1908-05-12

OF THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA FOURTH SESSION-TENTH PARLIAMENT 7-8 EDWARD VII., 1907-8 VOL. LXXXVI


[Stage Direction]
Col. 9191, 5th line from top, delete " MR. R. L. BORDEN " and " SIR FREDERICK BORDEN."
insert
Douse of Commons Debates

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 12, 1908.

Mr. J. J. HUGHES.: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to a question of privilege. In the Halifax ' Herald' I find a report of an interview between an alleged prominent labour leader of the Railway Employees Organization and myself, which is entirely inaccurate. The interview is given as follows, under large headlines:-
It is a well-known fact that an interview was held recently between J. J. Hughes, L'b-eral member of parliament for Kings, Prince Edward Island, and a prominent labour leader of the railway employees' organization, when the former unhesitatingly expressed himself as utterly opposed to any sort of labour organizations and would not give his support to measures emanating from them if brought up in the House of Commons on their behalf.



PROBUS.

[Stage Direction]
Tennyson says:
That a lie which is half a truth is ever the (blackest of lies,
That a lie which is all a lie may be met and fought with outright.
But a lie which is part a truth is a harder matter to fight.
This is exactly tlie case in regard to this interview.
On my way from Ottawa to Prince Edward Island at Easter I met a man who claimed to be a labour leader and an organizer of railway employees. He' told me that he belonged to the United States, and that he was going to Prince Edward Island to organize a union of the government railway employees to demand shorter hours of labour, and asked me whether I would support such legislation if it were introduced in parliament. I told him I would uot promise in advance to support any legislation. I said that I doubted whether the hours of labour of railway employees were excessive, and one of my reasons for so doubting was that for every vacancy that occurred in the government railway service there were from one to a dozen applications; that I did 204
not think so many young and middle-aged men would be so anxious to enter the service if the hours of labour were unduly long or the wages unduly low ; that I did not think the hours of labour of the railway employees were any longer, if as long, as those of the farmer, the fisherman, the store-keeper, the clerk in stores, the mothers of families in poor and moderate circum-. stances, the editors and other workers on newspapers, the members of parliament, the ministers of the Crown and the thousands of people who had to work for a living and obtain it as best they could.
He then asked me if I were opposed to labour unions and brotherhoods, and I answered ' No,' providing they were formed for the purpose of improving the social, the physical, their material and the moral wellbeing of their members by every legitimate means ; but that I was opposed to sucli unions aud brotherhoods if their object was to force from parliament legislation unduly favouring themselves at the expense of the rest of the community ; that the labour unions and the railway brotherhoods had exactly the same rights in this country that all other classes of persons had, but not one right more ; that under our constitution and laws no class of men In Canada could suffer injury or wrong without receiving speedy and ample redress, and therefore we could settle all our troubles and difficulties without the assistance or advice of foreigners ; that, iu my judgment, our labour unions and railway brotherhoods were quite callable of managing their own affairs without the interference of professional agitators from the United States ; that there was one kind of legislation I would promise to sun-port in advance, and that would be legislation to prevent him and men like him from coming into this country to stir up trouble where none existed and to manufacture grievances.
He informed me that he would come in to Canada as often as ho wished and comport himself ns he wished ; that the labour unions and brotherhoods of this country were strong enough to crush any member of parliament who opposed their views, and he would see that my words and attitude were reported in the proper quarter.
I presume, therefore that the report in the Halifax ' Herald,' which has been copied
[Stage Direction]


into the Charlottetown ' Examiner,' is the result of the threat of my Yankee friend.
The newspapers of Canada should he above misrepresenting the views of public men on important public matters.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman must limit himself to a statement of fact.
t


James Joseph Hughes: I am just finishing. Sir, for the sake, possibly, of a little passing political advantage, and they should be above encouraging Yankee agitators to come into this country to make trouble. It will be a sad day for us when we will not be able to manage our own affairs without employing and encouraging such men.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
'LA PRESSE' AND THE FRENCH LANGUAGE.	'
Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE (Montmagny).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I desire to call the attention of the House to an article wnich appeared in ' La Presse ' on the 11th May instant, under the heading: 'That meeting at the Monument National.' The article is directed against me as a member of parliament and against the privileges or this House. It reads as follows:
It is now clear that this sudden cry for the French language in the administration of railways, is _ nothing but a nationalist manoeuvre organized in view of the elections. At the Monument National neither Conservative nor Liberal leaders were present. And although, for the purpose of soothing public opinion, it had been everywhere proclaimed that the English element was favourably disposed in the matter, the audience refused to listen to the, Hon. Mr. Dandurand, who oam-e expressly for the purpose of making known these favourable dispositions. The conciliatory offers of the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific and the Northern Railways were such as would demolish the whole fabric of the nationalist conspiracy: hence the necessity of crying them down.' Sudh indeed are the tactics which Mr. Lavergne himself has adopted. At the second reading of the Bill in question, the 18th March, 1908, Sir Wilfrid Laurier had made the following statement: Sir WILFRID LAURIER. The Bill as a whole appears to me to embody a sound and equitable principle, but I think that in some respects its application may be too broad. My hon. friend's object is to give the public increased facilities for the transaction of business, and it must be admitted that simple justice requires that those who do not speak English should be enabled to transact business in the language they understand. . .
I have no objection to the second reading, subject to the amendments which may be suggested later on.
(The motion was carried and the Bill read a second time.)


James Joseph Hughes: 


The DEPUTY SPEAKER.: When will it please the House to discuss the Bill in committee ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: At the next meeting of the House.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Occasions for discussing this Bill in committee are becoming very rare, and if we do not take it up to-day we may not find an opportunity of doing so.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, The matter is of importance to the railway companies and my hon. friend will understand that it is fair that they should take communication, of the Bill and see whether they desire to_ oppose it. There are certainly excellent things in the measure, but the government should not undertake to have it carried before the railway companies have been heard.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: They have made no opposition so far.


Wilfrid Laurier: If they have no objection I certainly have none myself.
We are reluctant to attribute secret intern tions to public men; but we have a right to point out the natural consequences of known facts. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's offer made things too easy for the member for Montmagny and his Bill would not have created the slightest sensation. The first thing that took place after this debate was the famous petition of Catholic young men published a few days later, without waiting to ascertain the fate of a measure so auspiciously introduced. There is nothing in ' Hansard ' or in the Votes and Proceedings of the House to show that Mr. Lavergne made any effort to advance his Bill a stage. How is it that a member whose specialty it is to put questions -to the government on every possible and impossible subject, should have neglected to call their attention and that of the House to the real or imaginary obstacles behind which he sheltered himself, without explaining their nature, at the meeting of Friday night last? If from any quarter there had been an effort to prevent the Prime -Minister from carrying out the promise he -made on the 18th March last, the loquacious member for Montmagny might have made use of his tongue to point it out. Nobody ever heard anything -about it. It would -be vain for him to allege that -form of parliamentary -procedure >by which every day is devoted to government -business; such restrictions did not exist in January, when on the 28th of that month the Bill was read for the first time. In fact, the -government took precedence over public -Bills on Wednesdays from -the 25th March, and on Mondays, from the 2nd April. We cannot state fr-o-m -memory when they took up Thursdays, but it was probably later. He let more than two -months elapse between the first and second readings. But the quiet adoption of the -measure could not have accomplished its object better than those most 'reasonable letters read by Hon. Mr. Dandurand on behalf of the different companies. Wha-t was required was an organized provocation -which might render its adoption impossible. Saviors and heroes had to be improvised; but they have killed the Bill in order to create a grievance.
The article then drifts into an appeal to Liberal principles. I need not insist upon that part. Nor would I seek for

Liberal principles in ' Da Presse,' a paper that has sold itself to every party and has been the bed-fellow of each regime In turn.
The first portion of the article is absolutely untrue. It is clear from the journals of the House that, at the time of the second reading, I was ready to proceed and that it was only at the request of the hon. the Prime Minister that I consented to delay the second reading. I was always present at my seat, whenever the Bill might have been called, and had an occasion offered, I would have requested to proceed. From the 28th January to the 2nd April, the dates mentioned by ' La Presse,' I wms always at my seat ready to proceed on the second reading; and I appeal to the Prime Minister himself as to the truth of what I say.
As to the statement of ' La Presse ' that at the meeting of Friday last at the Monument National there were no Liberal leaders, 1 will say that several Liberal members had been invited, amongst others the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Ger-vais) who is now in his seat and who had consented to address the meeting. There were also the hon. members for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) and for St. Ann's (Mr. Walsh), also the member for i'lslet (Mr. Paquet), invited as a Conservative.
I might summon the editor of the paper to the bar of the House for false representations and falsehoods. I will not do so because I respect my colleagues too much to bring into their presence that aged prostitute, that old barrel of cognac.


Some MEMBERS.: Order, order. Withdraw.	.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am called to order, but I have absolutely nothing to withdraw.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-INVESTIGATION BY MR. JUSTICE CASSELS.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton. Ont.).: I desire to ask the government if there is any objection to having copies of the evidence taken before the commission presided over by Judge Cassels laid on the table of the House from day to day. That course was adopted with regard to some other commissions-I think the Insurance Commission was one. It would seem desirable that it should be followed in the present case.


Rt.   H@: I am not aware that our attention has been called to that point. I do not know whether the order of the House called upon the commission to report from time tj time or not. I think that if that was the order of the House, the commission would be willing to exercise its powers. I will look into the matter.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not intend so much to suggest any report from the Commissioner, but to have a copy of the evidence taken from day to day laid on the table of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: That matter will be considered.



PROPOSED DIVISION OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO.

Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma).: Before' the orders of the day are called, I would; like to ask :	.
1.	Whether the government is aware-that a vigorous campaign is being conducted in the northern constituencies of Ontario in the present provincial election, for the separating of the northern portion of Ontario from the remainder of the province, and the creation of a new province from such northern districts of the province.
2.	Is the government aware that this campaign is being supported and carried on upon representations made in the platform, that the Prime Minister of Canada has asserted that if seventy-five per cent of the people representing the territory desire to be separated from Ontario and desire that such territory be constituted a new province that effect will be given to such petition, and proceedings taken by the government for the formation of a new province out of that northern portion of Ontario, commonly called ' New Ontario ' ?
3.	Was any such representation, or similar representation made by the Prime Minister, or any of his colleagues or any one else having authority, to speak on behalf of the government?
4.	What, if any, representations have been made to the Prime Minister, or to the government, as to the desire of forming a new province out of the northern portions of Ontario, commonly called ' New Ontario,' if so, by whom, and when were they made and what answer is being made by the government ?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Boyce) asks me if the government is aware that a vigorous camuaign is being carried on in the northern part of the province of Ontario for the separation of that part of the province from the rest. I have to say to my hon. friend that I am not aware that a vigorous campaign, or any campaign, is being carried on to that end. The matter is almost wholly new to me. I think I received a letter to that effect, but I have expressed no opinion upon it and certainly never stated anything of the kind attributed to me in the question of my hon. friend.



