James Conmee: The hon. member gave details of the preparation of the lists in his own riding, but you referred to my riding and there it was not the case.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The same order in council regulated the procedure in all unorganized districts.


James Conmee: I do not care when the order in council was issued, the procedure in the district of Thunder Bay and Rainy River was right, under the provincial Act. That can be verified and there was no fault in the Rainy River district.


George Oscar Alcorn: I desire to call attention to paragraph 5 of 9a which provides that:
5. In the preparation of such lists the provisions of the law of the province regulating the preparation and manner of revising and bringing into force the provincial voters' lists in the like oases shall, as far as possible, be observed and followed, but the revision of the said lists shall be had before the board of registration, who shall hear all appeals from the said enumerators, and no person whose name is not included in the voters' lists so prepared and revised shall be entitled to vote.
It appears to me that provision will be in direct conflict with section 13 of this


George Oscar Alcorn: Bill. Section 13 provides for the case of voters' lists in overlapping polling divisions and that any person whose name is on the general list, but by mistake has been dropped from the separate list, may, on taking a certain oath, vote. The provision here is that no person * whose name is not included on the voters' list so prepared and revised ' shall be entitled to vote. Further than that, section 11 of the Dominion Elections Act deals with the several classes of persons who are entitled to vote in Dominion elections although their names are not upon the provincial list. There is nothing to ensure that the persons named in section 11 will be upon the Dominion list to be produced under this Bill. The section of the Provincial Act enumerates the persons who shall not vote, giving a long list, including provincial officials.


Mr. LEIGHTON MCCARTHY.: Does the hon. gentleman contend that section 11 of Ihe Dominion Elections Act is affected by this legislation ?


George Oscar Alcorn: It may be.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Do you really think it is ?


George Oscar Alcorn: Yes.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Where and how ?


George Oscar Alcorn: I am proceeding to show. Section 12 of the Provincial Elections Act contains a list of persons who shall not vote, for example; Judges, customs officers, clerks of the peace, county crown attorneys, certain postmasters, certain stipendiary magistrates and certain inland revenue officers. It is quite within the range of probability that some if not all of these may be omitted from the lists prepared under this Bill. Although they are not on the provincial lists yet they are good voters by virtue of section 11 of the Dominion Act, and section 150 of the same Act which provides that although they are not on the list yet by taking a certain oath they, may be allowed to vote. It may very well happen that some or all of the persons disqualified by the provincial Act will not be on the list prepared under this Bill. The latter part of subclause 5 provides :	That no
person who is not on the voters' lists so prepared and revised shall be entitled to vote. There should be a provision introduced into this clause to the effect that it shall except those provided for under section 13 of this Bill, and also under sections 11 and 150 of the Dominion Elections Act Otherwise the general effect will be that' there will be two entirely inconsistent clauses in the same Act, one making a person a good voter and another declaring he had no vote. It would also have saved a great deal of work and expense If the Minister of Justice had adhered to his original proposal
129)89

to make the provincial lists the basis of the new lists to be prepared under this Bill. Under the clause he originally proposed the enumerators would have taken the provincial lists in force and have added the necessary names, and the judge would have stricken out such names as should not be on the list.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Is not that the practical result anyway when you have these provincial lists before you ?


George Oscar Alcorn: The judge does not make the list and it would be quite within the power of the enumerator to discard the provincial lists entirely under this clause as now drafted. Then, under subsection 6 of the Bill it is provided that when the judge has completed the list the enumerator has to transmit a certified copy to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and to him alone, whereas under the provincial Act certified copies of the list are to be deposited in the office of the clerk of the peace, of the stipendiary magistrate, of the sheriff, and of the police magistrate. Under this Bill copies of the lists are deposited only at Ottawa and not in the electoral district affected. I think copies should be deposited in the same offices as are provided for under the provincial Act. Clause 1 provides that the judges have power to divide the whole province of Manitoba and the unorganized districts of New Ontario into new polling divisions ; and that they may. also make distinct and new polling divisions every time they make a Dominion list. I believe there is no necessity for the judges either in Manitoba or New Ontario altering the polling divisions in any respect except where overlapping takes place, and I think that was the agreement arrived at.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It seems to me that the amendment of the Minister of Justice providing a definite period for the preparation of the lists, obviates the necessity for the last words in section 1 which read : Or be had during other months of any year. The Ontario Act provides a definite period in the year during which these lists are to be made, namely, that the enumerator shall start to prepare the lists on or after the first day of June and not later than the first day of July, and the very essence of the Bill is to provide that the time should be made as definite as possible for the making up of these voters' lists. If we have a definite period for the preparation of these lists, as suggested by the Minister of Justice, between the 1st of August and the loth of October, why enlarge that or run the risk of enlarging it, and make it absolutely indefinite by adding the words, ' or be had during other months of any year.' If the lists could not be made up betweeen those dates, they might be made up in the depth of winter. I therefore move that the section be amended by striking out these words.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Those words were not inserted without purpose. It might be impracticable to conduct the preparation of the lists during the specified months. No one can tell what might happen. There might be an unexpected by-election taking place in the mouth of June or in any other month of the year in any riding in respect of which it might be important that the lists should be modern, or should not be of an age they would otherwise have if we were compelled always to rely on the last lists prepared. In these circumstances that is a latitude which can do no possible harm. There would be no object, unless there were a necessity, of having a revision of the lists oftener than once in the year, and there is power in the Governor in Council by proclamation to dispense altogether with the preparation of the lists in any year when such a preparation seems to be entirely unnecessary.


Robert Laird Borden: There does not seem to be any provision for the publication of the proclamation. I would move that the words, 1 to be published forthwith in the Canada Gazette,' be inserted after the word ' proclamation ' in the tenth line.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and subsection 1 as amended agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: It has been already suggested by my hon. friend from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) that this work of preparation, revision, and so forth, should be confided to each judge for his own district; otherwise in so enormous a territory there will be a great deal of confusion. I do not know whether the government have taken that into consideration, but it seems to me that there is a great deal of force in what the hon. gentleman has urged.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: There is a practical difficulty about the working out of any such suggestion as the hon. gentleman has made, and it was only after considering the difficulties that it seemed to me it was much better that there should be a board consisting of more than one judge, as the Bill proposes. There are six constituencies in question. I think there is not one of them in which there is not a greater number of voters voting upon ordinary municipally-prepared or ordinary manhood suffrage lists than will be voting under the provisions of this statute. Perhaps I am wrong in thinking that in every constituency it will be less than one-half of the whole number of voters to whom this statute will be applied. But there is none of the six constituencies with regard to which this Bill will have universal application ; and I think that in the greater number of those six constituencies, there is more than one district judge having jurisdiction. You

do not want to single out in an Act of parliament an individual judge by name ; you do not want to say either the junior or the senior ; you cannot do better than, adopting the language I have selected, make the senior judge, who has jurisdiction in any part of the territory, ex officio chairman, so to speak, or one at all events of the board, and let him select his colleagues from his neighbours. The only possible objection is, that it will be slightly more expensive, but that as an objection is offset by the manifold advantages. X am not sure of the exact number but I think there are, counting the two new district courts in these six constituencies, eleven district judges. Then there are to be six boards of three formed out of those eleven judges. Surely in that way, seeing that some of those judges will be on more than one board, it will be better to have a board of some sort, acting by its full body or its majority, than that each judge should be responsible for the work in his own district. These are very large districts, there would be in many cases a tremendous extent of territory which it would be necessary for a judge to cover, but this would be the best practical way of working it out.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I do not know whether the minister has considered the position in which these judges will find themselves at this period of the year. Take the electoral district of Thunder Bay and Rainy River, tiiere will be three judges in that district having territorial jurisdiction, none of whom will go outside the district of Thunder Bay and Rainy River.


James Conmee: There are not three judges at present.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: There will be.


James Conmee: Yes, in all probability.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The senior judge will be Judge Chappel of Rainy River. Suppose he chose for his board Judge Johnston of the Soo and Judge O'Leary of Port Arthur. It will be seen that, both for the purpose of appointing enumerators and the consideration of appeals, Judge Johnston would be taken away froin the Soo and Judge O'Leary or Judge Chappel taken away from either Port Arthur or Kenora for a considerable time. That is not all. During that period another judge will be taken away from Manitoulin for instance. A judge might be taken from Sudbury into the eastern part of the district. Great confusion would result, and just at the time when judges are required for the revision of the organized municipal lists. From the 1st of August to the 15th of October is the period during which the municipal lists in the organized portions of the district are being revised. Why create all this confusion when, at this time and in conjunction with his own duties, the district judge, revising Mr. AYLESWORTH.
the lists in his territory, could himself revise the lists in the ordinary way without calling in two judges away from the performance of their judicial duties. I really suggest that the assigning to the judge in each district the appointment of an enumerator ip the territory within his jurisdiction and giving him, under this Act for the purposes of revision, the same power as under the Ontario Act, would save expense and a great deal of inconvenience and confusion.


James Conmee: The idea of a board of judges is not mine, but I can see many advantages in it. We are trying to get a fair list. It is generally admitted that a board of three judges is more likely to be fair. Does my hon. friend think that Judge Chappel does not know the whole of the districts of ;Thunder Bay and Rainy River ?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Each judge would exercise jurisdiction where he does know everybody, and the gentlemen he would call to his assistance would be strangers who in reality could only render him formal assistance.


James Conmee: I do not understand it that way. This is different from revising the lists. These judges now conduct the preparation.of the lists, they allot the polling places, appoint enumerators, issue instructions to the enumerators regarding their conduct and the preparation of the lists by them. That is far different from revising the list after it is prepared. They will do that also.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Who will be best fitted to judge the enumerators-the judge of the district or two outside judges t


James Conmee: The Bill gives the judge the selection from the judges nearest to him.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: He must take strange judges.


James Conmee: He must in the case of my riding. Judge Johnston is far more familiar with Thunder Bay district than Judge Chappel. There are many other reasons why a board of judges would be much preferable. We are very proud of our judiciary and I think we have the best system of any country ; but judges are human after all, and the principle acted on by this and previous governments is that it is better, when appointing a judge, to take a lawyer away from the district where he practises. It is better that the judge should be away from those who were his clients when he was practising at the bar, and there are social and family considerations and others which make it more reasonable perhaps to have a board of judges than a single judge.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But the cases are not parallel. It has been suggested by my

hon. friend from West Algoma that the judge should know personally the enumerators lie appoints. That is a very different question from deciding cases. Of course, he is called upon to decide questions between strangers ; but, in appointing men to positions' of trust, he should appoint those whom he knows.


James Conmee: It is not merely the appointment of the enumerators, but the general procedure in the preparation of the lists. The provincial law governs that to a great extent. This board of judges must give instructions and these instructions should come from a disinterested body. The complaint against the present provincial lists is that they have been prepared by partisans, that the instructions were given purposely to take advantage of the opposite political party. I did not suggest the idea, but I can see a good deal of fairness in it.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The hon. member's local knowledge is much better than my own. In the district of Thunder Bay and Rainy River where there are three judicial districts, would it not be better to have three judges meet and formulate their scheme for enumerators and have the same system for each judicial district ? The only possible argument against it would be, not one of fairness, but of the little initial expense. It seems to me that the scheme formulated would give uniformity in the constituency. First get the judges together, and you will have uniformity of instructions to the enumerators, and, as the result of that, you will have uniformity of decisions afterwards on points raised before the board.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What about the selection of enumerators ?


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. They are suggested by the three judges.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would not one who knows them make a better selection than three, two of whom do not know them ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: But the board as a whole would yield, no doubt, to the suggestions of each member concerning his own district. And, by having the three judges you would have fairness and uniformity of decision.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: There are two reasons against it. The hon. gentleman wiil see that the time allowed for making up the lists is, comparatively speaking, short. The hon. member for Thunder Bay complained of this. You have now from August 15 to October 15. What are you going to do when you are cornering up all the judges ?


James Conmee: They appoint the enumerators.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Yes. but instead of having three judges working in one district, he
could have the three working in their several districts, and each carrying on this work in connection with his regular district duties. Again, would it be better to allow the judge to attend to his judicial duties and the work assigned him in the place where he exercises jurisdiction, or would it be better to take him away from his district at a time when, it may be, his district court sessions are being held or he is revising municipal lists, and give him work elsewhere, clogging the judicial machinery, not only by taking the judge away from his own work but by making slower the work that is 'assigned to him ? Would it not be better, instead of having three judges, to have each judge work in his own territory where he has knowledge of the conditions and of the people ?


James Conmee: I do not agree with the hon. member (Mr. Boyce). I think this will expedite matters. The three judges meet only for the purpose of selecting the enumerators, formulating the rules and fixing tlie polling places.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What about appeals ?


James Conmee: They come before the judges In the ordinary way.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: They come before the board of judges.


James Conmee: Not necessarily.
Mi*. BOYCE. That is what the Act says.


James Conmee: Yes, the hon. gentleman is right. I had not quite realized that point. But I am glad of it. This is tantamount to an election trial. Formerly the provincial law provided that an election trial might be held before one judge. That seemed unfair and now the law provides for two judges. The board of three judges will deal with these matters better.


Robert Laird Borden: If the government are disposed to insist upon a board of registration which will probably be unworkable, they will have to take the responsibility of it. Having made our protest and shown that this Bill will be, in our opinion, unworkable, I do not know that wre can do any more. That it will be unworkable must be plain to hon. gentlemen who heard the discussion this afternoon. The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. McCool) declared that the process of appeal could not be carried out effectively because, he said the population is too scattered and the judges too far away. If with one judge sitting, it is impossible to give an effective judicial revision you can imagine what the result will be when you require the attendance of three judges to hear every appeal. The case need only be stated to see the consequences. However, we have made our protest. I believe the provision will be unworkable. But the government insist, upon it, so let it pass in that form.


William Humphrey Bennett: The government should remember that Judge MeCurry is an elderly gentleman and it is not reasonable to expect him to go out of his own district. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) must know that.
On subsection 4,
i- Such board of registration shall appoint for its electoral district as many enumerators as are necessary, and it shall be the duty of such enumerators, under the supervision and in accordance with the directions of such board of registration, to prepare the voters' lists for those parts of the province without municipal organization in such electoral district, and the Governor in Council may confer upon each enumerator so appointed any powers necessary for the discharge of his duties.


Robert Laird Borden: This will be subject to the same objection as has been pointed out by other hon. gentlemen with respect to subsection 3. Apparently, it is designed to make this procedure as cumbrous and unworkable as possible. I do not know whether there is any ulterior motive behind it. Some of my hon. friends think it is designed for the purpose of postponing these elections on the ground that the lists cannot be prepared in time.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That is it.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not suggesting that as my own idea, but I know that some hon. members on this side are impressed with it. There is not the slightest doubt that if the present provincial system ir liable to delay, and is found to be practicably unworkable as has been alleged this afternoon, the system now proposed of three judges will be much more unworkable. I do not know that we can say anything about it. if the government insists upon absurdities of this kind, it is only necessary to remind my hon. friends on this side of the House that they could not possibly listen to any greater absurdities than those which were alleged this afternoon as a basis for proceeding with the Bill at all. Therefore, inasmuch as the Bill is founded on the most grotesque absurdity that could be imagined, it seems eminently proper that every provision should be of an equal absurdity. ,


George Oscar Alcorn: Not the least absurdity of the procedure will be the very simple question as to the right of a man to the franchise, a question which will come up over and over again in the courts, will have to be decided upon by three judges, as if it were not possible for any person of ordinary intelligence, having an ordinary acquaintance with tlie right of franchise, to decide such questions for himself.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I want to say this to the right hon. gentleman and to the Minister of Justice, that having lived in that country for twenty-four years, and having in view Mr R. L. BORDEN.
the provisions of subsection 1 of this Bill, and knowing the conditions which exist in that country, I can only say to him that it will be absolutely impossible to get those lists made up within the time the Minister of Justice has fixed therefor, and to have anything like a reasonable time for the preparation or revision of those lists. The thing is physically and absolutely impossible.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not in a position to judge of my hon. friend's statements. He gives me one version, and my hon. friend behind me gives me another version. Which one shall T accept ? The matter has been carefully looked into, and I am advised that the Bill can be worked.