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK AS MEMBER OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Has the Prime Minister any information to give

the House concerning a statement published in the press that Chief Justice Fitzpatrick has been appointed to represent Canada at the Hague Conference and that Newfoundland has consented to accept him as their representative at same conference?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say that I cannot give to-day the official information to which my hon. friend is entitled. A treaty has recently been signed between Great Britain for Canada and Newfoundland and the United States concerning questions which have been pending for some time between the United States and Newfoundland. I cannot say that Chief Justice Fitzpatrick has been appointed a member of the Hague Tribunal, but I believe it would be satisfactory to all Canadians if such were the case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there are papers in connection with this matter, would the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) be willing to lay them on the table?


Wilfrid Laurier: At present we are in communication with the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office to have all the correspondence with regard to this treaty and to other treaties brought down, and I hope I shall be able to bring it down at an early day. I may say that if it were convenient to the House we could bring down two of these treaties soon.



ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES AT SOREL.

Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simeoe).: I desire to ask if Mr. Ernest Roy, formerly sub-superintendent of the Sorel shipyards, and whose conduct in regard to his position between himself and the Crown in the Department of Marine and Fisheries has been inquired into by Commissioner Gaudet, is still in the employ of the department, and, if so, whether the minister proposes that a further and more thorough inquiry should be made into the allegations made against Mr. Roy, and if it is to be carried on by Mr. Commissioner Cassels ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: I do not think that Mr. Roy is permanently employed by the department. He was employed last year to superintend some work at Sorel, but I do not know whether his emplovment is permanent or not. I cannot tell, therefore, whether he is still working for the department. I will make further inquiry. As to the other question, I shall be glad when I give instructions to have the evidence copied and I will be very glad to lay it on the table.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister direct that a copy of the report in English be laid on the table ? The report laid on the table yesterday was in French.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may explain that the practice with regard to these reports is to bring them down from the department in the language in which they are, and it is for the House of Commons to have them translated if it wishes to do so.


Mr. BERGERON.: Might I suggest that the translation should be made at the same time as the copy. The report covers 895 pages. It would take to the end of the session to get it copied. If the translation goes on at the same time, we may have the report before us before the session ends.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not for the department, but for the House to see that it is translated. I will chll the attention of the clerk to the matter.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr.. Aylesworth for the second reading of Bill (No. 115) to amend the Dominion Elections Act and the proposed amendment of Mr. W. J. Roche thereto.
Rt.   H@: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) opposite, in the closing sentences of the address with which he opened the opposition's side o" this debate, appealed to me personally against the provisions of the Bill now before the House which relate to the preparation of lists in the provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia and the unorganized districts of Quebec and Ontario. He appealed to me, as I understood him, in the name of fairness, of natural justice, of broad equity against the Bill which he characterized as an intensely partisan measure.
Sir, to such an appeal it would be, I consider, my duty under all circumstances to give a respectful hearing, but I must say at once to my hon. friend that I hold myself entirely responsible for the Bill which is now before the House. We introduced it for what we considered to be good and sufficient reasons, and I rise at this mctnent to endeavour to show to the House and to my hon. friend what these reasons were ; perhaps before I conclude I may also appeal to my hon. friend, in the name of fairness, in the name of natural justice and broad equity, against certain intensely partisan laws. I do not pretend, Mr. Speaker, that I am better than my fellow men, but I do not believe that I am worse. I am a plain man and deal with a plain question in a plain way. I have no hesitation in saying that I am a partisan, but, in all fairness to myself, I do not believe that I would willingly and consciously strike below the belt in order to take an unfair advantage of an opponent; yet, I repeat, I am a partisan, and I have sufficient experience of political life in this coun-

try to know that very often the judgment of a partisan may be blinded and warped.
I understand fully, I think, the motive of the opposition which has come to this Bill from gentlemen on the other side of the House, and especially from the members from the province of Manitoba. They dread the effect of the law of their own province if it is to be administered not by officers appointed by the government which would be the case if this Bill were to become law. Let me say to my hon. were to become law, let me say to my hon. friends on the other side of the House, -yes, let me appeal at once to their sense [DOT]of fairness, justice and equity, that there [DOT]are men on this side of the House who dread the effect of that law if it is to con-rtinue to be administered, as it has been, -by officers appointed by our opponents as will be the case if this Bill or some other Bill is not passed by this House. Those who oppose this Bill in this House at this moment, dread it in anticipation; those who support it dread the effect of the existing law of Manitoba not in anticipation, but from past experience, and if we are to approach this question without any equivocation, but in justice between -01811 and man, it reduces itself to this that you gentlemen on the other side of the House do not want to go before the country on electoral lists prepared by your opponents and we on this side of the House do not care to go to the country on electoral lists prepared by our opponents. Sir, this seems to me to be the true question, to be the true position and the problem which is now before 11s. The principle which shall regulate and determine the franchise, whether it shall be controlled by Dominion authorities or by provincial authorities, is a question upon which there has always been a deep line of cleavage between the two parties in Canada. We on this side of the House, the Liberal party, have always maintained that unless there be strong reason to the contrary the lists should be prepared by the provincial authorities, whereas gentlemen on the other side of the House have held the unqualified opinion that under all circumstances the lists should be prepared by the parliament to which the members of this House have to be elected. The opinions held respectively by the two parties have been [DOT]more than once set before this House by motions which speak for each party. In 1885, when the Franchise Bill was introduced, I was entrusted by my friends with the duty of moving the first amendment, setting forth the principle under which we thought the franchise ought to be regulated and administered. I moved this motion, which was a party motion, and which spoke our mind upon this subject:
In the opinion of this House it is preferable to continue the plan which has been adopted ever since confederation of utilizing for the elections to this House the provincial franchise and voters' lists.
Many similar motions have been passed from time to time, but this one properly and very accurately, I think, describes the position we then took and have maintained ever since. When the repeal of the Fran- . cliise Bill came up for discussion in 1898, a gentleman then a member sitting on the opposite side, Mr. Powell, of Westmoreland, moved this amendment:
That this House, while desirous of reducing the expense of the preparation of the lists, so far as may be practicable, considers that no system of franchise will be satisfactory which does not preserve federal control over both -the basis of the suffrages and the voters' lists.
There, Sir, you see, in concrete form, the respective opinions held by the two parties on this important question. Throughout this debate the members of the opposition have piled quotation upon quotation iu order to prove and maintain, at least to their satisfaction, that in introducing this Bill, which in certain provinces and under certain conditions provides that the franchise shall be regulated by this House, that we are in doing this inconsistent, that we are going back upon our record and departing from the policy we have always maintained. This criticism in view of the attitude which has been taken by those who make it at this moment, seems to me, if I may say so without offence, singularly inane. I could understand this criticism, if those who made it were to maintain the policy which they have always maintained. Their policy was and always has been that this House should keep the control over the franchise and over the lists, and when this Bill was presented, taking the control not over the franchise, but partially over certain lists, I cannot understand that these gentlemen can utter the reproach of inconsistency. If we are inconsistent, what are they themselves? If we are departing from our principles, what are they doing? They have always maintained that this House 'should keep control over the lists. If we were to say that we were going to adopt that principle, I could understand their criticism, but instead of that, their whole claim at this moment is that we are inconsistent. Sir, is it not a fact that in 1885 the Conservative party crammed down our throats a system whereby the lists were taken from independent officers and placed in the hands of officers appointed by themselves, and, therefore, according to the ethics that now prevail, partisans ? Yet, Sir, in 1885, though we fought that measure as effectively, as vigorously as I think a measure ever was fought, we never thought of resorting to a refusal of Supply; we never thought of resorting to disorganization of the public service, and if in such questions there be a reason to refuse Supply, we had then ten times more reason than there is at this.

moment, because in that case the measure which was introduced was to take the preparation of the list from municipal officers and to place in the hands of men appointed by the government of the day.
Now Sir, passing to another view, not far, however, removed from this one, may I be permitted to say that personally I think my vanity is somewhat flattered by the course which the debate has taken. My vanity is somewhat flattered because the debate has shown that my poor utterances, delivered from time to time in this House, have been diligently scanned and scrutinized by hon'. members on the other side of the House. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and my Ron. friend from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) have given evidence by their utterances that they have consumed some of the midnight oil in perusing what I may have said on this question from time to time in order to obtain an expression of opinion in favour of the view which they support at this moment. And in the accomplishment of this task, they have, I submit with all humility, but with sincerity, shown more ingenuity than ingenuousness. Everybody knows how misleading it is to take a sentence from a speech or from a writing of any kind without any reference to what precedes or follows, and how the man who is quoted may be thereby made to say the very reverse of what he meant. To give an example, a single example, upon this question, I will recall the speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition in which he made this quotation from a speech of mine delivered in 1898. In 1898 I spoke as follows :
But I would not have hesitated to accept the franchise provided by a 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 tme. It is in the same way as regards other provinces. It is possible that the control of the several provinces may pass into the hands of the Conservative party; still on a question of this kind I am quite disposed for my part, to accept the franchise prepared by the legislature, whether Liberal or Conservative.
There the quotation ended. The same quotation was made the same night by the hon. member for Prince Edward and there also the quotation ended. Now, Sir, if my hon. friend the leader of the opposition had read a little farther he would have found that that sentence was qualified and singularly qualified in view of the present debate. By this quotation the effect is attempted to be produced in the House and to be produced in the country, where thousands of copies of the speech of my hon. friend are sent broadcast, that I affirmed that under all circumstances, without any


Sir WILFRID  I.@: 