William Humphrey Bennett: Take the case of the district of Muskoka. In that large riding there are only three or four townships that are unorganized, and what will be the result if the lists are not completed ? You disfranchise a splendid riding for the sake of two or turee townships where there is only a handful of votes. You say under the Act that you may go outside the district for judges. Every person in that country knows that Judge McCarry, of Parry Sound, is a very old gentleman, and I do not believe that he would leave his home in Parry Sound and go down a number of miles to the district of Muskoka to take a hand in these three or four scattered polls. Where are you going to get another judge ? The next nearest judge will be at Kenora, or else Sault Ste. Marie. But the senior judge of Sault Ste. Marie will be at Thunder Bay.


An hon. MEMBER.: North Bay will he closer than that.


William Humphrey Bennett: The judge at North Bay will be occupied in the Nipissing district. If the lists are not completed in Parry Sound, you are disfranchising a splendid, well settled riding, all because perhaps thirty or forty voters who reside in the organized districts have not been placed in the lists in their polling divisions.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I suppose there will be not less than thirty polling subdivisions where the lists are prepared in the district of Rainy River. I think there might be as many as that. Then there are .thirty polling subdivisions in which the board of judges has to sit for revision.


James Conmee: They do not have to sit at every polling subdivision.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: They have got to sit somewhere in that riding, they have got to appoint days for hearing appeals in .these thirty subdivisions. The probabilities are that there will be appeals in each, we must contemplate appeals in each one of the thirty subdivisions. Then, under this, law, the senior judge at Port Arthur chooses the senior judge in my district, Judge Johnston

and off he goes to Port Arthur on a revising trip. If he takes two appeal courts a day, it would take him fifteen days to complete the tour ; if he takes one a day, he is away thirty days. Now that is only one instance. But that'is done with regard to six ridings, and there is where the confusion is involved, and there is where the Act is unworkable. In the first place, you have not only got to contemplate one set of three judges and the inconvenience that will exist In their territory by their absence, but you have to contemplate more than that. Take this territory between Thunder Bay and Algoma. You have to contemplate that Judge Johnston may be designated by the judge of Port Arthur, and that Judge Johnston later on may be chosen by Judge McCallum, or by Judge Valin in Nipissing. Supposing that Nipis-sing has thirty to fifty polls, and you only have sixty days for the notice, for the appointment of enumerators, for the enumeration, for the notice of appeal, for the appeal itself, for commencing the lists, sixty days, covering a territory twice as large as the settled portion of the province of Ontario.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. I think the hon. gentleman's fears are unfounded. I am acquainted with the district of Nipissing as well as the hon. gentleman. He supposes that there are thirty polling subdivisions, but it is not for a moment to be supposed that the board is going to sit In every polling subdivision. They will divide the territory into districts. In my own riding, a township with twelve subdivisions, the judge only sits at one place in the whole township. Take the whole county of Simcoe. Last year the voters' lists in that whole county were revised by one judge, although the county has a population of 70,000 or 80,000. So I do not think the fears of the hon. gentleman are well founded.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What are the distances there ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The distances are not as great as yours, I admit. But the mode of travel is very rapid. The hon. gentleman suggests fifteen or thirty sittings in one district, or one constituency. I do not think that would be necessary at all.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Does my hon. friend know the country? Take the polls along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific and you get there in a day.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. The hon. gentleman makes a false assumption that the judges will sit in every polling division. They will form districts and sit at central points. The difficulties are not as formidable as he presumes, but I suppose they will be greater than in the more densely settled portions. It will not take three judges any longer to get to these various places than it will one.


William Wright: The Act provides that they shall follow the procedure under the Ontario Act, and that has been that the judge sits for appeal in every place where the enumerator sits.


James Conmee: My hon. friend is perhaps borrowing a little trouble. He asked if the judges would not have to hold their courts along the line of the National Transcontinental Railway. It does not follow that there are any courts along the National Transcontinental Railway. He is assuming that there will be an appeal in every place where the enumerator sat.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It is a fair assumption.


James Conmee: It is not. There will not be appeals in half the places. Court may lie held in two or three places in Thunder Bay, three or four places in Rainy River and the same number in Nipissing. Outside of these districts the difficulties will be very small. About two . and a half months are allowed for the preparation of the lists.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I have not heard the hon. member state his objections to having the judges exercise jurisdiction in the territory over which they preside.


James Conmee: I do not want a judge hearing an election trial.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Now we are getting at it. The hon. member says that the judge who revises the lists in the cities and towns in his riding well and satisfactorily would not be a satisfactory officer to revise the lists in the unorganized territory.


James Conmee: I did not say anything of the kind.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That is the hon. gentleman's position. The. principle is that this should be consonant with the Ontario Voters' Lists Act, and to introduce any other procedure is to render it complicated, unworkable and highly expensive. What are the judges to do with their courts while they are doing this work?


James Conmee: There are junior judges.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: There are none in your district.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The judges have to make the voters' lists anyway.
On subsection 5,	.
In the preparation of such lists the provisions of the law 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, but the revision of the said lists shall be had before the board of registration, who shall hear all appeals from the said enumerators, and no person whose name is not included in the voters' lists so prepared and revised shall be entitled to vote.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to refer to subsection 5 by way of comparison with subsection 3 of the Bill as originally introduced. This subsection is practically the same as subsection 2 of the original Bill. Subsection 2 was followed, and it seems to me this should be followed by a provision of this character-X am quoting now from subsection 3 of the original Bill :
3. In the preparation of such lists the voters' lists which were prepared for the several polling divisions situate wholly or in part within the electoral district or wholly or in part within such unorganized territory as such polling divisions were established at the last preceding provincial election, and which under the laws of the province, are then or were last in force for the purposes of provincial elections, shall be taken . . . and the names of all persons who are not qualified to vote in the said electoral district shall be struck off the said lists, and the names of all persons qualified to vote in the said electoral district and not already on the said lists shall b9 added to the said lists.
Why is that omitted? It seems to be a proper provision, having regard to the scheme of the Bill in the first instance. Even in the Dominion Franchise Act, as the hon. gentleman will remember, the basis was to be the municipal lists, and the hon. gentleman thought it was strange they were not strictly adhered to. But then, although they were not adhered to, they were taken as a basis ; we took such provincial lists as were available and adopted them as a basis.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The clause which we have in the Bill as reprinted is drawn upon a different footing altogether from the clause in the Bill which was originally introduced. As I explained when I moved the second reading of this Bill, to my mind the clause I originally framed was a perfectly fair clause. Taking the Ontario Voters' Lists Act as an example, if the Ontario Voters' Lists Act is a fair measure, providing, as it does, for the preparation of the lists in the unorganized territory by men appointed as enumerators and selected for the work by the Ontario government, I am absolutely unable to understand why that same measure ceases to be a fair measure and becomes an utterly partisan, nefarious, iniquitous, monstrous and wicked scheme, when the very same thing is done by the Ottawa government instead of being done by the Toronto government. Either both of these methods of preparing the lists are entirely partisan or unfair, or each of them is an equally fair way of preparing lists for the purposes of an election. Adopting the principle that whatever the government In power in any province or any parliament did was fair, I prepared the original clause upon the footing that the enumerators should be appointed in accordance with the provisions of whatever the provincial law was, and starting with these Mr. l. g. McCarthy.
provincial lists as a basis, that they should prepare the lists upon which the Dominion elections should be carried out. That was objected to very vehemently, and it was said on the other side of the House and accepted upon this, that to be absolutely fair we sjiould depart altogether from the system of government enumeration or of government appointment of enumerators and have judicially appointed enumerators and so have lists that were perfectly impartial and perfectly pure. Upon that footing I prepared this clause and I ignored altogether the partial-and impure if you like -lists prepared by partisan enumerators and started the judicial enumerators upon their work of preparing their lists from the ground up. I think that is a consistent position, and I have drawn this clause in order that these enumerators acting under judicial direction, upon judicial appointment, with judicial supervision from first to last, and subject to judicial control, shall prepare lists which shall be fair to each party and with regard to which no one will have ground for any complaint.


Robert Laird Borden: If the Minister of Justice would give us a little less rhetoric and a little more information he would do something to facilitate the progress of the Bill. I pointed out that even in the Dominion Franchise Act which these gentlemen opposite railed against, you always took the provincial municipal lists as a basis and that was the provision in this Bill when first introduced. The Minister of Justice seems_to have no idea about this matter except the idea of party or partisanship. I was not discussing it from the standpoint of partisanship; I was discussing it from the standpoint of the rights of the people whose names are on the provincial lists to have their names remain there unless some good reason is shown for taking them off. That seems to be an intelligible principle, but apparently it does not penetrate the mind of the Minister of Justice. There is no possible reason for departing from the original scheme of the Bill in that respect. However, I have placed my views before the House and if the government without any reason whatever see fit to insist that the voters iu these northern ridings whose names are on the provincial lists without any question or complaint, shall be put to the inconvenience and trouble of seeing that their names are put on these new lists, the government will have to take the responsibility of imposing that burden upon them.


George Oscar Alcorn: If the government do not see fit to adopt the provincial lists as the basis for the first list, surely there can be no objection to taking the first Dominion list as the basis for all subsequent lists.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Minister of Justice who has given a good deal

of attention to this, has come to the conclusion that he wants to have the lists prepared by the iudges from the bottom up, and I do not know that there is much objection to that. Of course any man appointed by the judge will want all the information he can possibly have before him in preparing the lists.


George Oscar Alcorn: The lists are prepared by the enumerators and not by the judges.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is all the difference in the world between the enumerators being appointed by political machinery or by judicial machinery.
On section 0,


Robert Laird Borden: I have heard many absurd reasons given on the other side of the House for this legislation, but I have heard no reason whatever given for departing from the provincial polling divisions.


Wilfrid Laurier: I suppose the judges will accept the local polling divisions which are generally known to the people unless there is good reason to alter them. However, in new districts they may have to be changed from time to time as settlement and population increases, and they certainly should have power to change the polling divisions under such circumstances.


Robert Laird Borden: Section 24 of the Dominion Elections Act provides that the polling divisions shall be those provided under the laws of the province for the purpose of a provincial election, the only exception being where the polling divisions are intersected by the boundary between two electoral districts.


George Oscar Alcorn: Under this Bill new polling divisions may be constituted for each successive Dominion election. I do not see why judges should be empowered to change them except where there is overlapping.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: In the unorganized territory, the lists are prepared by a system of registration and the Ontario statute provides that the name of each voter is to be entered in that part of the voters' lists the polling place for which is most convenient for him. Is it to be the enumerator or the judre who shall decide that? I should think that the better authority would be the judge.


George Oscar Alcorn: The question is not about the allotment of voters in particular polls, but about the changing of polling divisions by the judges where there is no overlapping. Why should the judges interfere with provincial polling divisions except where there is overlapping?


James Conmee: That difficulty has been met in the past in the province by the Lieutenant Governor in Council fixing the polling places. There never was an election
in which new polling places had not to be provided. Under the Dominion law the Governor in Council would do the same. If we are taking the matter out of politics, would it not be better to take that out of politics also ?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That is not the point. The boundaries of the polling subdivisions are under the Dominion Act to be those provided by the provinces ; but under this Act they may, as my hon. friend from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) says, be sub-divided differently for each election, so that it will be a case of confusion worse confounded at each election, respecting the place where a man will vote. With regard to section 7, why not, use the provincial lists if they are more recent ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Section 7 has been considered and passed.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. gentleman, who is speaking for the Minister of Justice, says section 7 is passed. We are in this position, that we have a deaf Minister of Justice, who listens to his own side of the House, and turns a deaf ear towards this side. When there is any objection raised on this side of the House, the hon. gentleman takes advantage of his infirmity and will not listen. I do not think there is anything worse for any country to suffer from than a deaf Minister of Justice.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Charles Marcil: The hon. gentleman should withdraw the expression ' taking advantage of his infirmity.'


Arthur Cyril Boyce: If that be out of order, I will certainly withdraw it ; but I say that this House lias suffered from it, especially during this debate, and the country has suffered, and the country will resent it, and will lay it to the charge of the right hon. gentleman who persists in retaining that minister.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think I will accept that responsibility without any hesitation whatever.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I was proceeding, when I was interrupted by the hon. gentleman who is assuming the functions of Minister of Justice, to ask why this government sees fit. where there is a provincial list prepared regularly and not more than three months old, and where there is a Dominion list eleven months old, to declare that you shall have the Dominion list, and that the people cannot vote upon the provincial list, which is more recent. It seems to be a proposition that would shock the common sense of most people, especially in view of the pronouncement of the right hon. gentleman that these provincial lists must be accepted as the lists upon which the Dominion elections shall take place. One of the excuses of the Minister of Justice for this

legislation is that he wants fresh lists ; and in the case 1 have mentioned you are going to prefer a stale list and are going thereby to disfranchise all the voters who come into a constituency in the meantime. They cannot get on the list and the right hon. gentleman proposes to leave them disfranchised.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. Surely the hon. gentleman who has been prattling this whole afternoon has got this into his head at last. Not content with continually prattling-


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.


Charles Marcil: The word ' prattling ' is not in order.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. I withdraw the word ' prattling.' The hon. gentleman who has been continually and volubly speechifying on this Bill all this afternoon, and not content with this continuance of his volubility, which but for your ruling I would continue to call prattling, does not understand the first principle of the Bill; he now tries to insult the ministers of the Crown. The hon. gentleman has followed the example of the hon. member for North Toronto, who made similar insinuations this afternoon, but no attention was paid to them. Such insinuations are not worthy of this House ; they are certainly beneath the dignity of members of the House of Commons. Surely if a man be ill and while ill is prepared to sit in this House and do his duty to the country, it ill becomes these hon. gentlemen to allude to the fact as they have done to-day. The man who seeks to make sueh arguments is beneath the dignity of manhood, in my judgment.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I must again rise to order.


Charles Marcil: I think the expression ' beneath the dignity of manhood ' should be withdrawn.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I will withdraw the expression, and if there were another word that I could substitute for it, within the parliamentary rule, I would adopt it.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I protest again, and I will continue to protest as often as the hon. gentleman makes these remarks.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. I have withdrawn the expression. As to section 7 of this Bill, the hon. gentleman asks again, why not use the provincial lists ? This whole Bill is based on the assumption that we will not accent the provincial lists, for reasons given in this House this afternoon ; and when we have passed the clauses providing for the necessary machinery, why reiterate what has already been said ? That is why I ventured to make the remark that we had passed section 7.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Now that this wise Solon has spoken, this independent gentleman Mr. BOYCE.
who came before this country professing to be absolutely independent of either party, this gentleman who entered this House professing no allegiance to the Liberal party, but who has so absolutely surrendered to % the exigencies of the party in power, I will proceed. This gentleman, who has taken advantage of his position to cast insults across the floor of this House against me when I am endeavouring to discuss the clauses of this Bill, might well take a lesson himself. There are transactions with which he has been connected and which have been referred to in this House, which might possibly stand a great deal more criticism than any of my actions.


Charles Marcil: The hon. gentleman had better come back to the question.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I can only say that X very much regret I am prevented from referring to some instances in the political career of my hon. friend. With reference to this particular section I may say that it is the evidence of a desire to discriminate against the province of Ontario as much as possible.
On subsection 8, section 1,
8. It shall be the duty of the board of registration forthwith after the completion of the revision of the said lists to transmit to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, by registered mail, a statement and description showing the limits of the polling divisions so defined and established, together with a copy of the voters' lists so finally revised certified under the hands of the members of the said board, and the provisions of sections 13 and 14 of the Dominion Elections Aot shall apply to such certified copy.


William Wright: There ought to be greater publicity. The list, as completed ought to be sent to the candidates or to somebody in their behalf.


Mr. AYLES  WORTH@: The ordinary provision of the Election Act will apply, under which, as soon as the new lists are sent to the Iving's Printer and are printed, copies are sent by him to the candidates.


William Wright: It has not been the custom in the past to have those lists, which are made up in the unorganized districts, sent down here to be printed. It will be impossible to do that under this Bill because there will not be sufficient time.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would move that these words be added to the subsection after the words ' Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, the sheriff of the district, the member elect and the defeated candidate.'