ATTRIER

[Stage Direction]
exception, the provincial lists ought to be adopted. But, if my hon. friend and if the hon. member for Prince Edward had read the sentence immediately' following, the House would have heard this :
But, if the day comes when a fraud is committed against this parliament, when legislation of a hostile character is brought forward in the legislatures, then it will be always open for this parliament to resume its own powers, and to enact a franchise law of its own.	[DOT]
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition and my hon. friend from Prince Edward also quoted extensively from the opinions delivered in that debate by the then Solicitor General, Mr. Fitzpatrick, but as far as I know and as far as I have been able to find in their speeches, I do not see this quotation, I do not see this expression of the Solicitor General.
The principle of the whole Act
[Stage Direction]
Said Mr. Fitzpatrick on that occasion.
-is that we intend to adopt the provincial franchises ;as the basis of the franchise for the Dominion. That is our intention. It is idle for my hon. friend to assume, or to suppose that we assume, that the provincial franchises existing to-day will continue for all time. I cannot follow the argument of hon. gentlemen on the other side who say that we dispossess ourselves of control over our franchise. We do not do anything- of the sort; we simply adopt for the present the franchises of the provinces. But if at any time the provinces should do anything that we consider detrimental to the interests of the Dominion, we are entirely free, we do not tie our hands for all time, to make any change that we think proper. We do not dispossess ourselves of our control over the franchise.
Mr. FOSTER.: What page is that ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is on page 3952 and the preceding quotation is at page 4015. And yet, it is difficult to believe that my bon. friend from Prince Edward and my hon. friend the leader of the opposition did not read these sentences, or did not see them. If they tell us that they did not see them it will be a sad comment upon their diligence, and if they tell us that they saw them it will be a sad comment upon their fairness. Neither did I see any quotation of an expression in the line which I have just stated and which was delivered upon the same occasion. An hon. member of the House, in that same debate, spoke as follows:
My hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will suggest to me, I suppose, that if the provincial legislatures alter their enactments from time to time we have the power to correot those enactments so far as they are applicable to elections to this parliament; and I concede that at once to be the case; but what does that amount to? It means simply that we have to keep a watch over the principal legis-

latures and check their enactments from time to time. That simply brings us back to the principle that we ought to deal with this matter ourselves. But even if we do adopt the provincial law I would suggest that we should not go-beyond saying that the provincial enactments, as they exist at present, and the basis on which the voters _ lists are now made up in the different provinces, shall be the basis on which we shall proceed in the future. I do not see why we should pledge ourselves now to the wisdom of what any provincial legislature may pass in the future.
Who was that member of the House ? He was then a member of the House, and is still a member of the House, who spoke in that way. That language was spoken by my hou. friend who was tben tbe senior member for Halifax and who is now the leader of the opposition. I congratulate my hon. friend upon tbe soundness of the principle which he advocated then. I do not find any fault with him for having so spoken. His views were sound ; I wish I could say the same to-day. He recognized a principle which had been affirmed by Mr. Fitzpatrick and which had been affirmed by myself and accepted by this side of the House. We held to the opinion that the preparation of the lists should be left in the hands of the provincial authorities ; still, we had, in the language of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, to keep watch over the provinces and if we found that conditions arose which would not be fair to this House then it would be our duty to resume our powers and to have the lists prepared by ourselves. Now, having laid down what appears to be the principle held by the two parties which should guide us in any emergency which should occur,
I have to say that at this moment, in my humble opinion, a condition of things has arisen in the province of Manitoba which calls, and imperatively calls, for legislation by this House.
I place myself in the judgment of the House, nay, I place myself in the judgment of those gentlemen on the other side who have spoken in this debate when I assort,-in view of the facts which it shall be my duty to place before the House,- that we would be recreant to the duty we owe to ourselves and to the people of this country if we did not face the situation and pass the legislation which the condition of things now existing in Manitoba imperatively demands. There are, if I mistake not, forty or forty-two local constituencies in the province of Manitoba and the lists are prepared, not as in the east for each municipality in the constituency, but for the whole constituency. There are, therefore, lists for forty or forty-two local constituencies and there are only ten Dominion constituencies, and consequently when an election takes place for this House it becomes imperative to condense these forty-two lists into ten. That
is a serious work, it is work which involves a good deal of consideration but it is work that has to be done. The question is : who should do it ? It has been observed by some members on the other side that there ate not only in the province of Manitoba hut In other provinces local constituencies the boundaries of which overlap the constituencies for the House of Commons. That is true, but it has never presented a serious difficulty elsewhere because in Quebec and Ontario, and also I believe in some of the other provinces, the lists are prepared for each municipality and in many instances for each polling division and under such circumstances there is no difficulty in adjusting the local lists to the federal constituencies. But in the case of Manitoba, under the conditions which prevail there, when the boundaries of the federal and the provincial constituencies overlap, the task of separating the voters' lists becomes one of serious difficulty. We thought we had provided for this in the Act of 1901 when we provided that this duty should be cast upon the returning officers. Section 25, revised statutes of Canada, says :
Where any provincial polling division, as constituted at the time, of the receipt by the returning officer of the writ for an election, lies only partly within the electoral district for which such election is to he held, the part thereof within such electoral district shall, for the purpose of that election form a separate polling division, or it may be attached by the returning officer to an adjoining polling division; and the returning officer shall, as soon as possible after the receipt of the writ, prepare from the existing voters' list a separate voters' list containing the names of the persons entitled to have their names placed on the list for such part of such polling division.
The duty thus entrusted to returning officers proved to be of exceptional magnitude in Manitoba, and if I may use the expression, some of the returning officers shirked the duty and called upon extraneous aid to help and assist them in its performance. Some of them called upon Mr. Leach, who was Liberal organizer for that province. Now, I am free to say that it was certainly injudicious, most injudicious on the part of these returning officers to call for the services of the Liberal organizer of the province, because suspicion would arise at once that the work would be done unfairly. I say it was injudicious but I do not say it was at all criminal. There was nothing wrong in calling on the services of Mr. Leach if the work was properly, fairly, honestly and accurately done. If, on the other hand, the work was not fairly, accurately, or honestly done it mattered not who was called upon, the crime would exist. Now, some gentlemen on the other side of the House have taken the position, and they have ever maintained it in this debate,


Wilfrid Laurier: 'The latter did the work; he did the disfranchising.'
Here and now I take complete and absolute issue with the statement of my hon. friend. I deny altogether that he has any proof against Mr. Leach that Mr. Leach disfranchised anybody.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, Sir, here and now is the time for both sides to discuss this- matter and discuss it we shall. I do not say that Mr. Leach may not have been guilty of some error. That is quite possible. But to say that Mr. Leach or the returning officers deliberately, wilfully disfranchised hundreds, nay thousands, of electors, there is no evidence of such a charge ; and, Sir, the proof which I have to give of the assertion I now make is that whenever and wherever those who made this charge against Mr. Leach and against the returning officers were called upon to give their evidence, they failed absolutely in the task. There was a committee of this House appointed two years ago to inquire into these matters. On that occasion this House adopted this motion :
That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Acts relating to the election of members of this House, and into the practice and procedure in connection with election petitions, and to consider what changes are desirable therein, with power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and to report from time to time.
The members of this committee were : Mr. Aylesworth, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Greenway, Mr. Stockton, Mr. Ingram, Mr. Macdonald, of Pictou, and Mr. Barker. This committee had power to send for persons and papers. Thev sent for persons to investigate what ? To investigate the alleged frauds which were said to have taken place in Manitoba. They sent for whom ? They sent for Mr. Knott, the counsel who had been charged with the prosecution of Mr. Leach and the returning officers. They sent for papers-what papers ? The papers in connection with the electoral lists in Manitoba. In this committee there were some friends of ours who sit on the other side of the House. There was Mr. Ingram, who is no more in this House, who was a very fair man, but a strong partisan and a good fighter. I say to his credit that no fairer man, in mv estimation, ever sat in this House than Mr. Ingram. There was Dr. Stockton, a most honourable man, as everybody knows, and whose loss we certainly deplore. There was my hon. friend from Hamilton-if I may give his name, Mr. Barker, a very fair man and a good fighter, and I think not a man to neglect any advantage that might come to his party. The Conservative members of that committee went into that fight to unearth

something ; and, judging by the eagerness that has been displayed by gentlemen on the other side of the House-I will not say to invent a scandal, but to find a scandal,
I do not think, if there had been a scandal there to be unearthed they would have neglected such a splendid opportunity.
I do ont think my hon. friend from Hamilton would have neglected to show how guilty these Grits could be, and what dishonest acts they could perform. But, Sir, there is more than this, much more-the government of Manitoba prosecuted these men. It indicted Mr. Leach ; it went into the business very eagerly. But time went on, and on, and on ; and as time went on, the courage of those who had been so eager to expose villainy seems to have gone down and down and down until at last it oozed out at the soles of their boots. The accuser had to press for a trial. It was not the accuser who pressed the indictment to a close ; it was the accused who at last peremptorily asked that they should be tried ; and when the time came for the trial, what took place ? This is what took place : the prosecutor, the Attorney General of Manitoba, declined further to prosecute. Now, what reason could there be why the Attorney General of Manitoba should decline to prosecute such a damnable action as the disfranchising of hundreds and thousands of men ? I will give the reason, as stated by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) ; and certainly, in my humble judgment, no one is more competent to give the reason, because my hon. friend has taken a deep interest in this matter. This is how he spoke, and his language will be found at page 8313 of ' Hansard ' :
Now, I am asked by the hon. member for Pictou, 'Why were these cases dropped?' What have we read in the Liberal press ever since this question arose in 1901? Persecution ! Persecution on the part of the provincial government of Manitoba against these poor officials who had done nothing wrong. So it has been stated, but I do not think they will state it again. We were told that these officials were being persecuted. They were taken from court to court until they were brought to the Court of Appeal. And there it was decided that they were wrong, that they had no right to make these new polling subdivisions, and no right to treat the lists as they did. What was the use of going on when there was a decision of that kind, in the face of which such actions cannot be repeated? Had we gone on, the charge of ' persecution ' would have been hurled still more viciously against the Conservatives. But another reason why these cases were dropped was that the Dominion government had turned this into a political question by sending Mr. E. L. Howard to represent the party in these oases. Would it be possible to get a jury that would not be a political jury with the Dominion government defending the accused? I think this is a sufficient answer to the hon. member for Pictou. Had the cases gone on we should have heard much more from the Liberal representatives and the Liberal press the accusation that we were persecuting these returning officers.
This is all the excuse that was given for not going on with this prosecution. Let me call once more to the attention of the House this salient reason which was given by my hon. friend from Marquette for not prosecuting :
They were taken from court to court until they were brought to the Court of Appeal. And there it was decided that they were wrong, that they had no right to make these new polling subdivisions, and no right to treat the lists as they did. What was the use of going on when there was a decision of that kind, in the face of which such actions cannot be repeated?
So Sir, if these men were not prosecuted, it was simply because of the magnanimity of the Conservative party. These men were told not to sin again. What ?-the men who had been guilty of disfranchising thousands of electors ? But, Sir, that is not the charge against these men now. It is not pretended by my hon. friend from Marquette that these returning officers acted dishonestly ; but still, though they were simply innocent victims, they were brought to the bar of a criminal court, and had to defend themselves. But what about Leach. Is it also through magnanimity that Leach has not been prosecuted ? My hon. frieud said there was no use of having a prosecution, you could not get a verdict before a jury. It would have been difficult, I admit, to have got a verdict before-a jury if the charge had been reduced to the statement that the returning officers had acted not dishonestly but simply in an improper conception of the law. But are we to be told that there is a jury iu the province of Manitoba who would acquit any man who was guilty of stealing the franchise from his fellow men ? I do not believe that. I am sure that the plea that it would have been useless to go before a jury because the Dominion government had retained the services of Mr. Howard to defend the accused, does not apply to Mr. Leach. Did the Dominion government secure the services of anybody to defend Mr. Leach ? Did the Dominion government secure the services of Mr. Howard to defend its own officers-the returning officers who, according to the expression of my hon. friend, had acted unwisely but not criminally ? But if no charge was made against Mr. Leach, I conclude it was because none could be made. If Mr. Leach had been guilty of having disfranchised thousands of electors, it would have been the duty of every citizen of Manitoba to bring a charge against him in order to punish him for such practices and prevent them in the future. It would have been the duty of the government of Manitoba and of the Conservative party, and. I may add, it would have been still more their pleasure. If therefore

Mr. Leach was not brought to trial, if the Attorney General of Manitoba filed against him a nolle prosequi, if the Attorney General said he would not proceed against him, the only conclusion we can draw is that Mr. Leach was absolutely innocent of the infamous accusation brought against him.
In the face of such a condition of things, it is at least unfair, and, if it were not for my hon. friend from Marquette, I would say unmanly to try to fasten such epithets on Mr. Leach as are heaped daily upon his head, when those who accuse him had not the courage to make good their accusations. But even though this is the case, Mr. Leach is daily assailed and even in this House every day his name is held up to obloquy. And when, some time ago, he was appointed by this government to superintend the distribution of seed grain, my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said that if he had known that Mr. Leach was to be appointed to such a duty, he would have hesitated before voting the money for the seed grain.