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I do not know that there is any objection to what Is proposed except the inconvenience and delay. These lists, as they leave the board of registration, will consist in the greater part of

printed names, but no one can tell how many names will be added. There may be hundreds. The idea is that as soon as the board completes its revision, it shall transmit a certified copy of the list with the changes and additions to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Then the general Act applies. Section 15 of that Act provides that it shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, immediately on receipt by him of any certified copy of a list of voters, to have it printed by the King's Printer. Then, immediately after it is printed, the King's Printer shall send by registered mail, twenty copies to each candidate. But to have the printed list with all the changes and additions made by the board of registration copied over again before it is sent to the King's Printer, and these copies sent to the candidates, would cause not only considerable expense but consideable delay.
Amendment rejected.
On subsection 9 :
9. In tho province of Manitoba the several judges of the county courts shall constitute a board, of which a majority shall be a quorum, which board shall during the month of July in each year meet in the city of Winnipeg on a day to be named by the senior of such judges and appoint for each Dominion electoral district in the said province a committee of one or of three of such judges, and such committee shall thereupon proceed to define and establish the polling divisions into which, for the purposes of the next following Dominion election, the electoral district for which it is appointed shall be divided, and shall distribute among such different polling divisions the names of the voters entitled to vote in such electoral district as such names appear on the last revised lists of electors for the several provincial electoral districts in the said province, so that each voter shall be assigned to his proper poll as established for the purposes of such Dominion election.
Mr. AYLESWORTH moved that the subsection be amended by striking out in the twenty-seventh line the words ' on a day to be named by the senior of such judges ' and inserting instead the words ' such distribution shall be completed before the first of October each year.'


William James Roche: I desire to offer the same objection regarding this section as that offered by my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, in connection with a similar section referring to the unorganized districts of Ontario. I do so with all the greater confidence that it will appeal to the reasonableness of the First Minister by reason of his statement that in a newly organized territory, where the conditions are changing, it would be necessary for the judges to depart very largely from the existing conditions and make alterations from time to time which in an old district
are not necessary. In Manitoba the provincial subdivisions should be adhered to except where it is necessary for the judges to make a departure in the cases of intersections of polling subdivisions by reason of their overlapping each other. In such cases it would be necessary to have new polling subdivisions and those should be made by the judge. This is a suggestion I made some time ago and which the First Minister said he was willing to accept. But he is now going further. This section allows the judges to disturb the boundaries of the polling subdivisions, as arranged for provincial purposes, throughout Manitoba and in every election. I do not think that that is a wise power to confer on them. My right hon. friend may say that they will not make any departure except where it is necessary. But as the judges differ in their interpretations of any Act, I think the Prime Minister ought to consent to inserting something which would point out definitely and distinctly that the judges are only to prepare new polling subdivisions where there are overlappings and not disturb the existing polling subdivision. He will readily see that if the polling subdivisions for Dominion purposes should be made different from those for provincial purposes, the electors will scarcely know where to poll their votes. I appeal to the Prime Minister if this is not a reasonable suggestion. I would remind him also that the present provincial polling subdivisions have been created by the judges-not by the Lieutenant Governor in Council nor by the returning officers, but by the judges. There can be no party advantage in arranging polling subdivisions ; my objection is based upon the confusion likely to arise in having different polling subdivisions for the Dominion from those established for the province.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. Is It the hon. gentleman's contention that In a polling subdivision in which there is overlapping- which means, I suppose, that it must be divided between two constituencies-you would leave only that portion of the polling subdivision in a constituency as a polling subdivision, or attach it to some other ?


William James Roche: I would leave it to the judges, where there is overlapping, either to make it Into a separate polling subdivision or attach it to an adjoining one.	*


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Would not the judges do what was required In that way ?


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman is taking too much for granted. In the enactment of a law you should be specific. As I have said, there can be no advantage iu arranging polling subdivisions, though there may be an advantage in fixing tlie polling places ; hut so far as that is concerned, I would not object to giving the

judges power to establish the polling places. But I do object to having confusion created in the minds of the electors by having different polling subdivisions for the Dominion and for the province. '


Mr. S. J. JACKSON.: I may state, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. J. Roche) is not aware of it, that at present the judges do not arrange the polling subdivisions, but the government arrange the registration districts and the polling divisions. The reason why we had it subdivided in my district was that they were partisan divisions. Take the township in which I have lived for twenty-five or thirty-five years : We have had two polls in that local division for seventeen years, but as soon as the Roblin government came into power, they removed one and put all the voters in that township in Stonewall poll "and made some of the electors go a distance of twelve miles to vote. In the last Dominion election, we put a polling place in the middle of the division as before. We want the judges to lay out these polls for the convenience of and the defence of the people.


William James Roche: As usual the hon. gentleman (Mr. S. J. Jackson) is speaking without full knowledge when he says that the judges do not fix the polling subdivisions, except in districts where there has been a redistribution and where the returning officer has done it. But the original polling subdivisions through Manitoba have been defined by the judges.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: The hon. gentleman is altogether mistaken.


William James Roche: If I am mistaken, then the prime minister of the province of Manitoba is mistaken


Mr. CRAWFORD.: He often is.


Mr.  W. J.@: ROCHE (Marquette)-and so are the judges. Are the judges mistaken too ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crawford) will find that he is wrong in this as he was in a matter previously discussed between us. I stated that the judges fixed the time and place of the courts of revision. The hon. member denied it. But I have in my possession original letters from the judges saying that they named the date and fixed the place for the court of revision. And the Prime Minister, I think, has seen those letters. I handed them to the leader of the opposition to show


Samuel Jacob Jackson: That is the courts of revision. But the judges do not lay out the polling divisions.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman is coming around. He has admitted that


John Crawford: I take exception to the hon. gentleman's statement that the Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
judges fix the courts of revision. They do not ; these are fixed by order in council.


William James Roche: Then, I will show the hon. gentleman the judge'3 letter.


John Crawford: It is all subject to the approval of the executive council.


William James Roche: And the executive council have not in any instance departed from the recommendation of the judges. ' They have embodied those recommendations in orders in council, but the object is to give the information to the electorate. This is necessary


John Crawford: Why did the attorney general disfranchise electors by tearing off part of the voters' lists which the judges had authorized ?


William James Roche: That is a mere figment of the hon. gentleman's imagination. He is merely reiterating these worn-out statements that have been met and shown to be without foundation. I do not want to enter into an argument upon a question that has already been threshed out. I simply desire to say, and I can show the papers to the Prime Minister to prove, that the judges have established the present polling subdivisions, except where it was necessary to make an alteration and the returning officer was authorized to do that. And as the polling subdivisions were originally established by the judges, I do not see that it would be right to give the,m the power to rearrange them for Dominion purposes.


John Crawford: I desire to make a correction of the statement of the hon. member (Mr. W. J. Roche). The judges in 1903 made certain registration divisions and afterwards the Manitoba government adopted these and made them into polling subdivisions.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman is getting there. I will soon convince him. I would ask him t Has he any objection to the present polling subdivision in the main ? If not, what is the use


John Crawford: I have objections to a number of them.


Wilfrid Laurier: In my hum. ble judgment, the point is not worth raising The general power is given to the judge to fix the polling divisions. It is necessary that the judge should have that power. The hon. member knows as well as I do that the judges will not interfere with the polling divisions unless there is some good reason for so doing. The reason the general power is given and especially in a province like Manitoba where the population is so rapidly increasing, you may have a polling division which is sufficient to-day but to-morrow it will be found not sufficient. If you

give the general power to the judges they will not abuse it, and I think it will work out satisfactorily.
On subsection 10,
10. It shall be the duty of each such committee, forthwith after the completion of such distribution, to transmit to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, by registered mail a statement and description showing the limits of the polling divisions so defined and established, together with a copy of the lists of electors as so distributed among the said polling divisions certified under the hands of the members of the said committee, and the provisions of sections 13 and 14 of the Dominion Elections Act shall apply to such certified copy.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I should think the same amendment might be made to this as was proposed by the bon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) in regard to section 8, to provide that the elected member, the defeated candidate and the sheriff should have lists sent to them. We amended section 8 which relates to Ontario on the motion of the hon. member for East Simcoe and this section which relates to Manitoba can be amended in the same way.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: These are the provincial lists which are being dealt with, copies of which will be forwarded by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery under the general law. Each of the candidates in the previous election will have twenty copies. To make the amendment proposed,'it seems to me, would be to put work upon the judges without any good reason.
On section 13-person on general list, but omitted from separate list.
Mr. AY'LESWORTH. Some amendments were suggested to various sections which I undertook to have prepared when the Bill was resumed. One of them would have a proper place as the next following section of this Bill. A discussion took place at a previous sitting with regard to what is now section 13. That provides for the case of a man whose name had been dropped from the list in transcribing, and it was suggested that there o'ught to be some provision by which the general list of voters applicable to that poll should be in the hands of the deputy who was conducting the election at that poll. I pointed out at the time that this section 13 of the present Bill was a corollary to section 25 of the statute, and I propose to amend section 25 of the original Act by adding the following words :
And shall deliver to the deputy returning officer for such polling division a true copy, oertified by the returning officer, of the lists of voters for the provincial polling subdivision as received by him from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is that an answer to the question put the other day by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Clements) to cover the case where an elector votes in a municipality, half of which is in one county and half in another county?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The amendment, which was moved by the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Clarke), is incorporated in this Bill, and seems to have been adopted.
On section 3-nomination paper to state address of candidate for service.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This section was left open to decide what penalty there ought to be on a candidate who does not comply with it, or who may give a fictitious address. A suggestion was made by the leader of the opposition, with which I agreed, that he might be made to forfeit his deposit. I prepared an amendment carrying out that suggestion, but on thinking about it, it seems to me a pretty severe penalty-$200 is a substantial fine. This idea occurred to me as an alternative, that the election petition or other paper, which would be served by leaving it at his address, if it were a real one, might be left for the candidate with the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. If that suggestion meets with the approval of the committee, I have prepared an amendment on those lines. The idea of publishing it in the ' Canada Gazette ' was also suggested, but that perhaps is an unnecessary expenditure. My proposition would be to add this as a subsection :
If the nomination paper of any candidate gives a fictitious -address, or does not state any address -ais required by the preceding subsection, leaving -a copy of -such process, notice or other document with the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for -such candidate, shall be deemed equivalent -for all -purposes to personal service upon him of such process, notice or other document.
The candidate could then go to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and get the document.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I draw attention to the language of the Act in the section which is being amended :
And leaving a copy of such process, notice or document a-t such address.
I would suggest tnat the following words be inserted in the 17fh line : ' a grown person.' It would be unfair to leave the copy of such a document at a house where there was no one residing to receive it, or to throw it upon the verandah or into the back yard.


George Oscar Alcorn: I would suggest to the minister that after the word ' Chancery,' in his amendment, he should add the words ' at his office in the city of Ottawa.'


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Do I understand that a candidate in tlie Yukon, for instance, would be obliged to accept service in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery at Ottawa? Would a bailiff, for instance, have to come all the way down to Ottawa? Why should it not be done by registered letter instead of forcing a man to come down here?


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. It is only in the event of the candidate giving a fictitious name. If he does that he is liable to punishment.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: He would not be the loser, the man who gives the fictitious address is the man elected. Does the man who is contesting an election have to come, down to Ottawa? It seems to me that service might be made by registered letter.


William Wright: What Is implied in the term ' address ' ? In small villages, for instance, there is no street number. Suppose a farmer is a candidate, and must, he give the number of his lot? In villages or towns the address would mean only a post office address.	|1


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I expressed the opinion when the Bill was in committee before that if a man lived at a country four-corners where there was only one building and that a post office, if he gave the name of that post office it would be an address and the paper might be left at that post office; but I should think that every candidate would take care in giving an address, to give some specific address, such as his place of business, or, if he preferred, his residence, defining where it was ; it would be his interest to do so.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What about my amendment requiring it to be left with a grown person ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This was all discussed at the previous sitting of the committee. The whole idea of this clause which was framed on the suggestion of the Elections Committee of two years ago was to make it easier to serve the candidate who was elected, and with that object this provision is inserted. If you are going to whittle it away by throwing conditions in the way of service you may as well not have it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I suppose the committee want somebody served.
iMr. AYLESWORTH. The idea was that service might be made by mail and when discussing this two weeks ago that is what hon. gentlemen were contending for.
Mr. LANCASTER, We are not talking of sending by registered mail; the minister is treating this with a flippancy not becoming the Minister of Justice-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Oscar Alcorn: Mr. LANCASTER

when he says one is
trying to whittle away the section, whereas I am trying to do my duty.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. The hon. gentleman misunderstood if he thought the Minister of Justice was flippant. I would ask the leader of the opposition if he concurs in what the member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) is saying, because the Minister of Justice says this section is drawn to meet what the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barkei-) thought was a proper provision when sitting on the Elections Committee of two years ago.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The leader of the opposition of course was not a member of the Committee on Elections to which I referred. The view of that committee, as expressed here a few weeks ago, I think by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) was that a man should be made to give an address and if when the process server came to serve him the place was locked, that might be a plot by the candidate to defeat service and the proposition was that he should leave it in the letter box or somewhere about the premises. If the committee want to force personal service we can at once strike out the clause.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: I do not wish to be understood as assenting to the proposition that any man who has gone through the difficulty and trouble of an election should be liable to haying his seat contested or to have a cross petition filed against him by a document being alleged by some process server to have been thrown in his door, of which he never heard. This would not throw out the personal service, it is only a supplementary service and I think this law should provide that where an address is given by a candidate it should be left at that address with some adult person. Any other proposition is unfair. .


Edmund James Bristol: We could easily put the alternative to be left with some grown person or if there is no one in to be nailed up at the address. That is a common way of serving.


George Oscar Alcorn: If personal service cannot be effected and we are going to quarrel about the particular method of service, we had better strike the amendment out altogether and let the law stay as it was.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I move that the clause be amended by providing in terms that service can be effected by leaving the paper at the residence named by the candidate with some adult person, or in the event of no adult person being there posting it to the door.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I am inclined to agree with the hon. member (Mr. Alcorn) that the amended section should be with-dawn.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My objection applies whether the amendment of the Minister of Justice goes in or not, because he is only providing for service on the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I suggest that the amendment be accepted to the main clause, and that the amendment of the Minister of Justice be withdrawn. That will satisfy every one.	.


Edmund James Bristol: To close the matter I move that after the words ' at such address,' you insert the following :
With some adult person at such address, or in case there he no adult person there, then by posting same up at such address.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. It seems to me that if you are going to have all this complication you had better leave the law as it is.


Robert Laird Borden: I would think that the proposal of the Minister of Justice in the first instance was a good one because the difficulty of effecting service in election petitions has become a scandal throughout the country. We cannot spend too much time over it and unless we can settle on something very soon we had better leave it as it is.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Dropped.
On section 8a,
Mr. AY'LESWORTH. When the Bill was before the committee previously the leader of the opposition called my attention to section 0 and section 8 asking me to make sure that there was no conflict as to the times for taking these various steps in the Yukon. I have made myself satisfied in that regard and I think there is no room for difficulty. But in the course of that examination I observed that sections 49, 50 and 51 in the original Act as they now stand apply to the Yukon as well as to Saskatchewan and Alberta. They ought to be all three limited to Saskatchewan and Alberta, because we are now making provision in this Bill by sections 6 and 8 for these steps in the Yukon. I have prepared an amendment which strikes out the Yukon from these three sections, because by this Bill we are otherwise providing for the correction of the lists in the Yukon.
On section 17-rejection of ballots.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: When the Bill was in committee before I stated that I would prepare an amendment which would make it an offence on the part of any deputy returning officer to attempt to mark a ballot so as to identify a voter. I propose to accomplish that purpose by inserting a provision in section 20 which amends section 255 of the principal Act, to make the deputy returning officer punishable, without the alternative of a fine, by an imprisonment 4134
of not less than one year and not more than five years, who places on any ballot paper except as authorized by this Act any writing, number or mark with the intent that the voter to whom such ballot paper is to be or has been given may be identified thereby. That will cover the case of marking the ballot paper either before it is handed to the voter or after the voter has voted and returned the ballot paper to the deputy for deposit in the box.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: When this matter was up before the hon. leader of the opposition suggested that the onus should be on the deputy returning officer who had the custody of the paper to show that he was guiltless. That is not usual, but in a case of this kind I think it is right. The deputy returning officer has the custody of these ballot papers and it ought not to be possible, if he has ordinary intelligence and is an honest man, that this thing could happen.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is possible unfortunately.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 
Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. There is this difficulty. John Smith might have some vindictive feeling against the returning officer and might put a mark on the ballot himself in order that the deputy might be convicted of a criminal offence. The deputy cannot know that John Smith put a mark on the paper because he cannot unfold it, and it would be very unfair to put the onus of proof on him that he did not put the mark on the ballot, when be is the only one who could have marked it, if John Smith's denial be accepted.