George Eulas Foster: Does my right hon. friend approve of what Mr. Leach did ?


Wilfrid Laurier: When I am shown that Mr. Leach did anything wrong, I shall not approve it; but up to this time this has not been shown. Hon. gentlemen opposite cannot escape by this tangent. Assertions have been made against Mr. Leach ; but when Mr. Leach asked for the proof and when the opportunity was given to make the proof, neither my hon. friend nor any of his, friends brought the proof against him.
May I say something personal to myself. When I heard the statement made by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) -who, I know, is a strong partisan just as I am, and perhaps a little more-I could not believe that he could make such a statement unless, in his own heart and conscience, he thought he had cause to make it.
I acquitted him altogether of any intention of consciously doing that man any wrong. Nevertheless he was accusing him ; and when I heard so strong a statement from my hon. friend, I thought I would make some personal inquiry to ascertain what was the character of Mr. Leach.
I took some pains to ascertain what was his character, and I must say that the opinion given me by everybody-at least by those with whom I communicated-was that he was a perfectly respectable man. But Mr. Leach has since been acting in the capacity to which he was appointed a few weeks ago in connection with the distribution of grain. There have been some complaints that the grain was not, every part of it, of good quality. I may say that it was not purchased by Mr. Leach but by Mr. Castle-a man.. I understand, who is. absolutely above reproach. I was given communication of a newspaper in connection with my in-


Wilfrid Laurier: quiries, and in that newspaper I read the following :
After a few weeks, however, the farmers from various points in the province began to raise objections to the seed which was delivered to them, and for which they were compelled to sign a lien on their next year's crop before they could examine it. Mr. Leach in a prompt way, arranged for an exchange in several cases and consequently much publicity has been avoided. The fact remains, however, that Mr. Cassels has not been doing what is right by the farmers, and if they had been forced by Mr. Leach to accept the grain given them it would have been a very bad thing for the country.
What is this newspaper which thus speaks of the work done by Mr. Leach, whose nomination was assailed by my hon. friend? It is a Conservative newspaper published in the city of Regina.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: What is the name of the paper ?


Wilfrid Laurier: 'The West.' Passing now to another aspect of the question, I have to observe that this, condition of things is a very serious one. .


George Eulas Foster: Which condition ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The condition which prevails in Manitoba with regard to the adjustment of the lists in the constituencies. We thought the work could be done by the returning officers but, as my hon. friend the Minister of Justice said the other day, no one will undertake to-day the duties of returning officer. The task is such that the returning officer would have to submit to the same risks which he took in 1904. Unless we have a change in the law, the returning officer will be in the same peril in which he was in 1904. Suppose we should have an election to-morrow, the lists go to the returning officers as they are, without having been adjusted to the federal constituencies, and the returning officer would have the work thrust upon him of doing this, and he would have the same peril.


George Eulas Foster: Would my right hon. friend make it clear what his conception of the duties of a returning officer is ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall try to make it clear to my hon. friend. The constituencies are forty-two in number and there are forty-two lists. When a returning officer receives the lists, say of Lisgar or Selkirk, he will receive the lists, not of the constituency of Lisgar or Selkirk, 'but of all the parts of the local constituencies which are included in Lisgar and Selkirk for the Dominion elections. The boundaries of these constituencies


George Eulas Foster: Dominion constituencies ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Tes, the boundaries of the Dominion constituencies

will Include part of local constituencies. One part of a local constituency will go into one Dominion constituency and another part into another. Therefore the lists must be adjusted. There must be a red or a black line passed through the names which are not in the constituency for Dominion purposes. Somebody must do that work of adjusting the local lists to the Dominion constituencies by erasing the names which are not in the Federal constituency and adding others which ought to be in the lists. This was the duty entrusted to the returning officers by the Act of 1991 and which they must perform again when we have another Dominion election.


George Eulas Foster: That is, so far as I follow my right lion, friend, this rearrangement has to be done in the case of polling divisions which are divided by the boundaries of Dominion constituencies.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly. We are agreed upon that. Who then shall do this duty ? We did entrust it to the re-turing officer, but we would not do so now. On this point, for my part, after having conferred with my hon. friend the Minister of Justice and my colleagues, we are ready to accept the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) 'in his speech the other day. My hon. friend quoted the law passed by the legislature of Manitoba subsequently to the last election and then went on in this way :
I tell the Prime Minister that there would not .have been the slightest objection to the manner in which the last elections in Manitoba were conducted had the law been observed. I tell the Prime Minister candidly that if he wants to prevent a recurrence of the carelessness of transferring names, and if he wants to prevent the disfranchisement of electors by means of transferring where there is overlapping, the only thing he has to do is to adopt the provision of the provincial Act and employ a county court judge to do that dividing. That will get over every complaint that has been made and it wiil obviate the necessity of the thin red line. Let the county court judge do the transferring where there is overlapping, let him appoint each one of these separated places as a, separate polling division as the provincial Act enacts, let him do the dividing of the lists and there will not be a single complaint from Grit or Tory in the province of Manitoba.
The Act to which the bon. gentleman refers says :
In the event of territory comprised within or partly comprised within an electoral division being, changed and included in another electoral division, or other electoral divisions, whether newly created or not, a judge of one of the county courts divisions of the province to be nominated and appointed bv the Lieutenant Governor in Council, shall subdivide the names - appearing on- the list of electors, as so finally revised, according to the altered
boundaries or limits, and make a complete list of electors for the electoral divisions affected, as aforesaid, and appropriately divide the names of electors and allot the territory between suitable polling subdivisions as shall, in the opinion of such judge, be just and equitable.
I must say that the provision of this Act of the legislature of Manitoba seems to be fair. We are disposed to accept it. But we cannot do this except by legislation, and legislation of this parliament. And I say to my hon. friend (Mr. W. J. Roche) that, if this would be agreeable to Grit and Tory alike, for my part I am quite willing to take this means of giving satisfaction to Grit and Tory alike. But my bon. friend should have had some consistency in his speech. After making this offer, he has moved an amendment which practically defeats the object he has iu mind.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. Because if the amendment is carried, there can be no reference to judges to allocate the names.


Robert Laird Borden: Why?


Wilfrid Laurier: Because the Bill will be defeated.


Robert Laird Borden: But, will the right bon. gentleman permit me a moment? I made the same suggestion iu the first speech that was made on this Bill on this side of the House. I pointed out that the difficulty is not confined to Manitoba, and stated that we were willing to accept the provisions of the Manitoba law as general legislation applicable to all Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: But I have this to say to my hon. friend-that this difficulty arises in Manitoba, and elsewhere it does not arise.


Robert Laird Borden: Why?


Wilfrid Laurier: Because everywhere else the lists are prepared by the municipality.


Robert Laird Borden: But that cannot make any difference in the division of the lists.


Wilfrid Laurier: Did the hon. gentleman ever hear of any difficulty elsewhere? For instance, there was at one time a case in Quebec-I think it has been rectified since. The parish of St. Guillaume, which was in Yamaska for the local, was in Drummond and Arthabaska in the federal, and yet there was no difficulty.


Robert Laird Borden: There need be no difficulty where the law as it stands is honestly carried out.


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, that red line is too thin altogether. There was no difficulty in that case, because you have

only to take the list of the parish as it stands, and transfer it from one polling division to the other. But, in Manitoba, where the lists are not made by municipalities or by polling divisions, but for the whole constituency, it is absolutely indispensable that there should be somebody, in case of overlapping, to allocate the names according to the divisions. However, as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said, to have that bisecting done, all you have to do is to have the names allocated to one division or the other. Now, we will not quarrel over that. I understand that the proposal is acceptable


George Eulas Foster: Let us be perfectly clear. The right hon. gentleman has nothing further to say with reference to the polling divisions which are not divided by the boundaries of the constituencies?


Wilfrid Laurier: If the polling divisions are not divided by the boundaries of the Dominion constituencies, I do not see any necessity for intervention; it is only where they are divided, so far as I can see, that the necessity for intervention arises.


William James Roche: Before the right hon. gentleman leaves that point, as he has admitted that he sees no reason for interference where the polling subdivisions are entirely within the Dominion constituency, what defence has he to offer for the interference in the last election?


Wilfrid Laurier: My answer is that I am not aware that anything of that kind took place.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Wilfrid Laurier: 


Wilfrid Laurier: Some exception is taken to my statement. I rather welcome this. Let us discuss the point. What I say is that, under the Act as it is at the present time, there is one thing that is permanent, settled for all time. The registration board, as constituted by the Act, is composed of the county judges of the province, which board appoints the revising officers. But who appoints the registration clerks ?
Mr. SCHAFFNER, Revision is whatyou were talking about, not registration.