Robert Laird Borden: What I suggested has not very much to do with what has been just discussed. The discussion has related to the question of determining whether or not the deputy returning officer put the mark

on .the ballot. But that is entirely a question of evidence, and I do not propose to interfere with that in any way. In the absence of proof to the contrary, it should be presumed that the mark was put on the ballot for the purpose of identification by the deputy returning officer, and the amendment I suggest relates solely to the intent and not to the proof that the deputy actually made the mark. I propose that the amendment of the Minister of Justice should be altered so that if the deputy returning officer should place on the ballot paper, except as authorized by this Act, any writing, number or mark, the intent that the voter may be identified thereby, shall be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary. This leaves it open to the deputy returning officer to prove that he had no such intent, but such intent would be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary. The deputy returning officer should have sufficient intelligence to know that if he puts any mark on the ballot, the ballot may be identified thereby, but he would be given the opportunity to prove that he had no such intent in doing what he did.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend from Lincoln said a moment ago that any honest man with common intelligence could not make such a mistake as to put a mark on the ballot unless with the intention of finding out for whom the voter cast it. Our experience is to the contrary. Take the cases of St. Hyacinthe and Wentworth. In the latter the returning officer was a political friend of the Liberal candidate. At his particular poll he put his initials on every ballot, and at that poll there was a majority in favour of his political friend. He was an honest man, as far as I know, and an intelligent man also, but evidently had not given the close attention he should to his duties, and he has been lamenting ever since what he did.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What he claimed was that he thought it was the right thing to do because it had been done under the provincial Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: He had probably beeif accustomed to act as deputy returning officer in the local elections in which the ballots were numbered, and he did the very same thing in the Dominion election. But .take the case of St. Hyacinthe. Our Quebec law is the same as the Dominion, yet the returning officer put his initials and numbers on all the ballots in his particular poll. He is an honest and an intelligent man, yet he made that mistake.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What reason did he give ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that he gave any but he did it without malice. The only objection I have is that Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
to make a man liable to prosecution for having committed such an error, is a very serious punishment. Not only that but you put on him also the onus of proving his own innocence. I thought at one time that we might impose a slight penalty on the deputy returning officer in the ease of every ballot he thus marked so as to punish him for his negligence, if not for his malice, but on the whole I do not think we can do much better than accept the amendment proposed by my hon. colleague the Minister of Justice.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The great difficulty is the little care taken in the appointment of deputy returning officers. They are generally strong party men and very much occupied with the election. The night before polling, they are generally up late, and, instead of studying the law and preparing to do their duty, they are canvassing all day for the candidates of their choice. They go into the poll without knowing the law. And, in the St. Hyacinthe case, the man did not know what he was doing.


Wilfrid Laurier: Possibly.


Robert Laird Borden: If ignorance of the law were proved there could be no fraudulent or criminal intent. Therefore, all those returning officers to whom the hon. gentleman has alluded would be discharged by any judge before whom they were brought. Of course, this does not add anything to the risk of prosecution ; they would be subject to the risk of prosecution in any case under this section. The section merely provides that the man shall be presumed to know the consequences of his own act. We should have returning officers who will be sufficiently diligent to make themselves acquainted with the law. I admit that the penalty is severe, but I think we might try this for a year and see how it works.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: Would the hon. gentleman suggest that the man should be held guilty before he is proven guilty ?


Robert Laird Borden: No. But if he puts a mark on a ballot by which a voter can be identified, it will be presumed, in the absence of some reasonable excuse


Robert George Macpherson: That he is guilty ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Putting on the mark constitutes the offence.


Robert Laird Borden: He is not held to be guilty, because it remains to be determined whether he can discharge himself of the burden the statute puts upon him. That is not an unreasonable burden. He is acting for the people of the whole polling division or the whole riding. If he violates the law which has been placed in his hand for his information, by putting a mark which would lead to the identification of a voter, the duty is put upon him of giving

a reason why he marked that ballot. That is the whole effect of my amendment.


Edmund James Bristol: Section 17 provides for the amendment of section 173 of the Act, which provides :
In counting the votes, the deputy returning officer shall reject all ballet papers-
(a)	which have not been supplied by him; or
(b)	by which votes have been given for more candidates than are to be elected; or
(c)	upon which there is any writing or mark by which the voter could be identified other than the numbering by the deputy returning officer in the cases hereinbefore provided for.
To this section this amendment is proposed in the Bill :
Provided, however, that no ballot paper shall be rejected on account of any writing, number or mark placed thereon*by any deputy returning officer.
I would suggest that there should be added to that-so that the deputy returning officer's notice will be called to it



but any deputy returning officer placing any writing, number or mark thereon shall be subject to the provisions of section 255.
This would put the enactment right in the place where the deputy gets information as to how he is to count the ballots. His attention will be called to the provision of this penalty.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a good suggestion.


Wilfrid Laurier: Show it to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth).


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: With regard to the question whether the intent to do wrong ought or ought not to be presumed in tbe absence of proof to the contrary, it would strike me as a pretty serious proposition. We are dealing with not less than ten thousand deputy returning officers all over the country. They are men presumably wishing to do their duty ; but they are confronted, when they take charge of their work on election day, with a statute containing some hundreds of clauses which they are supposed to familiarize themselves with and by which they are instructed in a very great number of sections as to exactly what they must do under different circumstances. ' It would he a marvellous thiug if they did not occasionally make mistakes. I suppose that we all agree that where it is an innocent and honest mistake of which we have seen repeated instances in recent times, the man ought not to be punished by the infliction of such a serious penalty as this we have provided. But there might he circumstances under which it might he very difficult for him to prove his innocence. I instanced, the other day when this clause was under discussion, the case of a possible discussion at a poll witli regard to some particular voter-such
things, in practice, frequently occur. A man comes in whose right to vote is questioned, and some wiseacre suggests that the man's ballot ought to he endorsed with a memorandum so that if it turns out that he had no right to vote his ballot can be found and rejected. Now, if, pursuant to that arrangement made by consent of all parties at the poll the deputy returning officer were to write upon the ballot, if you like, ' This is John Smith's ballot,' that would manifestly be a writing upon the ballot for the purpose of identifying John Smith. But I would think that the deputy returning officer ought not to he punished if he did that honestly.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: It may be said that he could readily prove his innocence.
I do not know that he could do it so readily. If indicted for this offence, he could go into the witness box and assert his honesty, but whether his assertion will be believed or disbelieved is another story. What you are proposing to do by this amendment is to put the burden of proving himself innocent upon the man who is accused of this particular offence. That is a very serious departure from the ordinary principles of the law. This clause is framed to make it an offence for the deputy returning officer to put upon any ballot paper a mark calculated to identify the voter with intent that the voter shall thereby he identified. The intent is the gist of the whole offence. If the intent is absent the charge falls to the ground. If it is a mark put on inadvertently, of course nobody is to be prosecuted. If it is not done with intent to identify the voter, there ought to be no prosecution. If it is done with intent to identify the voter, that intent may be honest, although in most cases I think it would be dishonest. But to prove dishonest intent, to prove intent to commit the offence struck at by the statute, it seems to me is a thing which ought to be upon the prosecution. Ordinarily it may be the surrounding circumstances Avill suffice to satisfy the jury of wrongful intent. But if they do not, if the surrounding circumstances as disclosed in the evidence leave the jury in doubt, ought we then to say that a man should be presumed guilty unless he is able to satisfy the jury or the judge that he was acting honestly ? I think not. I think we are going the full length when we penalize the man who does this with wrongful intent, and leave that intent to he established by the prosecution, just as it is established in other criminal cases.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Take the case of one man shooting another. If he points a revolver at him and pulls the trigger, he Is presumed to have intended to shoot the other man. The deputy returning officer ought to be in tbe same position. He actually commits an overt act, he puts a mark upon the ballot which he ought not to put

there. Is it not fair to assume that he did it with that intent? Why should not the, onus of proving that he had not that intent be upon mm? When the deputy returning officer places his mark he actually commits an act which he cannot commit legally, and it ought to be assumed that he would know that it would have the result of identifying that ballot.


Mr.   L.@: Gr. McCarthy. Whatever the presumption of the law Is, it would still be the same under the amendment of the Minister of Justice. The leader of the opposition proposes to make that presumption go one step further than the law does. The man who places a mark on the ballot is presumed to have done it with intent, just as the man who presents a gun. I would suggest that if you prove that the man did mark this ballot you have nearly proven your case, and the intent will be presumed. But the onus of proof will be shifted.


Robert Laird Borden: If I am not mistaken, both the Customs Act and the Inland Revenue Act furnish many cases where the burden is put upon the defendant of proving that he had no intention of .defrauding the revenue laws. That is done in the public interest. It is necesary that the public revenue should be protected. The facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the man who is accused. This is a case in which we have something quite as>
important as the protection to the revenue, that is, the protection of the secrecy of the ballot. The deputy returning officer has the law placed in his hands weeks before hand, and if lie sees tit to put a mark of identification upon the ballot, it is not imposing a serious burden upon him to ask that he shall show some good reason to the court why he contravened the law in that way, and in the absence of some good reason, it should be held that he put it there for the purpose of identification.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is a question whether the court would not infer, by reason of the fact that the returning officer had placed a mark upon the ballot paper, that he had done so wrongfully, because he did it in contravention of the statute. I think the amendment of the leader of the opposition is a matter of surplusage. Any judge would think that a man who commits an act in infraction of a statute did it with wrongful intent. It might appear in the course of the prosecution that the intent would be rebutted by the circumstances, that is, any possible inference that might be drawn by reason of the fact that the mark was on the ballot would be rebutted. But I want to point out to the leader of the opposition that an infraction of the revenue laws is not quite similar to an infraction of the election law. This election law deals with an act which cau only be


Edward Arthur Lancaster: committed once in every four years, whereas violations of the revenue laws may take place every day.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where is the difference?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Ninety-nine out a hundred deputy returning officers are perfectly honest, and if one is guilty by inadvertence he ought not to be put into the position of disproving his guilt.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We want to stop
these marks from being put on by deputy returning officers.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: With intent.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We want to stop
them being put on if they have the effect of identifying the voters. If a returning officer does put such a mark on a ballot, we do him the justice of saying that he must do it with wicked intent. But what we are at is not the intent of the man so much as to prevent the voter from being identified, by making it a criminal offence. Of course, it is only fair that it should only be made a criminal offence when the man does it with a wicked intent.


Mr. LENNOX.: The amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) simply means that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation by the deputy returning officer he shall be presumed to have intended the consequences of his act. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) said that it would be unfair that the judge should be allowed to draw an inference of innocence from the circumstances surrounding the act.
Mr. E, M. MACDONALD. Not that, but that he should be prevented from drawing an inference from the facts and circumstances appearing.


Haughton Lennox: If the facts and circumstances appearing show or tend to show that the man did not do it with wrong intent, he would be free and the judge would be bound to tell the jury that these circumstances appeared; but if it is clear that he did mark the ballot and that thereby he did identify the voter and marked it with that intention, then he must stand the consequences.	1


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If a deputy is charged with having marked the ballot, then at the preliminary examination the magistrate would have no discretion but would have to send the man for trial, because if the amendment of the leader of the opposition carries, the magistrate would have to assume intent to commit a wrong and not having the right to sift the evidence would be bound to send him up, whereas if it is left open and the magistrate is allowed to judge, the whole thing could be cleared up.


Haughton Lennox: If the magistrate had power to try the case he would have the same power to deal with any case as an ordinary trial judge. To say that if a deputy returning officer places on any ballot paper, except as authorized by the Act, any writing number or mark with intent to identify the voter, it shall render him liable to a penalty, is absolutely idle if you do not follow it with the provision that it shall be presumed he did it with that intent until the contrary appears.


Robert Laird Borden: I know of no reason why witnesses should not be called in the first instance before the magistrate.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman must know that if a question of fact is raised before the magistrate and there is any evidence on which to justify the conclusion of guilt, the magistrate has no jurisdiction only to send the man for trial.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Criminal Code says he must hear witnesses.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It has been held he must send him up for trial.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Held by whom ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: By Judge Gregory of Nova Scotia.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no reason why witnesses should not be called so far as I am aware. The observations of the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick seem to be very much beside the mark. We have many similar provisions in the Customs and Inland Revenue Acts. Take this section of the Customs Act:
Any person, who, without lawful excuse, proof of which shall ibe on the person accused, sends or brings into Canada or has in his possession, any bill-head otr other paper purporting to be a bill-head or blank capable of being used as an invoice



shall be subject to a very severe penalty. There you put the burden of proof on a man in respect of a very ordinary transaction. It is not prohibited by law to have a bill-head in your possession but if he has it brought in from abroad the burden of proof is on him to show that it is not in his possession for a fraudulent purpose. Then section 204, a most comprehensive section, imposes the burden of proof under every possible condition and in every possible variety of suit or proceeding upon the man who may be accused of smuggling or of some infraction of the. Customs Act. It seems to me we would be going no further here but would be acting along the same line of policy in the public interest. The rights of the person charged in every such case are sufficiently protected by the right given to him to bring forward every circumstance to show there was no criminal intent in his mind when he committed the particular act complained of.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not argue that there is not a good deal to be said in favour of the view advocated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). I have given a good deal of thought myself to this subject, and I thought at the time some punishment should be inflicted on the returning officer who puts any mark upon a ballot quite innocently, without malice, simply as a punishment for his negligence. I call my hon. friend's attention to the Bill as drafted. First of all the offence is created which is quite proper. But look at the penalty, it is not a fine but it is penitentiary, one of the highest penalties the law can inflict. When the offence is of such a nature and of such consequence it seems to me that, as he has to stand his trial, if he is innocent he is already punished sufficiently for his negligence, and I do not think under such circumstances you should put upon him the further burden of proving his own innocence.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I have listened to many finely drawn arguments as to what the judges and the juries of the country think of any infraction of clause 17, and I have come to the conclusion that there is only one remedy to apply in disposing of this clause. The right hon. gentleman says there were about 10,000 officers in an election carrying out the law, comparatively few of these men are lawyers, and it would not be surprising if here and there mistakes should be made. Some thirty years ago I was acting for the registrar who was returning officer, and I went through the county appointing deputy returning officers and I made it a point to instruct every deputy carefully as to his duty. In the recent provincial election in Halton 1 advised the returning officer to take that course and I believe that in every instance he spent an hour with each deputy returning officer carefully instructing him in his duties. The work was well performed and nothing occurred that in any way tended to void the election. I think we might include in this law a clause making it incumbent on every returning officer to instruct his deputies carefully, more particularly with regard to the more technical particulars, and if such were done we would not have a repetition of what occurred in the county of Wentworth, or many years ago in the county of Hastings where in one case at least the election had to be set aside.
For many years in Ontario we had been cursed with the marked ballot. Working men were coerced by their employers to vote as the employers wanted. I have myself seen a voters' list that was marked from the ballots that were returned to the city of Toronto. Every man's name was marked exactly as he voted, and in a bye-election during the same year on the same list, that list was used in the village where I lived and the electors were coerced by

means of it. We had a marked ballot for thirty years in Ontario, a ballot worse than open voting. We cannot tolerate for a moment any such thing being introduced into the Dominion election law ; we protest strongly against anything that will tend to make the vote of any elector known to his fellows. There is no question in my mind but that by means of this clause 17 the vote of the elector can be known. Suppose it is not made known that would not be the worst feature of it. The bad feature of this clause is, that the employer can go to his workmen and say : This is not a secret ballot, and we will know how you vote and every man can be coerced. The only means of giving us a fair and square election law' is to expunge that clause from the Bill and without taking up any more time I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Blain : That section 17 be stricken out.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) has misconceived the meaning of section 17. It is in no sense intended to create what w'as called in Ontario the numbered ballot and which did exist previous to the advent of the present administration.