Wilfrid Laurier: We are talking about both, because both go together. Who appoints the registration clerks? The government of the province of Manitoba. Who fixes the registration districts? The government of the province of Manitoba. Who fixes the revision districts? The government of the province of Manitoba. On this point, I have only to call attention to section 22 of the Act, which is as follows :
22. Annually, on or before the first day of May, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, shall, by order in council, authorize the issuing of a proclamation (form 1 in the schedule to this Act) setting forth:
(1)	That it has been determined to add to, correct and revise the list of electors; -
(2)	The names and post office addresses of the persons appointed by such order in council to act as registration clerks in the respective electoral divisions of the province, for such purposes;
(3)	The date or dates on, the place or places at, and the hours between which applications for registration and the correction and striking off names of electors will be received and shall be concluded in each electoral division.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Will the right hon. gentleman excuse me? Perhaps he will read section 61 also.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will go further than my hon. friend (Mr. Schaffner) asks. I will read not only section 61, but section 42 and section 65 also.
Mr. SCHAFFNER, Read the whole Act. We will stand by the whole Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very well. Here is section 61 :
In order to give full and due effect to the powers of the hoard, the said board may provide for any proceeding, matter or thing for which express provision has not been herein made, or for which only partial provision has been made; or, where it shall be found that the time allowed to do any act is insufficient and an alteration or extension of such time, and any alteration of dates consequent thereon, shall appear to be necessary, the board may declare that such alteration may be made, and thereupon the same shall be made and take effect accordingly.
This is the power of the board. As I understand it is to extend tbe time and to

do anything else they think proper to-carry on their work.
Section 42 contains this also t
In case, by reason of interruptions or other emergency a sitting of the registration clerk is not commenced on the proper day, or is interrupted after being commenced and before the closing thereof, the registration clerk shall resume the registration on the following day and so on from day to day within the hours hereinbefore limited, until the registration sittings have been opened and kept open without interruption, and with free access to persons desiring to be registered, for the full number of days provided in the proclamation to bo issued under the provisions of this Act. The times limited for the registration of electors shall be directory only, and any mistake o" miscarriage in respect thereto shall not invalidate the list of electors of any electoral division.
This seems to be perfectly fair. I have nothing to say against it. On the contrary I would altogether commend it. It provides that if the registration clerk, within the time allotted to him by the proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, has not sufficient time to hear all the applications or to erase names or to do all the work he is commanded to do, he can extend the time.
I would call the attention of my hon. friend who has interrupted me to section 65, subsection 11 :
The revising officer shall also receive and deal with the applications of all persons to be registered as electors who shall be present at the time fixed for the closing of the court of revision, notwithstanding that the time so fixed shall have elapsed.
*Section 42 relates to the duties of the registration clerks ; section 65 relates to the duties of the revising officer. There is a marked difference between the two. I do not know whether it is intentional or accidental, I suppose perhaps it is only accidental, but if it is accidental it has worked serious mischief to some people. Whereas the registration clerk can according to section 42 extend the time not only to receive applications, but to erase names and correct the list in every particular, section 65, subsection 11, gives power to the revising officer to extend the time for receiving applications, but not for the erasing of names. I do not say that this is not accidental, 'but at all events I understand that whereas the registration clerk could and did on more than one occasion extend the time to receive applications and to erase nafcnes, the revising officer would, under certain circumstances on certain occasions, extend the time to receive names, but refused to extend the time for erasing names. Upon this we have the testimony of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford) 'who stated that to his knowledge, in his personal case, in order to have certain names
erased which he could not get erased because the time had expired, he had to bargain with his opponents in order to get a certain number, although he could have doubled the number if the time had been given. But be this as it may, I point out to the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaff-ner) and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche), who are both conversant with this Act, that though I find in this Act power given to the revising officer, though I find power given to the registration clerk to extend the time, I see no power given in this Act to extend or change the locality where the registration is to take place. The Act, section 22, says distinctly, that:
The Governor in Council shall fix the date or dates on, the place or places at, and the hours between which, applications for registration and the correction and striking off names of electors will be received and shall be concluded in each electoral division.
I speak subject to correction, as I have not given to the study of this'Act all the time I would wish, but in my hasty perusal of it I did not find anywhere that the reg-< istration clerk or the revising officers have the power to extend the locality in which the registration is to take place. The order in council says that the registration shall take place at this locality, it shall take place at Beausejour, but you cannot extend it to Lac du Bonnet. It must take place there, and there alone. Is that fair, is that right, is that according to justice? The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) the other day gave an example of its unfairness. He stated to the House that in a certain place, which turned out to be Beausejour, the revising officer, finding that a certain number of men in another settlement in the same registration district, called Lac du Bonnet, could not come to register their names, took upon himself to go to Lac du Bonnet, to extend the place and there he registered the names of thirty qualified electors ; and he stated further that when this registration list was brought to the Attorney General's office the names were simply contemptuously torn from the list and these men were disfranchised. When the hon. member for Lisgar made that speech the other day the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) hastily rose to his feet with this interruption :
Would the hon. member for Lisgar be fair enough to state that Judge Walker, the chairman of the registration board, reported to the government that this officer had held a court of revision illegally, after his certificate had expired.
Yes, Judge Walker actually said that officer was acting illegally. It was contrary to the law of Manitoba-but it was in accordance with natural justice. It is unfortunate that the law of Manitoba and the law of natural justice are not on a par. It was against the law of Manitoba,

but I ask, in all fairness of my hon. friend from Marquette, should this be against the law of Manitoba? Will it be said that such a law should be maintained and are we in this House powerless to remedy such an outrage against duly qualified electors ? Shall it be said that although the law of Manitoba will not allow justice to be done under such circumstances we have to sit still and allow these men to be disfranchised? That is the position in which we are placed and that is one reason why we calne to the conclusion that we had to take some action this year.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) stated the other day, and his statement was repeated by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner), that in 1904 an Act had been drafted to deal with the province of Manitoba, that the Act had been printed, not only drafted, but printed. I wondered at the time if my ears did not deceive me when such a statement was made. If such a Bill had been prepared I would have known something of it, and I have to say here that no Act was drafted in 1904 but the Act which was brought down by the Minister of Justice and which became law. No such Act as has been suggested by the hon. member for Souris and the hon. member for Marquette even was contemplated, although the suggestion may have been made.


William James Roche: Does the Prime Minister say that no Act was contemplated, no Bill was drafted ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No Act was contemplated by tbe government and no Bill was prepared, that I say most decisively.


Mr. STAPLES.: Was such a Bill prepared in 1903 ?


Wilfrid Laurier: So far as mv memory goes, I say with all candour to my hon. friend that no Act was prepared in 1903 or 1904 except the Act which was brought down in 1904. I may say, and why should I not say, that my friends from Manitoba represented to me at that time, as they did since, that the Act of Manitoba was very unfair towards them, especially in the manner in which it was administered. This year we have thought, however, that we should listen to the representations (made to us upon this subject. I consulted the Minister of Justice, I consulted my colleagues, and we determined to bring down the Bill that we have to-day. not, Sir, that we are absolutely wedded to that Bill, not that we are not prepared to receive amendments from our friends, not that we are not ready to try to improve it and amend it so as to give satisfaction, in the very words of my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. W.
J. Roche), to Grit and Tory alike. But, Sir,
I ask my hon. friends if they will not ad-


Wilfrid Laurier: mit that although the legislation which today exists in Manitoba and the manner in which it is administered may be satisfactory to the Tories, it is not satisfactory to the Grits-and that is the reason we have introduced this legislation.
Now, Sir, my hon. friends will tell me that they do not want this legislation. They are absolutely opposed to it because the legislation which we bring forward would place the preparation of the lists, in so far as the province of Manitoba is concerned. in the hands of officers appointed by this government. That is their objection. Let us be frank with one another upon this question. Let us meet on principles which we can all appeal to and which we can all accept. My hon. friend from Marquette and other hon. members on the other side of the House do not want this law to be passed, because, if it were to be passed, it would give the preparation of the lists, not to their own friends, but to our own friends. Now, Sir, will it surprise them very much, if they have no confidence in us, that we should not be burdened by much confidence in them ? If they think it is unfair that the lists upon which they want to go to the election should be prepared by their opponents do they think it is fair that the lists upon which we would have to go to the election should be prepared by our opponents ? Can we not agree therefore to devise a law which will remove the control of the elections both from the Grits and the Tories so as to give satifac-tion to both Grits and Tories ? That is the proposition which I have to make to my hon. friend from Marquette and to all the other hon. gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House. The other day the hon. member for Marquette stated that the lists as prepared were perfectly honest and as evidence of his earnestness in the matter he quoted this article from the ' Telegram ' of Winnipeg in which $25 is offered to every man who presents proof that, being a qualified elector, his name has not been put upon the list:
The ' Telegram ' will pay the sum of $25 to any elector in the province of Manitoba who is not already on the voters' lists who is refused registration if he applies in the regular manner and is legally qualified to vote under our law. Should any claim or claims be made under this offer each case to be referred to Hon. C. J. Mickle, leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition in the Manitoba legislature, from whose decision there shall be no appeal. Should any award be made, one half the amount is to be paid to the elector who has been refused registration and the other half to the Winnipeg General Hospital.
If my hon. friend is so confident of the honesty and accuracy of the lists prepared by this revision perhaps he will agree with me that it would be more in accordance

with the fitness of things if the elector who has been deprived of his vote, whose name has not been plachd upon the list, instead of receiving $25, should have an opportunity of having his name placed upon the list. My hon. friend, 1 suppose, will agree to that ?


William James Roche: The ' Telegram ' newspaper cannot very well place him upon the list.


Wilfrid Laurier: The 'Telegram ' cannot place his name on the list, but this parliament can amend the law so as to give him his vote. Will the hon. gentleman agree to that ? That is the proposition I have to make. The judge who is empowered to adjust the lists will be entrusted with the work of correcting all errors which may have been committed in the preparation of the lists in Manitoba.


William James Roche: The right hon. gentleman says that the lists are now prepared by partisan officials of the provincial government. Does he refer to the registration clerks or the revising barristers ?


Wilfrid Laurier: To the registration clerks.


William James Roche: Will the right hon. gentleman point out some of the abuses committed by the registration clerks ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William James Roche: There is no use of making a declaration if you cannot prove it.


Wilfrid Laurier: My answer is simply this : If the lists upon which this House is to be elected are to be prepared by officers appointed by this government, would you call them partisan officials ?


William James Roche: I would like to point out to the right hon. gentleman that the registration clerks do not prepare the lists ; they accept the affidavits of the elector who makes application for personal registration. The registration clerk cannot put the elector's name on the list without an affidavit.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is simply another way of looking at the question. I will put the question again. It is a play upon words and nothing else. If this Bill becomes law and if the registration clerk is appointed by this government will my hon. friend be satisfied ?


William James Roche: I will if you apply the same law to every province in the Dominion. We are not going to be singled out.


Wilfrid Laurier: We will not apply the same law to the other provinces of the Dominion, because in the province of Ontario and the other provinces the lists are prepared by the municipal officers.


Mr. LANCASTER.: The lists are not prepared. where there is registration, by the municipal clerks, but they are prepared by the registration clerks.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) is in error. I do not know the province of Ontario as well as he does, but in rural Ontario the lists are prepared by the municipal councils.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is no registration in rural Ontario.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no registration in rural Ontario. In certain cities there is registration, but it is a drop in the bucket. There are only a few cities in which there is registration. In rural Ontario the lists are prepared by municipal councils.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where there is registration in Ontario the registration clerks are appointed by the provincial government.