Mr. CROCKET.: It validates any ballots that may be numbered by the returning officer.
zance of it and would count the ballots. In the Ontario Election Act the verbiage of the clause relating to this matter is practically the same in effect as paragraph 17 of this Bill. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) reflects w'hat teriffic power he would place in the hands of the deputy returning officer who w'anted to act improperly, without this saving clause in the Bill, I believe 11 e will come to the conclusion that the provision is a wise one. It is to the advantage of the party in power that that should be so if they want to do anything dishonest; but it is not fair, and the law should make fairness its aim ; and if you place such a provision in the Election Act as exists in both the Ontario Act and this Act, you will do w'hat is fair and right and prevent the deputy returning officer defeating the intention of an elector.


David Henderson: Ever since confederation we have got along pretty well w'ith the ballot which we have at the present time, and I think we can leave that as it is without opening the door in the wav proposed by section 17.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I do not think the question has been raised more than three times since confederation ; but this section is inserted in the Act for the purpose of preventing it being raised.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Ill that sense it does not. Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) tell me if he is content W'ith the Ontario Election Act as it at present exists ?


David Henderson: I am only satisfied with the secret ballot.
Mr, E. G. MCCARTHY. Have you not contended that the present election law of Ontario gives an absolutely secret ballot ?


David Henderson: I say that w'hat I want is a secret ballot. If this clause is in the Ontario election law I wrant it struck out there too.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. That statement may be useful hereafter, but if the hon. gentleman refleets for a minute I believe he w'ill come to the conclusion that this is a fair law. Does he realize what pow'er the present law places in a deputy returning officer w'ho w'ants to do something that is not proper ? Does he not know that it absolutely places in those who hare control of the machinery unlimited pow'er to void ballots. In the county of Wentworth in the last Dominion election because the deputy returning officer put a number on the ballots the local judge threw' out one poll and changed the whole result of the election. I am glad to say the judge in the county of Simcoe did not follow' that ruling, but held that If these numbers were put there with fraudulent intent it w'ould come up properly on a protest; that he could not take cogni-Mr. HENDERSON.
Amendment of Mr. Henderson negatived : Yreas, 22 ; nays, 57


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol), who has been obliged to leave the chamber, has asked me to impress upon the House what he suggested in regard to assisting the deputy returning officer not to make the mistake of marking the ballot; and I would urge on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice w'hat seems to me to be the wisdom of adopting the suggestion, by adding to the section these W'ords : ' but any deputy returning officer placing anv mark thereon shall be subject to the provisions of section 255.' The only thing that can be said against that is that it is a repetition ; but the virtue _of it is that by section 255 w'e are providing that that shall be a criminal offence, and the result of making this addition, although it is not absolutely necessary to carry out the law', will be to reduce to a minimum the probability of a deputy returning officer doing what w'e w'ant to prevent him doing. His attention will be drawn to the matter, because he will read it tin connection with his duties at the close of the poll.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The hon. member for Centre Toronto saw me with reference to this suggestion, but I pointed out that this section 173, w'hich section 17 is amending, is a directory section, directing what should be done after the closing of the poll in counting the ballot papers, and it

does not seem to me that there would be any propriety in tacking on to such a section a statement that a deputy returning officer would be subject to a penalty provided in another section of the Act. We have provided for the penalties in one clause and for the directions in another clause in another part of the Act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He is sure to see section 173 in order to learn what his duties are, while he is unlikely to see section 155 if he is an honest man not expecting to be penalized.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: It is not at all
likely that a deputy returning officer will turn up section 173 the first thing in the morning, as he has no occasion to use it until the polls are closed in the evening, when it is too late to warn him. It would be much more to the purpose to attach this rider to one of the earlier sections. But he will read the whole statute and try to understand it. I do not think this is necessary in any way. We do rot spread all over the statute-book finger posts at every section pointing to this, that or the other penalty. The penalties are there, and he must read and inform himself in that regard.


Robert Laird Borden: There may be some force in what the minister observes, though I would have preferred to have the whole penalties at the end of section 173. At least my hon. friend should undertake in his instructions, to draw the particular attention of the returning officers to the penalties and that would perhaps answer the purpose.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I will undertake to draw the special attention of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to them, but I do not want to undertake a responsibility I may not be able to discharge.
Section as amended agreed to.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I move the following amendment:-
Forms O and P in schedule 1 of thh said Act are each amended by striking out of form O the sixth paragraph thereof and out of form P the last paragraph thereof and substituting for the said paragraph in each form the following :
If a voter fraudulently takes a ballot paper tut of the polling station or fraudulently delivers to the deputy returning officer to be put into the ballot box any other paper than the ballot paper given him by the deputy returning officer, he wall fee disqualified from voting at any election for eight years thereafter and be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years and not less than one year, with or without hard labour.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: There are some errors in the French version which it is necessary to correct. Section 112 of the statute provides for a stamp which is sent to each
returning officer, and the provision is that this stamp is to be specially made for each election and sent the returning officer by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery so that it may reach him on or about the day of nomination. In the French version it is translated ' on that day ' and I move that it be amended by inserting the words * le ou vers.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: In the French version section 197 has been rather freely translated. In the English it is continuous and in the French it is separated into two sections. I propose to make it continuous by striking out the figure 2 and substituting therefor the word ' et.'
Then section 254 in the French version is an exceedingly free translation. The English clause and the French clause no doubt mean the same thing but do not follow each other in phraseology. A new translation has been prepared making the French version literally correspond with the English.


Robert Laird Borden: I move in amendment:-
That the said Bill he amended fey adding thereto the following sections: Sections 75 and 76 of the said Act are repealed and the following sections are substituted therefor.
This amendment will be found on page 1238 of the Votes and Proceedings. It is to provide that in the first place the writ for an election shall be dated and be returnable on such day as the Governor General determines, or the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery may determine in cases where such clerk has' authority to so determine, pursuant to the Act respecting the House of Commons. That would be required to be followed by an amendment I have already presented, providing that after certain delay, in case there should be a vacancy in the representation, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery shall have authority to issue the writ himself so that no constituency shall remain unrepresented for a longer period than three months. The next section 76 provides- that the returning officer shall be one of a certain class. In Ontario the sheriff or registrar of deeds, in the province of Quebec the registrar or sheriff or pro-thonotary, in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, the sheriff, in Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Yukon Territory, the sheriff or registrar or deputy registrar or the superintendent of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. There are further supplementary provisions for any case in .which a sufficient number of officers cannot be found or in case of their disqualification, or disability or refusal to act. The object of the section is, in fact, that persons of a particular class and qualification shall be selected, and in that way, it is

believed, some of the unfortunate occurrences which occasionally have taken place in this country will be prevented in the future, because this will assure the country that men of responsible position are selected for this important post.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: So far as I am able to observe from a brief examination of the amendment, the principal difference between our present law and the amendment seems to be as to the persons to whom the writ of election shall be directed. Our present law provides that the writ shall be directed to the person appointed by the Governor in Council as the returning officer. The proposition in the amendment is that certain named officials shall be appointed returning officers. I am not, at the moment, able to say how long our statute has been in its present condition, but it is certainly many years-I should say at least twenty-five or thirty years-and, during that time, the writs have been addressed at each election to such returning officer as was selected for the purpose by the Governor in Council. In Ontario, with which province I am more familiar than with any other, the opposite rule prevailed, and, for a great many years-probably for quite as long a time-the writs were required to be addressed to officials just as is proposed in this amendment. That system seems not to have been satisfactory; two years ago the legislature of Ontario, under the leadership of tlie present government, changed it and adopted our system. In these circumstances, the experience of the past and the trend of legislation would seem to be in favour of continuing the system which we have maintained so long in Dominion elections, and I would submit that no good reason for the change appears.
Amendment negatived.


David Henderson: I move the following .amendment :
Section 77 of the said Act is amended by adding the following paragraph:
(i)	persons who are aliens.
Section 77 provides that none of the following persons shall be appointed as returning officer, deputy returning officer, election clerk or poll clerk :
(a)	Members of the King's Privy Council for Canada or of the executive council of any province of Canada ;
(b)	Members of the Senate or of the legislative council of any province of Canada ;
(c)	Members of the House of Commons, or of the legislative assembly of any province of Canada, or of the Yukon Territorial Council;
(d)	Ministers, priests or ecclesiastics of any religious faith or worship ;
(e)	Judges of the courts of superior, civil or criminal jurisdiction, judges of any county or district court, or insolvent court, and any local judge of the Exchequer Court on its admiralty side, and in the Yukon territory, police magistrates .


Robert Laird Borden: (f)	Persons who have served in the parliament of Canada in the session immediately preceding the election or in the session in progress at the time of the election ;
(g)	Persons who have been found guilty by the House of Commons, or by any court for the trial of controverted elections, or other competent tribunal, of any offence or dereliction of duty in violation of this Act or any provincial Act relating to elections, or under the Disfranchising Act ;
(h)	Persons convicted of any indictable offence.
I desire to add to this list ' persons who are aliens. I think it only reasonable that persons appointed to these offices should be P>ritish subjects.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the veason for this amendment ?
Mr, HENDERSON. We consider it a good, loyal thing to do.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think so too. But is there any occasion for moving the amendment ?


David Henderson: We are apprehensive that there may be occasion.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Oswald Smith Crocket: I move that the Bill be amended by adding thereto the following section :
Section 77 of the said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
2. Every person who, at a time when by this or any other Act' he is disqualified from acting as returning officer, deputy returning officer, election clerk or poll clerk, nevertheless so acts, is, disqualified from voting at any Dominion election during the period of seven years from the date of his first official act as such returning officer, deputy returning officer, election clerk or poll clerk, and he is also guilty of an indictable offence., and shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year nor less than six months, with or without hard labour.
By reference to the notice of motion at page 1239 of the Votes and Proceedings, it will be seen that I am changing the motion as there given by striking out the words ' without prosecution for or conviction of any offence.' It seems to me that this is a proposition which ought to commend itself to the judgment of the House.
Amendment negatived.


George Oscar Alcorn: I move the folowing amendment :
Section 114 of said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor :
Section 114 of the Act, I may say, reads as follows :
The returning officer shall, at least two days before the day fixed for polling, furnish to each candidate or his agent a list of all deputy returning officers appointed to act in such election with the name or number of the

polling station at which each of them is to act.
This must be done two days before the polling, and all he has to furnish is the names. Unless he gives the residence and occupation, the name is of little use. I propose that the following be substituted :
114. The returning officer shall, at least three clear days, next before the date fixed for polling, deliver to the official agent of each candidate, a last of all the deputy returning officers and poll clerks who will act in such election, stating the post office address and occupation or addition of each such officer, and the name or number of the polling station at which each of them is to act.
Then X propose to repeal section 116 of the said Act and substitute the following therefor :
116. Each deputy returning officer shall furnish to the returning officer, not later than nine o'clock in the morning of the fifth day prior to the day fixed for polling, the name, post office address and occupation, or addition of such poll clerk ; and the returning officer shall, not later than twelve o'clock noon of the day on which he receives such particulars, post up in his office a list of the deputy returning officers and poll clerks, with the post office address and occupation or addition of each, showing the polling station where each is to act, and shall permit free access to and afford full opportunity for inspection of such list by any candidate, agent or elector at all reasonable times, until the polls are closed. No person shall be appointed a deputy returning officer or poll clerk who is not a resident of and a voter in tbe municipality, parish, or other local territorial division wherein the polling subdivision in which he is to act is situate, or, in the case of unorganized territory, who is not a resident of, and a voter in the electoral district.
This latter provision as to residence is taken from the Ontario statutes and is certainly a very necessary one. Cases have arisen, and the Minister of Justice is well aware of them, where the absence of such a provision has worked great hardship and allowed frauds to be practised.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I have not been able to follow fully the alterations that my hon. friend is proposing, but so far as I can understand them, the change is with regard to what the returning officer is to do in the way of delivering to the agents a list of the deputies from two days to three days before the election. Now, Is it worth amending a statute for the sake of changing two days to three days, and about a matter of this character? I think any one who has had any experience with elections knows that it is frequently difficult enough for a returning officer to get the whole list of his deputies complete even two days before voting day. I have known many an Instance in which the day before voting day it was uncertain who was going to act as deputy at a particular poll.
It is not always possible to make your arrangements perfect two days before the election, and where the returning officer has 40 or 50 polls to look after, and some perhaps more than that, many miles away from where he lives, you are putting a needless burden upon him to say that he must do these things three days before election day. Then section 116 of the Act as it stands is the one which provides what the returning officer must do as to the poll clerks. The deputies, under the Act as it now stands, are to furnish to the returning officer not later than 9 o'clock in the morning of the day before voting, the name and occupation of each poll clerk, but that is not applicable to the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Yukon. But my hon. friend Is proposing to make that applicable to the whole Dominion, to strike out the words ' if practicable ' and make It imperative upon these officials to do what, in all human probability, is going to be impossible over half the constituencies In the country.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Something might be done if my hon. friend does not wash to accept the amendment altogether. I do not think that in the whole Act there is one clause which is so much transgressed as this one. It is difficult to get the names of the deputy returning officers even one day before the election, and in some cases there is deliberate neglect. There might be added a penalty for a returning officer not doing it according to the old law, say three days or two days, but impose a penalty. I can give an example in the election in St. James, Montreal, where, to my knowledge, ten or fifteen deputies were changed during the night preceding the votation. I happened to be a candidate there and I asked the returning officer for the names of the deputies. They were changed three or four times, and the last time about 8 o'clock at night previous to the day of election. When I got the names the last time I said to the returning officer :	Now, surely these are
the men who are going to act to-morrow ? He promised they would, and still some of them were changed again on the morning of the day of votation. This, as I say, was done for a purpose, because it was shown afterwards that the election was stolen, and it was due in great part to the deputy returning officers. There should be a penalty attached to that clause by which a returning officer, if he does not give the names of his deputies two days or three days before the polling, should be punished. It seems to me that we are all interested in securing that the elections should be carried on as honestly as possible, and the best wTay to secure that end is to see that at least the officials appointed by the government shall do their duty. Now, evidently parliament is convinced that something of that sort should be done, because we

have a law saying so. But if the government does not want to go as far as the amendment of my hon. friend, at least they ought to add a penalty for neglect of duty bv the returning officer. I would suggest that the returning officer, within two days preceding polling, should give the names of all his deputies, and if he changes any one of them after having given the names to the candidates, he shall be condemned to pay a penalty.


James Conmee: I submit that no good purpose can be served by that amendment; in fact, what object is there in having the names of the deputy returning officers ? Why should any one want them?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My hon. friend is convinced that the law as it exists to-day is useless?


James Conmee: I would rather see the [provision taken away than enlarged. 1 want to tell my hon. friend that he cannot carry that law out in the riding I represent, nor even in any riding in New Ontario, because of the great distance.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It is carried out in provincial elections.


James Conmee: It is not carried out in provincial elections. I have known returning officers to be sent away three or four days before the day of polling and not be able to reach the polling place. The electors gathered there had to elect their own returning officer to conduct the polls. That has occurred frequently, and the law provides for it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The returning officer has eight days in which to choose his deputies. Why should he not choose them before ? In a county where it is known there is to be an election the returning officer should be prepared the day after nomination to give the names of his deputies to the two candidates.


James Conmee: In a district like mine there might be great difficulties, a man might agree to act as deputy and then be prevented by absence or illness. Then the object of knowing the deputy might be a bad object.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The object would be to see that he is an honest man.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Many of the worst evils in the Ontario elections were due to the employment of outsiders to do work which no man in the constituency was base enough to do.


George Oscar Alcorn: The minister did not refer to the last five lines of this amendment.
Mi-. AYLESWORTH. That is the requirement that no one shall lie appointed deputy or poll clerk unless he is a resident of and voter in the municipality, in the poll-Mr. BERGERON.
ing division. That would be very objectionable. Many of our best poll clerks and deputies are young law students, not 21 years of age, who are sent from county towns into the country and conduct their polls perhaps more satisfactorily than any one else.
Amendment negatived.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I beg to move the amendment No. 17 on page 1239 which provides :
Section 36 is amended by striking out all the words down to, and including the word ' and ' in the fifth line, and by striking out the words ' its reception in the other electoral districts of Canada ' in the seventh and eighth lines, and by inserting in lieu of such last mentioned words, the words ' the reception of the writ.'
(2)	Section 89 of the said Act is amended by striking out all the words in subsection 1, from and inclusive of the word ' except ' in the fifth line thereof.
(3)	Section 90 of the said Act is repealed.


Robert Laird Borden: What does the Prime Minister say about the necessity of postponing these elections ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am told there are some provinces where it would be absolutely impracticable to hold them all on the same day. The member for Yale-Carl-boo said it would be impossible in his own riding.


Robert Laird Borden: I have information of an absolutely different character with regard to every riding in British Columbia. I made careful inquiries there last autumn and I find that all the provincial elections are held on the same day without difficulty. Mr. Smitli-Curtis, a Liberal candidate, is thus reported :
Mr. Smith-Curtis particularly emphasized his desire for a clean campaign and emphatically declared that he did not favour a deferred election in the Kootenay Riding, believing it to be in the true interests of every elector that the voting in Kootenay should take place on the day of the general elections throughout Canada.
That is strong testimony from a Liberal candidate in one of the postponed ridings and I have not heard anything in this House or elsewhere to induce me to believe that the Kootenay is in a different position from the other deferred ridings in British Columbia.


Robert George Macpherson: My hon. friend's information was certainly very bad. In my first election in Burrard, the returning officer was not able even in a by-election to get the ballot boxes into the northern part of the riding, which is now Comox-Atlin until four days after the date set for holding the elections. How could the ballot boxes leave say Nanaimo and get into Telegraph Creek and Atlin, which is 14 days in the winter, and at the same time get into the Squamish Yalley ? It is a phy-

sical impossibility to have the Comox-Atlin election at the same time as the others and the same thing applies to Yale-Cariboo.


Mr. FOWLER.: The local elections are held on the same day and why could it not be done in federal elections ?
Mr. MAiCPHERSON. The local constituencies are smaller. If a polling booth is not represented you may upset the election.


George William Fowler: I do not understand when the provincial elections can all be held on the one day why the Dominion can not.


Robert George Macpherson: It is impossible to reach the remote parts of that constituency in a week with the ballot boxes. I assure the leader of the opposition, who wants to be fair, that the information is not correct that you could reach any point in Comox-Atlin and get your ballots printed and distributed within the time stated.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no doubt of the sincerity of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macpherson) but I am a little inclined to discount statements of that kind because I was assured two years ago of the absolute impossibility of bringing about the election in Kootenay on the same day as the others, and now I find the Liberal candidate in Kootenay saying there is no difficulty whatever. In every local constituency in British Columbia the election takes place on the the same day, and it is a perfectly simple thing for the sheriff by employing a sufficient force of men to send the ballot boxes throughout the three or four local constituencies comprised in one Dominion riding.	-


Robert George Macpherson: That is different.


Robert Laird Borden: There is not the slightest difficulty about doing the same thing in a Dominion election provided you employ enough men to do it. I have a telegram from the premier of British Columbia stating that not the slightest difficulty was experienced in the last provincial election. If the returning officer employs four men to do the work which four returning officers did in the four provincial constituencies, it follows logically that what was done in the provincial elections can be done iu the Dominion elections. I would say to the Prime Minister that I have a telegram dated the 4th of this month from the Prime Minister of British Columbia in which after referring to a report in the local press of a statement in this House that the elections in Yale-Cariboo could not be held simultaneously with those in the rest of the province he says : I
I desire to give the strongest denial to this. Provincial elections held simultaneously gave every satisfaction and proved there is no difficulty in carrying this out.
He goes on to say that there is no reason whatever why the election in Yale-Cariboo should be held at a later date than the elections.in the rest of the province.


Robert George Macpherson: You have got to have your ballots printed at a given point and the ballots have to be sent to a different polling subdivision. There are 1,500 miles between the southern and northern districts of Comox-Atlin and if the ballots are printed in Nanaimo how can you get into Surprise lake without a flying machine in the time allowed. The best possible time that can be made to Surprise lake is 11 days, and if there is ice upon the river as there was during my own election when the man who carried the ballot boxes was obliged to break the trail for 80 miles with dogs, how can you overcome a difficulty like that. When the Prime Minister of British Columbia states it is possible to do that, he states what any man who knows the country knows to be incorrect.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose he knows it is correct because it has been done and done in the winter during the last provincial elections. Let me point out that the difficulty is not with regard to the ballots but in posting the proclamations announcing the elections. You have seven days additional to distribute the ballots. I repeat that by employing four men to do the work which the four returning officers would do in .the nrovincial elections you can undoubtedly accomplish in a Dominion election what was accomplished in the dead of winter during the last provincial election.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman who represents the district (Mr. Duncan Ross) has stated that he saw no personal advantage in having the election held after the other elections because as he said the organization has all gone to pieces the moment the result of the general election is known. We have the testimony of Mr. McBride on the one side ana the testimony of the hon. member (Mr. Duncan Ross) on the other, and I think we might as well let it go as proposed.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Let me point out that in the county of Gaspe we formerly had the nomination a fortnight before the election.


Wilfrid Laurier: Once.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Yet it worked well. The nomination was held a fortnight before the election and the election was held on the same day as the other elections thus carrying out the principle which the Prime Minister has so often advocated, that all elections should be held on the same day.


Wilfrid Laurier: This exception applies to only 5 constituencies out of 221.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And the less we have of these exceptions the better.


George William Fowler: The argument which my hou. friend (Mr. Macpherson) has used with regard to Comox-Atlin does not apply to Yale-Cariboo because no such difficulties exist in that constituency.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the Prime Minister press this provision with reference to the election in Kootenay, notwithstanding the declaration of his own candidate that there is no necessity for it ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, I do not know the particulars about it.
Amendment negatived.


Haughton Lennox: I propose to move an amendment which has to some extent the same object as the one that has just been discussed. It is an alternative amendment numbered 17 in the Votes and Proceedings, and is found on pages 1239, 1240 and 1241. The' object of this amendment is to secure the holding of all the elections in Canada on the same day except in the Yukon Territory. It will apply to the five or six electoral districts in which the elections are now usually postponed. The object is accomplished by advancing the preliminary stages of the election, the proceedings as to those which require a greater amount of time for preparation being taken at an earlier stage. For instance, writs of election shall be despatched to the returning officers in the case of those electoral districts in time to allow the lapse of twenty-one clear days between the day of their receipt by the returning officer and the day fixed for the nomination of the candidates. The nomination day will be fourteen days instead of seven days before the election. The general provision found on page 1240 as subsection 2 is that in the case or cases of any electoral district or districts in which the Governor in Council may, after due inquiry conclude that the proclamation aforesaid cannot otherwise be posted up so as to allow the required time between such posting up and the nomination day, the" Governor in Council shall fix the day of nomination in the way that I have referred to ; so that it is left to the Governor in Council to determine in any special ease whether these special provisions shall apply, and in such cases he shall have them to apply in such a way that we shall secure all the elections in Canada on the same day.


George William Fowler: Surely the Prime Minister wdll accept this amendment. Has he lost confidence in the schemes that have been concocted, that he requires the elections in those districts to be held after the general election ? Is it because he knows that if the elections were held in those districts on the day of the general election, each of them would return an opponent of the government ? I think we are voting some $238,000,000, excluding the lead bounties ; and surely with that amount of Mr. BERGERON.
money the government party ought to have confidence that they can win the country, particularly in these hard times, when they have lost the old cry of 1 Luck and Laurier,' and.ought to be willing to have all the elections held on the same day.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am satisfied, I am sure, but there are some doubting Thomases in this House. I heard this afternoon that some hon. gentlemen were only waiting for the elections to put us out. Therefore they will have all the advantages.


George William Fowler: Many other people must share the feelings of these doubting Thomases.
Amendment negatived.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I propose :
(18) That the said Bill he amended by adding thereto the following section :-
Section 129 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor :-
" 129. The printer, and in case of an incorporated company, one of the executive officers of the said company, shall, upon delivery of the ballot papers to the returning officer, file in his hands an affidavit of such printer or executive officer, sworn before such returning officer, setting forth the description of the ballot papers so printed, the number of ballot papers supplied to such returning officer, and stating the facts that no other ballot paper or ballot papers was or were printed or have been supplied to any one else or remain in his possession or under his control."
Tile object of the amendment is manifest with the reading of it, and I will not trouble the House witli any enlargement.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I am not able to see what improvement there is in the amendment as compared with the existing law. In the present law the printer is required to make the affidavit. The proposition is that the printer, or, if it is an incorporated company, one of the executive officers of the company, shall make the affidavit. I think it would be much better that the printer should make the affidavit than some officer of a company who probably knows nothing about it, except what the printer tells him. Under the present law the printer who makes the affidavit is certainly some man who might be prosecuted for perjury. If the printing is done in the printing office of an incorporated company, the present law would require somebody who answered the description of the printer of these ballot papers' to make the affidavit accounting for them. The other provision of this amendment is to require the affidavit to be made before the returning officer. I do not know why one officer should be preferred to another for swearing the affidavit before. I do not know the purpose of the amendment unless it is simply for the purpose of making amendments.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The Minister of Justice must know that many of these ballot papers are very badly printed, and in some cases there are not enough ballots. They are printed, 1 understand, in various offices, the paper is sometimes poor, and sometimes the ballots are spoiled before they are used. Surely we cannot take too many precautions to see that we have proper ballot papers.
Amendment negatived


William Humphrey Bennett: In accordance with the amendment of the hon. member for West Hastings I propose clause No. 19. As the motion of the hon. member was accepted, this follows as a consequence.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I do not suppose any one can have any objection except that it is difficult to understand how this is necessary. Under the present law the deputy returning officer is required, in the presence of the candidates, their agents, and such electors as are present to open the ballot box and ascertain that there are no ballot papers or other papers therein. It is not made any stronger by requiring him to see that the ballot box is absolutely empty. Piling up adjectives and adverbs does not make the thing stronger.


William Humphrey Bennett: There may be in the ballot box, as there were in the ballot boxes at Addington, secret compartments or mechanism by which the ballot papers may be secretly stored in the box.


George William Fowler: This will call the attention of the deputy returning officer to the fact that such appliances might be there. He may never have heard of such cases having arisen, and it may be well to call his attention to the fact that appliances of that sort have been devised by scoundrels to defeat the will of the people.
Amendment negatived.


George Oscar Alcorn: I beg to move amendment No. 21 which will be found on page 1241 of the Votes and Proceedings. It requires the printer's affidavit to form part of the return made by the deputy returning officer to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.
Amendment negatived.


Mr. DANIEL.: I move the following amendment to be found on page 1241 of the Votes and Poceedings:
(22) That the said Bill he amended by adding thereto the following section :-
Section 226 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor
" 226. No person who has voted at an election shall, in any legal proceeding questioning the election or return, or before any parliamentary committee or any commission, be required to state for whom he voted, but he may so state, and if he do so, his statement shall be received in evidence."
The present law states that no one who has voted at an election shall be required
to say for whom he voted, and I understand that even in cases where the voter was willing to make such a statement, it has been held by the court that counsel had not the right to put the question to him.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This would certainly destroy the secrecy of the ballot because if you have a poll of say 100 votes and there have been 48 ballots cast one way and 52 the other, and you allow each one of the 52 men to state for whom he has voted, that would disclose at once how the other 48 voted; and while the 52 men may be quite willing to make the declaration the other 48 may not, and they may be just those around whom the law throws the protection of secrecy. Would it be advisable to change that ? The present law extends to no collateral proceeding. It does not extend to any prosecution for a criminal offence where it may be important to determine how the ballot was marked but only to a proceeding to unseat the successful candidate. In any proceeding questioning the election the voter is protected by its being illegal to ask him in court how he voted. I think it would be a very serious step to change that and make that inroad upon the feature of this Ballot Act, to which every one, apparently, attaches the utmost importance, unless you are prepared to do away with the element of secrecy altogether and say that the voter, if he pleases to do so, may mark his ballot openly on the table before everybody or identify himself by some writing on the paper.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as secrecy is concerned, if it is once conceded that you can obtain the information in some collateral proceeding you leave the door as open as in the case proposed. It makes no difference whether the information is acquired in a proceeding questioning the election and return or in some collateral proceeding, tlie secrecy of the ballot in the case mentioned by the minister will be departed from to that extent. The question came before the committee that investigated or tried to investighte-or some members of which tried to investigate-the West Huron and Brockville election frauds, and, after a great deal of discussion, it was decided that the witnesses might be asked for whom they voted. The object of this amendment is to make it clear that the witness cannot be compelled to state for whom he voted, but may do so if he is willing. It seems to me that this is better than the law at present.
Amendment negatived.


George Oscar Alcorn: I move that the Bill be amended by adding a section immediately after section 258. This section, No. 258, is the section dealing with secrecy of the poll and containing provisions as to cases which are declared to be illegal in that con-

neetion. The effect of this amendment is to increase the penalty upon the election officer who is guilty of any infraction of the provisions of this section.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the present penalty?


George Oscar Alcorn: A line not exceeding $200 and imprisonment for not more than six months. This provides for a fine of not less than $100 or more than $200, imprisonment for not less than six months and not more than twelve and disfranchisement.
* Mr. LALOR. I wish to call the attention of the committee to the way the secrecy of the ballot poll is sometimes carried out in the county I represent-and I do not think the penalty can be too severe on the election officers in the poll for failure to carry out the secrecy of the polling booth in their charge. In the county of Haldimand- and I do not say that the Liberal party is altogether responsible for this state of things, for I fear the practice might have been tried to some extent before the Liberal party got possession of the polling booths -a system of telegraphing is carried out, and has been for years, by which a sign is thrown from the deputy returning officer to the constable and from him to somebody else, and in that way it is known how the elector votes ; and, if there is any money going, he is paid. I hope the government will make the penalty for violating the secrecy of the polls as great as it ought to be, for we want secrecy.


Wilfrid Laurier: This practice that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lalor) speaks of is an illegal practice. Have there been anv prosecutions for the violation of the Act?


Mr. LALOR.: I do not think so. But, notwithstanding, I state the facts on my responsibility.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is there any description anywhere in the law of what should be the divisions of the polling booths?


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Then it is not carried out. Generally a polling booth is one room. A curtain is hung in one corner. Of course, if anybody wants to go behind the curtain and make his cross his ballot is secret, because those in the booth cannot see through the curtain, nor can they see over it, for it is generally six feet or more high. But if the voter must have his cross made by the deputy returning officer and gees behind the curtain accompanied by the deputy and the two agents, when he states for whom he wishes to vote everybody in the booth can hear him, so that there is clearly no secrecy about such a ballot. I understand the law to mean that there shall be an entirely different room, so that when it is.


George Oscar Alcorn: necessary to ask a voter for whom he votes his answer may be heard by the deputy returning officer, but not by others in the polling booth.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The only objection I can suggest to this amendment is that it is making anomalies and discrepancies in the different penalties even greater than they are. It is in the direction of greater severity, and I am content.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Oscar Alcorn: I desire now to move an amendment to which I will ask the particular attention of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I propose to insert the following as section 278a :
278a. Every person who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any person on his behalf before or during an election, in order to induce, or in such manner as might induce any voter or class of voters in a particular electoral district to vote for or against any candidate, or to refrain from voting by publio speaking, by any writing, by any printed publication, or otherwise, offers or promises, or offers or promises to procure or endeavour to procure, or suggests the probability of the expenditure of the public moneys of Canada, within the electoral district or districts, if and in case only such voter or voters procure or assist to procure the return of a particular candidate or of a candidate of a particular political party, or who, with the intent or in manner aforesaid, threatens or promises to impede, delay, hinder, prevent or diminish such expenditure, is guilty of the indictable offence of bribery, and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and not less than six months, and shall forfeit the sum of one thousand dollars to any person who sues therefor, with costs.
This is a new provision not found in the present law. I am not wedded to the exact phraseology, and if the government approve the principle and desire to make any modifications I am willing. But the principle is one that no government can afford to ignore.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I must confess that my hon. friend, in advocating this amendment, is rising to a height that I am entirely unable to reach. I cannot look upon what he depicts in this amendment as in the nature of a corrupt practice. To my mind it is not more than any public man with propriety may do in discussing a matter of public interest in the electoral district in which he may happen to be addressing the electors. Every candidate in offering himself for the suffrages of any locality or district, is identifying himself with that locality, is undertaking either tacitly or expressly, that he will exert himself to the utmost in the interest of the electors of the locality which sends him to parliament. If he, as a member of parliament, by advocating the expenditure of public money upon some public work in that locality, is able to benefit

his constituency, I am unable to see any impropriety in his doing so, in parliament or anywhere else. He is not doing that for the benefit of one political party more than another, he is advocating the cause of the electors generally of the constituency that sends him to parliament and it seems to me he is doing a legitimate thing. I regard that as a public question upon which any one who offers himself as a candidate for a public position is expected to have views, and ought to express those views with freedom and with candour. I wish to say and I wish to say it without any intention of giving offence, that I can see no difference in principle between advocating a public building, a public wharf, or any other public work in a constituency, and advocating the giving of better terms in any manner you please to any province of the Dominion, either in giving to a province an increased subsidy, or in giving to a province better terms as to control over its public lands or any other public property. If the one is a corrupt practice, it seems to me the other is. But I think that neither of them is corrupt, and that such candidate is simply advocating in a proper manner that which he believes is in the public interest, either of a whole province, or of a smaller section, or community, township, or any other local subdivision.