Wilfrid Laurier: Possibly. We do not touch them. My hon. friend does not find fault with that. But, I say this to my hon. friend from Marquette : He proposes that we shall apply the same principle everywhere, but I say that elsewhere tthe lists are prepared by the municipal authorities.


William James Roche: The right hon. gentleman has not answered my question. Will he point out abuses committed by the registration clerks and unfairness towards their opponents.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have only to refer my hon. friend to the speech of my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Jackson), to the speech of my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford) and to the speech of my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Greenway). These are the evidences that I have. I have to say this to my hon. friend ; he will take my suggestion for what it is worth, he will accept it or not accept it, but I think we shall have a fair basis upon which to prepare the lists for the election, without any suspicion on the part of anybody, if the lists are prepared altogether under judicial authority.
Now, Sir, I have said enough with respect to the province of Manitoba. I come now to the other provisions of the Bill. The Bill was prepared with an object and upon a general principle and that principle was that wherever there is no municipal registration or municipal preparation of the lists we shall entrust the preparation of the lists to the authority provided for by this Bill. I listened the other day to the speech of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in so far as this provision related to Quebec. I must say that I listened to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier with a mingled feeling -of curiosity and pain. My

hon. friend was at once alarmed and bellicose. He was alarmed because he saw In the unorganized districts of Quebec visions of Syrians, Italians, and other foreigners being put on the lists along the line of the Transcontinental railway. I think my hon. friend need not be alarmed upon this question. It is said that beauty is in the eye of the gazer. It looks very much as if scandal was very much in the eye of the gazer. Scandal exists in the imagination of my hon. friend and he believes that we have a sinister motive in view. If this Bill were passed and if authority were given in the unorganized portions of Quebec to have the lists prepared how could the Grand Trunk Pacific come into play ?
Where would it be ? Would it be the county of Montcalm, or of Joliette or of any of these counties which extend to the Hudson bay, or would it be beyond the mountains? How could the registration officer or the revising officer go to the line of the Transcontinental Railway in order to make a list? I do not think that argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is very serious, but he made a plea to maintain our system and with that idea I am very much in accord, when the system is right. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) argued that in the province of Quebec there is no unorganized territory, because if a territory is unorganized it is placed under the jurisdiction of a county council. Let me explain to the hon. gentlemen from other parts of Canada that our municipal system in Quebec is the same as in Ontario; we have local councils in every municipality, our municipalities are townships, villages and parishes, and the mayors of all the local municipalities are the members of the county council. But there is a provision in our municipal code, peculiar to that code so far as I am aware, which says that if there is in any county a territory which is unorganized it is placed under the supervision of the county council. That is a very wise provision, but I do not think it can be construed to the length my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) would construe it.
I understand that the county council has jurisdiction over all municipal matters which are to be found within the code-for instance, if the unorganized territory in any of these counties needs roads, the county council would deal with that, or if there is a by-law to be passed in favour of the prohibition of the liquor traffic the powers of the municipal council would apply to that. But I fail to see within the four corners of the municipal code any provision which gives to the secretary-treasurer of the municipal council the duty of making electoral lists in those territories, and in our province these lists are prepared by the secretary-treasurer under the supervision of the council. This power is not given to them under the municipal code but by the Election Act, which says :
Sir WILFRID LAURIER,
The secretary-treasurer of each municipality shall, between the 1st and 15th day of the month of March, annually make in duplicate subdivided for each polling subdivision a list in alphabetical order of all persons who according to the valuation roll then in force in the municipality for municipal purposes appear to be electors by reason of the real estate possessed or occupied by them in any manner within the municipality or by reason of being otherwise qualified as set forth in article 9.
Does my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) believe that this article which places on the secretary-treasurer of local councils the duty of preparing these lists, can be applied to the secretary-treasurer of the county councils. I have very serious doubt as to that. I have not had an opportunity yet of conferring with the Minister of Justice on that question, but if my hon. friend's view is correct I will be more than pleased ; if his view is correct the province of Quebec would be beyond the jurisdiction of this Act and that should be satisfactory to him as it is to me.
With regard to the other provinces I do not think I should say much more.
Now, revising the whole question It is beyond doubt that we should have an election law; that we should improve the electoral Act, that we should give satisfaction to public opinion which has imperatively demanded a new election law. Viewing the debate as It has proceeded up to the present, I think I can say that no system of preparing the lists will be satisfactory to this side or to the other side if it is to be made for party purposes either by the Dominion government or by any provincial government.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: In view of the very grave irregularities which have been pointed out and proven with regard to the making up of voters' lists In the unorganized territory of Ontario, would the right hon. gentleman suggest whether there is to be any improvement in the law ?


Wilfrid Laurier: As I stated a moment ago, if it be agreeable to my hon. friends on the other side I am disposed to leave the preparation of the lists in northern Ontario, not to any partisan officer, but to place It altogether under the control of the judges. That I am prepared to do.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What judges ?


Wilfrid Laurier: We will come to that when we are in committee. I shall be only too glad to receive the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce). I am not entering into this with any preconceived opinion; I am disposed to receive the suggestion of my hon. friend and perhaps I will be glad to avail myself of his services. We are all interested in this question. In conclusion I have simply this to say-my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has

appealed to me and I also appeal to him.
I appeal to him in the name of fairness, of broad equity, of natural justice, to help us to frame an Act which will place the whole machinery of the preparation of the lists under judicial authority so as to give satisfaction to Grit and Tory and so that when an election takes place sooner or later the voice of the people absolutely untrammelled may be given expression to. That is the position which we take and that is the position which we place before the House and before the country.


George Eulas Foster: My right hon. friend has not said anything about the ballot.


Wilfrid Laurier: On that question I must say that in my opinion very little justice has been done to my hon friend the Minister of Justice. There is no such intention as has been attributed to my hon. friend to try and tamper with the secrecy of the ballot. What we have in mind is to prevent if possible a recurrence of what has taken place when the voice of the people in certain elections has been baffled and set aside by the intervention of mere technicalities. I have to say that upon this point and upon every other point of this Bill we are prepared to receive suggestions, to amend the Bill if necessary so as to give effect to the policy contained in it, which is the secrecy of the ballot without stifling the voice of the people as pronounced by them. Should we say that it is impossible to prevent what has taken place in certain constituencies; should we say that we cannot frame an Act which will preserve the secrecy of the ballot and at the same time to prevent a recurrence of such a thing as that a man who has been honestly elected to this House by the people could not take his seat ?


Mr. ALCORN.: Has the right hon. gentleman mapped out or has he in mind any modus operandi by which his new lists will be made altogether under judicial authority.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think so. I think we will be prepared to do so at the proper time when we are in committee.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, the debate upon this Bill has been proceeding now well on into the second week, and up to the present time we on this side of the House have been noting particularly the evidence and testimony adduced which might be considered a sufficient basis upon which the very drastic legislation contemplated in this Bill has been founded. The evidence and testimony upon which to base legislation of this kind ought to be, I think, more than hearsay and more than mere assertion. Now, whether we are right or wrong, from the time the Minister of Justice took his feet to explain this Bill until the last gentleman on that side of the House finished his speech last evening, I 265
am free to say for myself that the evidence and the testimony has been of the most unreliable, illusory and unsatisfactory nature. I am on my feet to declare that if you submit the speech of the Minister of Justice to a critical analysis, what with the actual misrepresentation of facts, what with the hearsay and allegation of what might have been or what might not have been, take those all out, and you have scarcely anything left, in that speech. I had thought to submit a little analysis of it, even at the risk of repeating what was so well done by my friend Dr. Schaffner, from Souris, last night; but it was done to a very thin House. Then we have the hon. gentleman from Lisgar (Mr. Greenway), who was an actor in the legislative and political history of Manitoba, from whom we ought to have had precept upon precept and line upon line and proof for every assertion. Boil down the speech of my hon. friend from Lisgar, and you reduce it in the main to a mere froth of assumption and of hearsay. Then I followed, very closely that most remarkable exhibition, the speech of the member for Winnipeg (Mr. Bole). I understand that tnat hon. gentleman does not propose to go back again to Winnipeg to ask for the suffrages of the people. If this last performances of his in this House can have any weight, ought to be taken into consideration, is it too much for me to say that I think the people of Winnipeg may well be congratulated? Then, I listened, and read after listening, the speech of the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford), and I defy any one to take that speech and thoroughly analyse it, and find any large basis of fact in it. And to-day I have listened to the speech of my right hon. friend the leader of the government, and, Mr. Speaker, I ask you, just fresh from that speech, where is the body of proof given by my right hon. friend upon which to base a grievance sufficiently large and sufficiently grave to justify this House in adopting this drastic legislation which he has proposed. If there had been an investigation into alleged grievances in 'Manitoba, with reference to the work of the registration clerks or with reference to the work of the revising officers, and if out of that investigation, carried on fairly, reasonably, and according to terms of law, there had been presented to this House sufficient evidence that a fraud was being perpetrated, that a hostile attitude was being taken by the legislature of Manitoba towards this Dominion government with reference to one-half of its people allied to his party, then, Sir, he would have had good ground upon which to base drastic legislation, and then the proviso stated by my right hon. friend and alluded to by my hon. friend at my side (Mr. R. L. Borden), that such a state of circumstances might arise in a province, in its attitude and in its action towards a