George Oscar Alcorn: The Minister of Justice entirely loses sight of the purview of the amendment. The question is not whether a public man has a right to advocate the erection of a public building, or the expenditure of public money in a particular locality, but the question is whether he has the right to do so with the view of influencing votes in that electoral district. If it is represented that this work will be erected if a certain man is returned, and that it will not be erected if he is not returned, that is what the section is aimed at.


Robert Laird Borden: The section is not designed to touch discussion in parliament at all, it is not designed to prevent a eondi-date from declaring a particular policy in regard to any subject such as the Minister of Justice has suggested, but it Is designed to prevent wholesale bribery of a community by saying that if this particular candidate is elected then a certain expenditure will be made and If this particular candidate is not elected that particular .expenditure will not be made. It seems to me there is no difference between inducements of that kind held1 out to a whole class or an entire community, and the individual corruption of bribery of electors one by one.


Mr. POWDER.: I think my hon. friend from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) must be very sanguine if after looking over the list of supplementary estimates and the long list, the treble column list, of subsidies to railways and things of that sort he expects the 414
Prime Minister to accept this amendment. If he remembers some of the promises that were held out by a certain candidate in the election of 1904, he must have a good deal of faith if he thinks the Minister of Justice would be inclined to accept that, or if he remembers the time the citizens of a certain section were to get the present of a magnificent clock if they voted for a certain candidate, and when it was held out to them that if a certain candidate were elected a canal would run in a certain direction, whereas if he were not elected, the canal would not run in that direction. All these promises have been held out by candidates upon the government side, and my hon. friend must have been very hopeful to expect that the Prime Minister and his colleagues would accept the amendment.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is something in that. Demands for public works of every description are growing upon the government. I have had so many demands from hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House during the present session that it has been a great sorrow to us not to have been able to gratify them all. I think the hon. gentlemen from Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) himself was pressing upon us a demand for certain works and it was quite proper.


George William Fowler: More than that.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is enough then.


George William Fowler: Surely the Prime Minister must admit that a member of parliament may interest himself in getting certain public works for his constituency. Why, even the Minister of Public Works reproached me on altogether false premises for not having asked for what I had repeatedly asked. The Minister of Public Works was not in the House at the time, he was devoting himself to another sphere of politics where he was very active. However, a member of parliament certainly has a right to ask for these things for his constituency, he has a right to try and influence the government to put public works of a necessary character in his constituency. But surely the Prime Minister sees a difference between that and a candidate going into a constituency and saying, if you elect me the canal shall come out at Port Hope, and if you do not elect me, it is going to come out at Trenton. Would the Prime Minister say that was a proper thing ? Is not that holding out a bribe to the constituency to vote in a certain way ? And where So you distinguish between that and the offer to a poor voter of a $5 bill? The only difference is that you are doing it by wholesale In the one case, and you are doing it by retail in the other, and that is precisely what the amendment of my hon. friend from Prince Edward desires to prevent.
Amendment negatived.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I would have been glad to see in the law a provision preventing a candidate from presenting himself in more than one county. But I understand that cannot be done, especially since a man may be put into nomination without his consent. I have an amendment in the Votes and Proceedings to the effect that when a man has been elected in one or more counties he should be compelled to send in his resignation of the county or counties for which he does not elect to sit within thirty days after he has been so elected, that resignation to be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, as there would be no Speaker at the time. In case he does not do this within thirty days, the seat can be declared vacant, but the fact of electing to choose one county will not prevent the member from having that election tested before the courts. If one election is contested no writ will be issued until the petition is disposed of.	.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not aware that there have been very many abuses of this kind. I remember Sir John Macdonald was elected in 1882 for Carle-ton and another constituency, but I think a couple of years elapsed before he was elected, because one of the elections was controverted.


George William Fowler: The Postmaster General did the same thing.


Wilfrid Laurier: Suppose his election is controverted, would you force him to elect while the petition was before the courts?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There are the cases of Sir John Macdonald and Mr. Prefontaine who sat a couple of sessions before electing for which county he would sit. The object of this is to prevent a county from being unrepresented in this House for two sessions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Suppose a member is disqualified on a petition from one county, what would my hon. friend do ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: If my hon. friend was elected for Gaspe and Nicolet and according to this amendment would have sent in his letters to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, saying he has made choice of the county of Gaspe, it would not prevent any one protesting his election in Nicolet. If he was disqualified for any act done in Nicolet, he would be deprived of two seats, because no man who is disqualified can sit in parliament.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is arguing against an old maxim in England that a man can stand for one, two. three or four counties.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That does not prevent that.


George William Fowler: 


George William Fowler: It does not prevent him standing, it only prevents him sitting.
Amendment, Mr. Bergeron, negatived.


George William Fowler: I beg to move amendment No. 26 at page 1243 of tbe Votes and Proceedings. That amendment reads:
Subsection one of sectioto 269 of the said Act is amended by striking out all the words from and including the word ' shall ' in the 15th line, and by adding the following words in lieu thereof : ' is guilty of a corrupt practice, and liable to a penalty of $200 to any person who sues thereof with costs, and shail also upon conviction be imprisoned for one year.
This is an amendment to the intimidation section and it makes intimidation a corrupt practice. The law provides for the forfeiture of $200 and there is added to this that he shall also be imprisoned for one year.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I cannot see the reason for this amendment. It provides that undue influence shall be a corrupt practice, but that is expressly made so now by section 278 and is frequently a corrupt practice which avoids an election. The amendment reduces the present penalty, as it is now an indictable offence which makes the offender liable to five years' imprisonment besides the penalty' of $200.
Amendment negatived.
Bill reported.



USE OF TOBACCO BY YOUNG PERSONS.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 173) to restrain the use of tobacco by young persons.-Mr. Aylesworth.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The most impox-tant amendment made by the Senate is the reduction of the age from 18 to 16 years. The Bill as introduced in this House fixed the age at 16 but by amendment in committee it was made 18 years. The Senate has also amended the provision of the Act with regard to the confiscation of tobacco which may be in possession of a young person of 16 years so as to include the chewing as well as the smoking of tobacco and to authorize the constable to confiscate any tobacco which he finds in possession of a young person under 16, either smoking, chewing, or about to smoke or chew. There is an addition of a subsection to the third section which imposes a penalty on juveniles smoking in any street or public place. To that is added :
It shall be the duty of the justice to examine upon oath or affirmation all persons brought before him who are found guilty of a violation of this section, as to where or from whom such persons purchased or obtained the cigarettes or cigarette paper or

tobacco found in the possession of any such person, and the refusal to Rive such information to the satisfaction of the justice shall be deemed a contempt of the court.
Some bon. MEMBERS. Question.
Motion (Mr. Aylesworth) concurred in ; amendments read a second time and agreed
I think this latter provision does not add anything to the general law. If any person under oath is asked such a question he would have no privilege to refuse to answer and he would he guilty of contempt of court if he did not answer. I beg to move the adoption of the amendments.


Henry Horton Miller: I move :
That the amendments of the Senate be not received and that the Bill be referred back to the committee of the House for further consideration.


George William Fowler: This amendment of the Senate refers to juveniles smoking or chewing or ' about to smoke or chew tobacco.' How is it possible to say whether any one is ' about to smoke or chew tobacco.' I do not think absurdity could possibly go further than our friends of the Senate have gone.


Henry Horton Miller: I particularly object to the Senate amendment by which the age limit is changed from 18 years to 16. Hon. Senator Power introduced that amendment and his strongest argument was based on the statement that 16 years was the limit in the provinces. I beg to point out that 18 years is the age limit in Ontario and New Brunswick. The Hon. Senator referred to the use of tobacco as being a minor offence. I do not think it is the desire of this House to punish youths for smoking tobacco because it is a moral wrong, but rather because the use of tobacco by persons of that age produces ill effects physically. Senator David in support of the 16 year age limit stated that boys of 16 years are very often earning their own living-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The position of the matter is that this House has passed a Bill and sent it to the Senate and the Senate has amended it in certain respects. That being so this House must either concur in or reject those amendments. The House cannot go into a discussion of the proposed amendment with a view of referring the Bill back to committee. It is a question of concurrence or non-concurrence in the amendments made by the Senate.


Henry Horton Miller: Then I beg to move that the amendments made by the Senate be not concurred in.


George William Fowler: That kills the Bill.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The motion of the Minister of Justice is that the amendments be concurred in. If that motion is negatived it would have the same result as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) seeks to attain.
to.



RAILWAY ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 204) to amend chapter 38 of the statutes of 1907 in amendment of the Railway Act-Mr. Aylesworth-read a second time, and the House went into committee thereon.
Mr. AlrLESWORTH. An Act of last session, chapter 38, provided for the deposit with the Secretary of State of mortgages on railway property to secure debentures. The statute provides the effect of such deposit to be in substance the same as the effect of filing a chattel mortgage in the office of sonie official of the county in which the property is situated. It makes it valid as against the claims of subsequent creditors, mortgages or purchasers. The next clause in like manner provided that a mortgage on rolling stock given by the railway company and filed with the Secretary of State should be a valid security against the claims of subsequent creditors. Then comes the provision which it is desired to repeal. That is a provision that in the case of any company possessing rolling stock and mortgaging it for the purpose of securing such debentures, the like deposit shall have the same effect as in the case of a railway company. That provision seems to me to be of very questionable validity. It is doubtful, at all events, whether this parliament has any jurisdiction under the British North America Act to pass any such provision relating not to the undertaking or property of a railway company, but simply to property within the province. The other clauses of the Act are in connection with legislation upon a subject which is within our jurisdiction, that of railway law generally, and are certainly valid with reference to Dominion railway companies. This clause is, however, of at least questionable character, and as soon as it was observed, attention was called to it by the Deputy Minister of Justice writing a letter within a day or two after prorogation to the legal gentleman at whose instance these clauses were inserted in the Bill. They were inserted in the Senate, and the retention of this particular clause was through some misunderstanding between that legal gentleman and the deputy minister, who was conferred with on the subject before the amendment was introduced. It would possibly be a snare to companies possessed of rolling stock, who might rely on this provision if it remained on the statute-book, and it was thought that it should at the earliest opportunity be repealed. This Bill was prepared to be introduced earlier in the session, but was delayed because it was thought that it might have
414 J
[Stage Direction]
place in some general Bill to amend the Ballway Act, but in the absence of any such general Bill, it was thought advisable to introduce it in this shape.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 109) to authorize a bounty to volunteers who served the Crown in South Africa.-Mr. Oliver.
On section 2,
Mr. OLIVER.: This section stood for revision, with a view to including in the benefits of the section not only the volunteers who had enlisted in the Canadian corps for service in South Africa, but also Canadians or persons resident in Canada who have served in South Africa in any British corps, and also for the purpose of including nurses who were attached to military forces. The amendment as drafted to cover these points reads as follows :
This Act shall apply to all volunteers then Qomieiled in Canada who served with the British forces in South Africa during the years 1899 to 1902, or who, being so domiciled, enlisted with or were appointed to Canadian corps that arrived in South Africa for the purpose of so serving, but owing to the close of the war were not on active service.
2. Volunteers shall be deemed to include nursing sisters.


George William Fowler: Were there not some teachers who went out there during the war and taught the Boers in concentration camps ?


Frank Oliver: There were teachers ; but it is not my intention to include any but those who are mentioned in this section.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: As I had1 the honour of first bringing to the attention of the House the suggestion that all volunteers who went to South Africa, whether coming from the prairie provinces or other parts of Canada, should be entitled to this grant, I am pleased to know that the government has at last decided to give effect to this policy by introducing the present motion.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I approve of this very much, and I am only sorry that my hon. friend has not found himself in a position, with all the lands we have in the Northwest, to offer something to the men who fought on the frontier in 18G6 and 1870. There have been many demands made on parliament since that time, and these men were promised consideration which has never been given them. Canada can afford to reward those who have taken up arms in her defence and certainly ought to do so ; and by so doing we would be furnishing an incentive to the patriotism of our youth by


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: giving them some assurance that their services to their country, in times of stress, would not be overlooked or forgotten.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it not be better to add the words ' both inclusive ' after 1902. It says during the years 1899 to 1902, and I presume both these words are included.


Mr. HERRON.: In the event of a volunteer selling to a substitute will the volunteer have to appear at the land office to locate the land as in the case of the halfbreeds?


Frank Oliver: No, that is the difference between the two. In the case of the halfbreed scrip it was specially provided that the scrip was not assignable, whereas in this case it is expressly provided that it is assignable.
Section agreed to as amended.
Bill reported.



GRAIN fNSPECTION AND SALE ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 203) to amend the Inspection and Sale Act with regard to grain-Mr. Oliver -read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Mr. STAPLES.: I protest against our going on with this Bill at this late hour of the night. It is one that particularly affects the prairie provinces and one of the most important measures that have come before this House. There are very few members here, and to rush through this Bill now is not treating our agriculturists in the manner they are entitled to. I am as anxious to get away as any one, but I purpose staying here to guard the interests of the farmers to the best of my ability.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There are many members from the west who wish to discuss this Bill and I do not think we ought to proceed with it to-night.
Progress reported.



JUDICIARY OF MANITOBA AND ONTARIO.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 206) to amend the Judges' Act- Mr. Aylesworth- read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This proposes to strike out the words ' sixty-seven ' in the Act and substitute 1 sixty-nine '' in order to provide for the additional district judges.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The other day I asked the right lion, the First Minister if he intended acting upon the recommendation of the Quebec local legislature, which declared that two more judges were needed in the district of Montreal and one in the district of Quebec. He replied that the government had decided to confer with the different provinces before granting their de-

mands. He thought there were sufficient judges iu Quebec and the other provinces it the systems in these provinces were changed. I find it strange now that he should call on us to appoint judges in the other provinces and not in the province of Quebec.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I read in the ' Hansard ' the other day the answer made by the leader of the House to the hon. gentleman's question. I have really nothing to add to what the First Minister then said.
I am aware that the Quebec legislature has passed the necessary legislation providing for additional j-dges and that these additonal appointments have been the subject of correspondence between the Department of Justice and the Department of the Attorney General of Quebec. The matter is one of considerable importance and practical difficulty. Under the British North America Act we have no voice in the passing of legislation which calls for additional judges in any province.
On the other hand, responsibility is upon the Dominion for the payment of judges and the providing of pensions. In these circumstances, while it may be that under the letter of the constitution, it was not contemplated that the province should in any way consult the Dominion qn the subject before passing its legislation calling for additional judges, it certainly would seem something that would conduce to harmony in the administration of the respective functions of the different governments if there could be an understanding beforehand, and if there could be some general arrangement by which it could be understood in practice that, before legislation of the sort I have described were passed, there would be at least a discussion of the necessity for it with the Dominion authorities. And I may say that steps in that direction have been taken, and an effort will be made to devise some means whereby there will be no danger of either the local legislatures taking action which might not afterwards be carried into effect as promptly as the local legislatures think it should be, or of taking action to provide for the appointment of additional judges where the necessity for them is not very apparent. [DOT] Now, in the case of the province of Quebec, unon all the information I have been able to obtain, there seems no actual lack, numerically speaking, at any rate, of judicial strength. The number of judges of the superior court already appointed throughout the province is considered to be ample to discharge the judicial work of the courts of the province if these were distributed in some different way. Business, as it stands, is congested in the cities of Quebec and Montreal, while in the rural districts there are, I am given to understand. more than one instance of judges who would be the better perhaps with a
little more to do ; and, at all events, where there is not such an amount of work that the judges as they are to-day are not able readily to overtake it and still have time on their hands. In these circumstances, if it were possible to work out some scheme by which there could be a somewhat more even distribution of the work by which the judges from the rural districts might be assigned a share in the heavier work of the cities, there would not seem to be the necessity for adding so considerably to the expense of our present judicial system as would be the case if a number of additional judges were appointed. The same condition of things exists in the province of Alberta, where the staff of judges was provided only a year ago; the provincial authorities are asking for additional judicial help in the superior court. This is a continually recurring difficulty, and, in view of the situation I have attempted to outline, it was thought that, for the present year at all events, we could not properly propose to the House to provide for additional judges where there were existing courts and a certain number of judges in those courts to do the work. As a result, this measure is restricted to providing salaries for two judges lor the new courts which have recently been established in New, or Northern Ontario, where settlers have gone in a long distance from any other court, and where an absolutely new court has in the ease of two districts been established ready to go to work on sending a judge for that purpose. In the same way, the new court in the northern part of the province of Manitoba, where an increase of settlement has caused an increase of judicial work, is called for by the legislature, and we have proposed, under this Bill, to provide a salary for that county court judge. But where there are existing courts and a certain number of existing judges, we have thought that the province ought to get along for another year at all events by making some change or otherwise, without asking the expense to be put upon the Dominion, which providing for additional judges would involve. ,
On section 2-Manitoba-judges of county courts.


Robert Laird Borden: This section simply increases the county court judges in Manitoba by two, I understand?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: By one. There was an increase of one last year, making the number seven ; it is now made eight.


William D. Staples: When will the additional judge be appointed?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I can only say that as soon as the Act is passed providing the salary the matter will be taken into

consideration. It has not yet been considered.


William D. Staples: Then the hon. minister [DOT]cannot tell us who the proposed judge is?
On section 3-pension or chief or assistant chief of Board of Kailway Commissioners if previously a judge.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that this amendment is to include the assistant chief commissioner,-though perhaps that has been'enacted already-and to reduce the period by which the pension shall be earned from fifteen years to twelve years ? What is the reason for that ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: When the office of chief commissioner became vacant by the death of Mr. Killam, and it was a question of finding a successor, the position was offered to the present incumbent, Mr. Mabee. He at once pointed out that he would, by assuming the office, forfeit any right that was accruing to him to the enjoyment of a judicial pension. The Railway Act provides no pension. And that was a consideration which weighed very much in his mind. The statute provides for fifteen years' service as railway commissioner or five years of service as a judge and ten years' service as railway commissioner. This would not cover the ease of Mr. Mabee, as he had not been five years upon the bench. But he thought that some provision ought to be made in order that he would not, if he accepted the new work, forfeit the right which was accruing to him. It was thought that that was a reasonable request upon his part, and this change Is made entirely in that view. Mr. Mabee had been something over two years upon the bench, and would be covered by this provision if the amendment is made.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see anything in section 21 about a period of five years.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The change is made substituting 12 for 15, or 2 for 5. The enactment was made in the first place on the occasion of Mr. Justice Killam leaving the Supreme Court and taking this position. In his case it made no difference, as he had seeu service on the bench for more than five years. I do not know why a period of 15 years or 5 years service on the bench was fixed.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 210) to amend the Northwest Territories Act-Mr. Aylesworth-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
Mr. AYLESWORTF-
On section 5,
Robert Laird Borden: I understand the Bill merely extends the jurisdiction of the courts of these three provinces to the territories northward, subject to the provision that leave of the court must be obtained for the purpose of issuing processes.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: That is the effect, that it gives every plaintiff an option as to the province he will select. No matter where in the Territories the cause of action might arise, the plaintiff might apply to the courts in Ontario, subject to the power of the court to refuse to entertain his cause of action, and to send him to some more convenient province.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADA SHIPPPING ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 183) to amend the Canada Shipping Act.-Mr. Bro-deur.
John Dowsley Reid: Could not the minister let this Bill stand over until next session ? I do not see any need for it now. The marine interests of the country are not suffering by letting this Bill stand for a few months.


Mr. BRODEUR.: There are some very important amendments.


John Dowsley Reid: There is a law now that will do until parliament meets again. The Bill has been prepared by one of his officers and while in theory it may be all right, in practice I do not think it is, and I think, in the interest of the marine, it would be well to let the Bill stand.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There are some amendments which are absolutely necessary to be passed, for example the provisions regarding gasolene launches. It is of the utmost importance that this provision should pass this year or our vessels will be discriminated against as compared with American vessels.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not agree.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: The member for Leeds (Mr Taylor) the other day urged the passage of this Bill and complained of delay. Another important feature is that the imperial government has passed two clauses amending the Merchant Shipping Act which it is necessary for us to get in our legislation in order to have the two conform. For instance we have the deck load and the registration of shins.


John Dowsley Reid: I protest against going on at this hour of the night with a Bill of this importance.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The introduction of this Bill is ill-timed. Neither the minister nor his denartment has information sufficient to pass good legislation upon the subject and the marine interests are not fully seized of the provisions of the Bill, so as to be able to assist in securing the proper legislation.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Bill has been before the Senate for four months.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: But the people and the shipping interests have not become seized of it. It is an imposition to bring it down at this stage of the session.


James Conmee: The law as it stands without this Bill is defective. I am not In love with the Bill but it is better than nothing. In my part of the country great hardship will be worked if it is not adopted. The marine board adopted a regulation some years ago limiting the style and size of gasolene, steam or electric launch that may be built. This regulation was not enforced until last year when they tied up a large number of these boats. Under the present amendment that class of vessel would be relieved.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) opposed this Bill the other evening but supports it to-night. What has influenced him ? I move the committee rise and report progress.


James Conmee: Even if it is a little defective, after two or three months we can amend it.


John Dowsley Reid: No, I want it made right. The hon. member (Mr. Conmee) is willing to put anything through, right or wrong.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. How idle it is to say this Bill should not pass. Two of its proposals have been before the House for flve or six years, the section relating to masters and mates and to marine engineers.


Robert Laird Borden: I suggest you should take something easier. What about the Canada Shipping Act ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is impossible to postpone this Bill until next session because there are some of its provisions which are absolutely needed.


Robert Laird Borden: We only ask postponement until to-morrow.
Progress reported.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 209) to amend the Canada Shipping Act-Mr. Fielding-read the [DOT] second time and the House went into committee thereon.
William Stevens Fielding: The section of /the revised statutes which it is proposed to repeal provides that the Governor in Council may deal with the ships of any foreign country which gives us reciprocal coasting trade, but it does not apparently give us any power to discriminate either as to the different waters of Canada or as to the sizes of the vessels. The history of this measure is that some months ago we passed an order in council designed to repeal other orders which granted the privilege of our coasting trade to certain foreign countries. The United States do not give us reciprocal privileges and it does not apply to them. There are a number of foreign countries which grant us the privilege but it is practically of no value to us because we do not use their coasting trade. An order in council was passed declaring that after the 1st of January next these privileges granted by orders in council should be withdrawn. The order applies largely to Norwegian vessels, although its terms are broader than that. It has been represented to us that the Norwegians have adapted themselves particularly to the coal trade of the St. Lawrence, that many of the vessels in that trade are under the Norwegian flag, that some although built in the United Kingdom sail under the Norwegian flag, and of course, are only entitled to such privileges as Norwegian vessels may have. Many of the ships in the coal trade have been built specially for that trade and it has been represented that before the time fixed in the order in council the coal companies would be unable to obtain British ships of a proper class in sufficient numbers to handle the trade, and that if we adhere rigorously to the order in council we will practically prevent the coal companies getting tonnage to carry their coal. Of course nobody wante to do that. We have thought therefore that it is a case in which there should be some elasticity. We do not desire to extend the privileges of the coasting trade to these vessels without any limit, but it has been suggested that it might be expedient that the government should allow them to have the coasting trade for a limited time, and perhaps with regard to a limited class of tonnage, for instance, the smaller class of vessels would come into competition with our Canadian vessels while the larger vessels would not. It has been suggested that we might allow these larger Norwegian vessels to continue in the coasting trade for a limited period, and what that period should be is a fair matter for consideration. What we propose in this amendment is that instead of the existing clause in the revised statutes we should introduce a substitute clause which would give the government the power of discrimination. For example we might give the privilege to a Norwegian vessel in Atlantic waters and refuse her the privilege in the lake trade, or we might give her the privilege in the lake trade and refuse it on the Pacific coast or, we might agree

that Norwegian vessels up to say 1,000 or
2,000	tons should be excluded, but that vessels above that tonnage might be permitted temporarily to engage In the coal trade for a sufficient time to permit the coal companies to secure either Canadian or	British bottoms.	In other
words the purpose of this amendment is to allow elasticity in the law, whereby the government might adapt themselves to the special conditions which might be brought before them. But while we desire that, we wish to say it is not the intention of the government to recede from the general principle which has been laid down that these coasting privileges shall only be continued for a special purpose and for a limited time and under such circumstances as I have briefly mentioned to the House.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: This is a very important measure which deeply concerns the shipping interests of the maritime provinces. We have continual protests from Canadian shipping interests against the encroachment of foreigners and the minister knows that this has been a great detriment to the shipping interests of the maritime provinces. The action taken by the order in council prohibiting Norwegians from coming into our territory was possibly a temporary step in the right direction, but it did not get down to the root of the evil. What Canada wants is some national idea to encourage the building of ships in the Dominion. Years ago when we had wooden ships built in the maritime provinces, we were one of the first maritime nations in the world and we had sufficient vessels to carry on our coasting trade. But now the Norwegians have come in, our shipping has become decadent and we are in this deplorable condition that the coal interests which this Bill is designed largely to benefit must have foreign tonnage.
The only way we can deal legitimately and nationally with that is to encourage shipbuilding in this country, and that is a question the government should take up instead of dilly dallying with measures of this kind. This question goes further. We have some remnants of the coasting trade left around the coasts of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island ; and under the system in vogue for a number of years past that coasting trade has been so oppressed by these large corporate interests, who have paid no attention to the local needs of the people, that it is not able to subsist, and will go out of business unless this government remedies the evils that assail it. These large foreign vessels come over under the coasting privilege, and as the minister lias told us, there is no relative value between the privileges we give to them and those accorded to us in the countries from which they come. Under the large incorporate interests which employ them, they shut out altogether the possibility of the small coasting tonnage of the maritime provinces get-


William Stevens Fielding: ting its legitimate trade. Take the coal trade of Sydney, Inverness and Pictou. The hon. minister is surely aware of the disadvantages that smaller craft are suffering on account of the privileges given foreign tonnage and the abuse of those privileges, the large corporate companies supplying the coal of the maritime provinces to this foreign tonnage and to the prejudice of both the smaller coasting vessels and the people that they accommodate. Those evils are going on to-day just the same as last year and the year before.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to say that two weeks ago, while at home, I made inquiries into that subject, so far as Pictou was concerned and I learned that every schooner that came there from Prince Edward Island or anywhere else had been loaded without the slightest delay, and the only trouble with our coal miners is that the schooners do not come as often as they like. The same thing is true of Cape Breton.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Pictou has not been the aggressor in this respect so much as Sydney and Inverness.
i	'	.


Mr. JOHNSTON.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to say that so anxious is the Dominion Coal Company at Sydney to obtain this schooner trade that it has standing advertisements in the newspapers calling on schooners to go to Glace Bay, where they have made special arrangements for loading them. They are anxious for this trade, and it is not fair on the part of my hon. friend to say that they are not. The only discrimination of a serious character that has occurred in this connection happened at Inverness last fall, and that is not likely to arise again.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am not prepared to take the assurances of the hon. member for Pictou nor of the hon. member for Cape Breton ; but I am glad to hear these hon. gentlemen say that some redress has been given to the grievances under which the coasting trade has suffered in the past-However, there is no guarantee that they will be free from such abuses in the future.


Alexander Johnston: What guarantee can you give them ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: You can give them the guarantee that the foreign coasting trade is not to come in to fill their places. The schooners have to lie at Sydney or Inverness for six or eight weeks, waiting for their load, while the steamers load up and carry their cargo up the St. Lawrence and "come back and load up again.


Alexander Johnston: Would you shut up the coal mine ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: There must be some way out. I believe the State of Massaehu-

setts had a law some years ago compelling the vessels to load in rotation, the only exception being that of a steamer which come In for bunker coal. I cannot pick up a paper from the maritime provinces without seeing that the agitation of this question is going on from day to day. Some stringent regulation should be put upon the management of the coal shipping piers, and one of the best ways of rehabilitating our shipping interest is to have a bonus on ship-building so that we may rebuild our shipping and maintain our ships as we did some twenty or twenty-five years ago.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has discussed two questions which are important, but which have no relation to the Bill. The first is with regard to a shipping bounty, a very important question, but it is not involved in this measure at all. If we give a bounty of $50 a ton, we could not get vessels built fast enough to meet the requirements of the coal companies. The second is the difficulty between sailing vessels and steamers at the piers. I believe that difficulty occurred only at one pier at Cape Breton, and I am assured that a remedy has been supplied. But even if there were no remedy, that does not touch the object of this Bill at all. Then my hon. friend says if we only stop these Norwegian steamers, we will have the business for our own vessels. That was his argument.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: No, it was not.


William Stevens Fielding: He wants to shut out these Norwegian steamers altogether. We want to shut them out in a general way, but the coal companies say that if we do not give them reasonable time, they will have no vessels to carry their trade. I represent a constituency which has a good deal of shipping, but if we only carried our coal in the wooden vesesls which we build there, the coal companies could not do a profitable business at all. If they could not use large steamers in carrying their coal, we could not have any coal trade up the St. Lawrence. It is only by building special steamers adapted to the trade, that we can make anything out of it.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Let us build Messager-ies inaritimes.


William Stevens Fielding: And in the meantime shut up the collieries.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: You have not begun any.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, we have launched this day in the town of New Glasgow, a magnificent steel ship and without giving any bonus. It was built by enterprising people and I wish them every success.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: But you have not aided them in any way.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not going to discuss that question. It may or may not be good policy to aid ship-building. There are certain privileges which have been granted for many years, and whatever advantages there may be in these will go to the splendid steel ship launched by the firm of Carmichael & Co.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Only one steel ship.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, there has to be a beginning to everything.


Richard Blain: Since the Minister of Finance is going into a discussion entirely away from the Bill, I rise to a point of order.


William Stevens Fielding: I think my hon. friend is right.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I inquire what is the tonnage of this vessel ?


William Stevens Fielding: She is quite a good sized vessel.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that this Bill is much less controversial than the other one we have considered. The subject is a very important one ; but coming back to the immediate purpose of the Bill, perhaps it might be said that its advantages will depend all together on the way it is worked out by orders in council.


William Stevens Fielding: That is true.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Finance has announced, but only in a very general way, what the policy of the government is likely to be. I would suggest that the Bill might be reported and stand for third reading, on the understanding that if any hon. gentleman who is not present desires further discussion, we can refer it back to the committee.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Might I point out a fact which would perhaps avoid any discussion on the third reading, and that is that in the original Shipping- Act passed in 1870 the power to alter, amend and repeal any order in council that might be passed under the terms of this section were contained in the original Shipping Act. But when they came to revise the statutes in 2 Edward VII., the words giving to the Governor in Council the pow-er to alter, amend and repeal were struck out. The proposition now is only to revive the powers which had previously existed.
Progress reported.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to again bring to the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries the return I mentioned yesterday.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I found out that it had been handed to me some time ago and has been mislaid. I have given instructions to have it recopied and will lay it on the

table to-morrow or the day after. It consists only of a few letters.


Robert Laird Borden: What business tomorrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: Supply will be moved in the morning.
Motion agreed to and House adjourned at 2.55 a.m. Wednesday.

Wednesday, July 15, 1908.