party in this House, which would justify some action on the part of this House. But, Sir, we have had no investigation, we have had no proof; we have had simply assertion of the most allusory and unsatisfactory kind. Against all that I put this one consideration, and it is a consideration which I put to the man on the street, to the man 'who is unpartisan, to the man who simply wants to be fair, and I put it to my right hon. friend. It is this: You have a party in the province of Manitoba, the Liberal party of that province; they are your supporters m this House; without their action you would not have a Liberal supporter from the province of Manitoba. That party has its home and its existence in that province of Manitoba. It is vitally interested in provincial politics as well as in Dominion politics-may we not say more interested in provincial politics than in Dominion politics? Your party of men in the province of Manitoba is to-day well officered, intelligent, has its organs of public opinion to express its position and to expose its grievances if it has any. in the House of Winnipeg to-dav you have one of the best men of the Liberal party, I think, the Hon. Mr. IMickle, who represents that party in the province of Manitoba. He is an old politician; the history of politics in that country is contemporaneous with himself; he has worked through it, lived through it, knows of it as an active partaker in the political life of that province. If this condition of things exists in the province of Manitoba, it exists as a tyranny and oppression of the Liberals as far as they are concerned provincially just the same as it does as far as Y'i c?ncerned federally, is that not absolutely time? Are we to consider that if those grievances, if those acts of oppres-ty^nny and fraud, are absolutely true, the Liberals of the province of Manitoba sit down quietly under that state of thmgs, and neither through their organs of public opinion-I would not say so much about that-nor through their representatives in the provincial legislature have thev made any move of warfare, opposition or ^""dment with reference to that state of
Take a concrete example and it serves here splendidly. There was your representative from Winnipeg-doing what? A gentleman in the provincial legislature because w2i'Z?ni' mo^e/ban a year ago, of an alleged dirty and dastardly attempt to put 450 foreign voters on the naturalization lists and on the voters' lists for the province of Manitoba-in the city of Winnipeg, if I remember right. That is knowledge which comes to him. He knows it because he paid for it or gave his cheque to pay for it. He knows it because he procured those affidavits, because he read those affidavits because he was alongside Rud-neski and the other gentlemen who swore Mr. FOSTER.
to the affidavits. He bought the live carcass more than a year ago, but up to the present day he has not presented the animal to the provincial legislature. But he hands over the dead carcass to the selected purveyor of that sort of thing the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr Bole), and that member brings into this House the carcass, ill smelling and decayed, on a silver salver and presents it to my right hon. friend, and he calls it sweet meat. What does my hon. friend think of that ? With what applause was not the reading of those affidavits received-those affidavits which the hon. gentleman who procured them and paid for them, and had for more than a year in his possession, did not dare offer at home. But a thousand miles away was the theatre where they could be presented to the applause of the right hon. gentleman and all honourable Liberals who support him in this House. I am willing that this matter be judged by that simple proof. Show me a vote among the provincial Liberals in the province of Manitoba, show me a debate in the provincial legislature in Manitoba, show me a grievance ventilated in that legislature, show me a single amendment proposed in that legislature, show me one move made by honest thinking men there writh regard to those grievances which press down so severely on the party opposite. There is a challenge to my right hon. friend. Let him point out one protest in the local legislature of that province. My right hon. friend cannot do it. But he is willing to take these old, decayed and dastardly affidavits, brought Into this House, as the proof upon which he comes with this radical legislation and proposes to carry it through willy nilly. The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr Bole) read affidavits from these men ; and on the very face of them, they were men who were absolutely without conscience and without principle- because they swore that they did everything that was illegal and wrong with reference to the naturalization and the putting of names on the lists, and they did that for pay. That is the herd with which the hon. member for Winnipeg runs. That-is the herd with which-my right hon. friend runs. For he himself applauded the reading of those affidavits.
I saw him applauding. Affidavits of that kind brought down 1,000 miles from the scene of the transaction, where they were ashamed to deploy it, and those men's affidavits put up here to traduce throughout the whole .Dominion of Canada, by being spread on the records of the Dominion, honourable men and honourable officials in the city of Winnipeg, in the Manitoba government and in Manitoba public life ! That T leave with gentlemen who have such peculiar ideas of their position and rights in this House as the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Bole). And it is the saddest of things for me to know that that was applauded by my right hon. friend and by. other gentle-

men on that side of the House. Now how do you explain the absolute inaction under this tremendous pile of grievances and wrong-inaction absolute and positive of the Liberal party in local affairs in the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba? Has my righ thou, friend any explanation to give ? Is there any explanation of it ? If there is an explanation, is it not this, that the men who are closest to it know that there is nothing in it, and the men that are furthest away, it is thought can be bamboozled by reckless statements ? At Winnipeg where the people live, in Manitoba where they know this sort of talk the assertion would not go down. That is the reason it is not employed there. The distance is the reason it is employed here. More than that, will my right hon. friend deny that the Hon. Mr. Mickle has stated in the local legislature that the present Manitoba law Is fairly good legislation and the best they have had in that province in his political experience? There is your local leader-will my right hon. friend give any credence at all to this local leader in the Manitoba legislature ? Or will he rather take the Rudneski affidavits, brought by the hon. member for Winnipeg, as a proof, against the woi-d of the leader of his party in the local legislature ?
We have waited a long while for legislation with reference to an election law. It has been long promised and is much needed. It has been looked for widely. At last it comes down, and when it comes down, what is it ? Take the speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth). For all that fell from him, this Bill consists absolutely of one clause and one only. That is the clause for taking over the franchises of Manitoba and British Columbia and the unorganized territories. In his speech the Minister of Justice gave more than 'three quarters of his time to section number 1 of this Bill and very cursory attention, if any, to the other sections.
What is this Bill when we come to look at it ? It is remarkable for what it does not include. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) briefly enumerated what it does not include that it might have included. No provision is made for simultaneous polling, that is, that all the constituencies of the Dominion, with the possible exception of the Yukon, shall have polling on the same day. The present method is an abuse. There is no reason why the polling should not be simultaneous. But the Minister of Justice Was too busy with section 1 of this Bill to think about the simultaneous polling. And what about the other flagrant abuse practically carried on by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) of allowing a constituency to remain unrepresented indefinitely in this House because of partisan and political difficulties which remain to be cured? Is it not an outrage upon the rights of the 265$
people, upon all principles of good government, that an electoral unit should remain unrepresented in this House for a longer time than is actually and reasonably necessary to bring about an election? There is nothing in this Bill to make it necessary that by-elections shall be held within a reasonable time, or to provide that, if there be more than one vacancy, the elections shall take place simultaneously. There is nothing of improved machinery, either as regards methods or appointees, with the exception of one or two technical improvements, as, for instance, in the service of writs in election protests and so on. There is nothing to prevent that abuse, which has been growing under this government, of using government officials as active political partisans. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) made, I think, a very great slip the other night, a slip which shows that he at least, whatever may be true of the government as a whole, has not the least idea of the principle involved or of the gravity of this matter. What is the fact of the case? The fact is that the government use their officials, dressed in its authority-and every Dominion official has a certain authority by virtue of being a Dominion official-to help their party in their election contests, making of the officials, in many cases, almost permanent electioneering clerks. The Minister of the Interior tried to excuse one case by saying that, though he had one Dominion official with him in an election contest, the official -vvas not a permanent employee, or was paid a very small salary. The salary has nothing at all to do with the matter, in my estimation. The gravamen of the charge is that the official is dressed in government authority and yet represents the party in power. It makes no difference whether he receives $300 a year or $3,000 a year; the bad principle is in allowing that kind of influence to be exerted. The right horn Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has been profuse in professions. With the assistance of his supporters he has helped to carry unanimously in this House a resolution that officials should not be allowed to take a partisan part in elections. Yet there is nothing in this Bill to carry that out-profession and profession only; when it comes to the practical fulfilment of the professions here in this Bill, simply nothing is done. How about that growing evil, that growing scandal in this country, of using public works and promises of expenditure of public money in special cases at by-elections or otherwise in order to influence the voters in favour of the government? Everywhere, in properly constituted countries, this is considered a wrong. It is a growing and grievous wrong In this country, yet there is nothing in this Bill to prevent it. The exatopies which we have had within the last two years of the use made by ministers and others of that kind of in-

fluence have been so gross, so unconcealed that the independent press of this country has launched its vigorous opposition against it, and thinking men all over the country are condemning it more and more. Yet where is the clause in this Bill that applies to that? Then, Sir, there are no * adequate penalities for certain election crimes such as have been shown to exist through the action of the courts within the last year or two. And, more than that, there is no effective power to carry the election law into effect, so that these crimes declared to be crimes by the law shall be exposed and the evil-doers punished.
I have said that there are two or three satisfactory technical amendments. But one change that is made seems to allow a method of legal corruption. The Bill-[DOT]' whatever may be meant by it-authorizes incorporated companies for political purposes only to distribute alms without incurring the penalties of the law. There is a vista opening before us; there is a provision of jvonderful possibilities. We have no explanation of it from any hon. gentleman who has spoken on the side of the government. We do not know what it means, but it seems to be a peculiar proposition and one that may lead to great abuses. Then we have in this Bill an attack upon tlie secrecy of the ballot. After seven days' debate, after the clause had been attacked right and left, the first light that we are given upon it is the statement made by the Prime Minister that his Minister of Justice did not mean what the clause says; That is what the right hon. gentleman's statement amounts to. And he says the Minister of Justice has been very unfairly criticised in the statement that this means a departure from the secrecy of the ballot. The section says :
Provided, however, that no ballot paper shall be rejected on account of any writings, number or mark placed thereon by any deputy returning officer.
That is as wide as it can be made. It covers any kind of combination or series of combination. It opens the way for the purchase of votes, because it provides a method by which the vote can be identified. Any deputy returning officer of the calibre of hundreds of deputy returning officers of whom we have had experience in this country could, under that plenary power, make it possible for the party that he stands in with-and he is a partisan appointee- to make their negotiations upon the basis of absolute certainty and to have the ballots marked so that they can be absolutely identified and that payment can be arranged for with absolute certainty that it can be known whether the goods are or are not delivered. The very fact that this provision is in the Bill will raise fear in the mind of every dependent, of every poor man who would rather conceal the way in


Mr.   POSTER@: which he votes, the man who labours for a corporation or for a master who would try to influence his vote-that there is no use, that it is impossible for him to escape, that his ballot will be identified and the way in which he votes will become known. That is the first thing. But the second thing is what I have spoken of, that it opens an organized, trustworthy and certain method of clinching the wrongful negotiations that take place for the purchase and sale of votes.
My right hon. friend says that the minister has been unduly criticised. What criticism could there be ? The minister himself never opened his mouth upon it, he did not explain it, his explanation is in the clause and the clause, I have read. What we suppose is that the clause means what it says, and if it means what it says it certainly is open to criticism of the most stringent and vehement kind. The Bill does something else, it provides for a partisan division of electors in divided polling subdivisions. That remark is absolutely true as far as the Bill goes, as far as the arguments to support the Bill up to this date go, because every gentleman who has spoken on that side has gone upon the Bill and has lapproved of the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill. To-day my right hon. friend says that he will delete partisanship entirely from the redistribution of voters and will have the redistribution conducted entirely by county court judges. That is not the Bill, but why did the right hon. gentleman, if that was the intention of the Bill ot1 his intention, waste the time of this House for seven long days, keep back the business of the country at this late time of the session, imperil the wages of working men and civil servants all through this country and then, at this late day, announce that he has agreed to delete partisanship from that portion of it ? We agree absolutely in this, that if it is necessary, as it is, to have overlapping polling subdivisions distributed-I agree to that, we all agree to that- any reasonable legislation which is non-partisan and competent legislation will receive the support of this side of the House so far as that delimination is concerned. My hon. friend who leads the government said that on Tuesday last.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who leads the opposition ?


George Eulas Foster: The government soon to be-stated that in explicit language and yet for these whole eight days the debate lias gone on and it is only at this late moment that the right hon. gentleman concedes the point. We agree to accept the concession. It was our principle laid down at the first and we congratulate the right hon. gentleman on acceding to the justice and reasonableness of the demand which has been made in that respect.

I put two questions to my right hon. friend in order that we may be clear upon this. This overlapping is to be interpreted as referring to the polling subdivisions which are cut by the boundary of the federal constituency and to no others ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: And this work contemplated in that first section is to apply to that kind of polling division and to no other ? There we are agreed.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: The astounding thing about it, and what makes me discount my right hon. friend's proof, or what he thinks is proof and evidence sufficient to make this legislation necessary, is that my right hon. friend has sat in this House for eight days, has listened to the whole discussion and did not know until this afternoon, and may be does not know yet, fo'r he says he does not, that the returning officers in 1904 went beyond the overlapping polling divisions and redistributed the polling divisions whieh were absolutely within the boundaries of the federal constituency and that two-thirds of the cases in which they interfered were polling divisions of that kind and not polling divisions which were intersected by the boundary of the Dominion or federal constituency. More news for my right hon. friend probably. No prosecution was launched against a returning officer in Man-toba for what he did in 1904 in so far as his action was concerned alone with an overlapping polling division. The returning officers were prosecuted because they went beyond the power given by the Dominion Act, and, after having distributed the overlapping polling divisions, went to work and redistributed large numbers of the polling divisions in Manitoba which were not overlapping and which they should not have touched. My right hon. friend will find that to be true. How could they institute a prosecution against your returning officer if he did simply and only what your Act authorizes him to do ? What your Act authorized him to do was to distribute the names in an overlapping intersected polling division. For that Manitoba brought no prosecution, the prosecutions were for interference with polling divisions inside a constituency which were not intersected at all.


Mr. CLARKE.: Where did they distribute those inside ?


George Eulas Foster: The Lord knows. They distributed them all through, they took off one and added to another all over the province and the hero Leach, to whose defence my right hon. friend came this afternoon, the hero, the moral reformer, Leach, who did this work largely as Liberal organizer
for the returning offiers, swore in his testimony that he took good care, mighty good care that the Liberal-Conservatives did not know what they were doing and did not get on the track of the redistribution that was made. My right hon. friend will not question that; it is in ' Hansard.' .
I ask my right hon. friend to think for a moment of the situation of things in 1904 in connection with that business of the thin red line, as he calls it-I ask him to sense the position. He gave orders under the law to the returning officers to distribute the overlapping polling divisions, that was legal, they had a right to do it. Does he consider that it was right that when the returning officer received the King's Printer's list which was for him and his deputy returning officers alone, he should send it, or take it to the rooms of the Liberal organizer of the city of Winnipeg, give the list into his hands for days, tell him to do practically what he liked with them, and then when it was finally received from Mr. Leach's office, without looking through or certifying to himself in any respect that that list had not been wrongly tampered with, use it as the official list ? Does he consider that was proper ? That is the gravamen of the red line business. What would you think if within the province of Ontario you were to send out the King's Printer's list to the returning officers and that these returning officers around about the city of Toronto should bring those lists in to the Liberal organizer of the province of Ontario, Mr. Inwood, deliver them over into his hands, and if there was the same overlapping in the province of Ontario, have him do the redistributing secretly, stealing a march on his opponents and then simply use the lists that had been arranged in Mr. Inwood's office. How would he consider action of that kind? He would believe with me that it would raise a revolution in the province of Ontario. It was absolutely that and nothing else than that that Leach did. But Mr. Leach was not an officer of the Dominion government quoad the electoral lists. It was the returning officer who put these into the hands of Mr. Leach who was the criminal. Mr. Leach is a man of judgment and common sense. Does the right hon. Prime Minister think that it is the highest type of man who takes hold of lists, given to him by a returning officer, sworn to keep these lists and to certify to them himself, sworn to do what is neces-' sary in the way of rearranging the voters' lists, does my right hon. friend think that it is indicative of a finely spirited and finely conscienced man, one to make a hero of, who, as organizer for the province of Manitoba, would take these lists and erase and add to them, do it through the whole province of Manitoba, and do it to the detriment of the party to which he is opposed, taking good care that they shall not know

anything of what he is doing? I want to ask the right hon. gentleman if he thinks that is the right kind of a man and the right kind of a spirit or if that is a thing for a high spirited and honourable man to do. Surely politics is not one vast trickery. Surely an honourably minded man would have said to this deputy returning officer, Duggan: I cannot do anything with your lists; I have no right to; you are the man to make these rearrangements; go to work and rearrange your own lists. An honourable man would have said that. But, this gentleman leapt at the chance, took to himself the lists, made erasures and changes absolutely disfranchising voter after voter, and he was the means by which the present hon. member for the constituency sits in this House by his present majority of ten. My right hon. friend denied that Mr. Leach disfranchised a single man. Well, technically my right hon. friend may be right. Leach could not disfranchise a man, he had not the power, but, if, through the co-operation, the willing co-operation of Duggan, he manipulated the list so that man after man, Conservative after Conservative, was left off from his proper polling place and therefore could not and did not get his vote in, what does it amount to in the end ? It amounts to the disfranchisement of every man whose name was striken off that list Technically you may say that Mr. Leach did not disfranchise him, technically you may say that the returning officer disfranchised him, but Leach was the representative of the returning officer and he possessed the knowledge which enabled him to do this work that Duggan himself could not have done. And yet, in that polling place and in that constituency Duggaii had been fifteen .years a resident and knew the people. Leach was not a resident and did not know the people except through his greater knowledge as ofganizer for the Liberal party and through the men he had at his heck and call all through the province. Now, Sir, I contend that no small tribute of mitigated praise from the ' West ' of Begina with reference to Mr. Leach's making some fair turn in reference to the distribution of seed grain is anything to set against that kind of conduct. It stamps Leach as being of the same pattern as Rudneski. Is that too strong a phrase ?
I stand by it. Rudneski did what he did wrongfully, knowing that it was wrong because he was paid for it. Leach did what he did wrongfully knowing that it was unfair and illegal and lie did it receiving pay as organizer for that party and receiving the rewards of that party. What is the difference between Rudneski and Leach ? Only this, that Leach had probably a Biblical education and should have and did know better. But Rudneski did not have that advantage. The first part of his name Mr: POSTER.
may be an index of the character of his training.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC BRANCH LINES.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the House to go into Committee of the Whole on :
Bill (No 151) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company-Mr. Crawford.
Wilfrid Laurier: Stand.


Mr. LENNOX.: I have no objection to the Bill standing but I will not be here on Friday when it may come up.


Wilfrid Laurier: It can be taken on Monday.


Haughton Lennox: Yes.



BELLEVILLE, PRINCE EDWARD BRIDGE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 20) respecting the Belleville Prince Edward Bridge Company-Mr. Porter.
Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill is not here; perhaps he wishes to speak on it. I move that progress be reported.
Progress reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-1THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 131) respecting the Occidental Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Ross (Yale-Cariboo).
Bill (No. 137) respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company.-Mr Dyrnent.
Bill (No. 155) respecting the Pontiac Central Railway Company.-Mr. Bickerdike.

[Stage Direction]
The hour for private Bills having expired, the House resumed consideration of the second reading of Bill (No. 115) to amend the Dominion Elections Act and the proposed amendment of Mr. W. J. Roche thereto.
George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, I come now to the remaining and vital proposal in the Bill, namely, the proposal to seize the Brit-

ish Columbia and Manitoba franchises and that of the unorganized territory in Ontario and Quebec, take them from the provincial authorities and jurisdiction, and hand them over to the partisan officers of the Dominion government; for we must take the Bill exactly as it is, and on the face of the Bill that is plainly written. We can also interpret the Bill by the past action of the government, and I propose to cite some instances of the past action of the government under a clause of this kind. What then was the principal proposal of the Bill ? That which I have mentioned ; but, Mr. Speaker, it was not an open proposal. It was a concealed proposal. It was a part of the Bill which was at first almost if not entirely ignored. When the Minister of Justice introduced his Bill he did not even mention, or if he mentioned it was very slightly indeed, this proposal in the Bill, and a person listening to his exposition of it* as he introduced it would be absolutely ignorant that such a drastic and far-reaching and subversive proposal was concealed within the Bill. That was scarcely fair to the country or to the House. The country gets its idea of a Bill from its introduction by the responsible minister, and very many people, whilst they read the introductory remarks, probably form their opinion from these, and either do not have it shaken or do not see subsequent discussions which might shake it. That fact is patent; I do not think it can be denied. It was concealed as well as ignored, for when the second reading came to be moved, the same Minister of Justice devoted the largest part of his time to the grievance which was involved in the overlapping of the polling subdivisions, and it was a very small proportion of his time that he devoted to that portion of the Bill which gives this government through its partisan officers complete control of the lists of two provinces and of the unorganized territory in the two greater eastern provinces. That is patent; that cannot be denied. But the matter began to leak out when the supporters of the government came to discuss the Bill. Then very little was said about the overlapping clauses, but they pegged away at making a foundation if possible, to prove that the lists as they were prepared by the Manitoba authorities were unfair lists, unjust lists, incomplete lists, dead and decayed lists, and that no fair-play could be given to the party at present in power under these lists. And so, as man after man from the west arose, that point came to be prominent, until at last it overshadowed, as it should have overshadowed, every other provision in the Bill, in the estimation and desire of the government which introduced it. Today. then, we are discussing, and have been for the last week almost entirely that one proposition, that vital proposition. Well, Sir, what is that proposition, as we read it in the Bill ? Am I going too far in saying
that it proposes to take the Manitoba and British Columbia lists, using them as a basis, whatever that may mean ; and it proposes to go on, by its own revising officers and its own government and party machinery, to make a list; and it expressly states that the voters upon these lists, as finally prepared in that way, are the only persons who shall have a vote for Dominion elections in those provinces and territories.


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS.: Will the hon. gentleman excuse me? There must be some misunderstanding in connection with this thing. As I understand it, the Bill does not disturb in any way the revising barristers in those provinces, and under the provincial lists the revising barristers are county court judges.
Mr. FOSTER, Now if the hon. gentleman will take his seat and exercise his patience,
I will deal with that in a little while-two things which it will not be difficult, I am sure, for my hon. friend to do.


Duncan Ross: I am asking for information, that is all.


George Eulas Foster: I know that my hon. friend wants information, and, more than that, if he only knew it, he needs it. That, then, is borne on the face of the Bill as it appears in section 1. What does that involve ? You talk about the old Dominion Franchise Law of 1885 ; but the lists that were prepared under that law were not rush lists, or emergency lists. They were lists provided for times set in advance, leisurely undertaken, leisurely carried out, not in the heat and turmoil of an election contest. What does this precious Bill propose? It does not propose that the Dominion shall stretch out its greedy hands and seize the franchise of these two great provinces until after the writs are issued. What does this mean ? It means that when a writ is issued, within probably twenty-eight days from that time the elections are held. It means that these lists, if they are to be prepared in any way by means of which reasonable revision shall be had, have a very sfliall portion of time in which they can be brought to the point of revision. It means that ,as they must be printed and in the hands of the returning officers a reasonable time before polling day, the limit of twenty-eight days is considerably shortened. What have you ? The wTrits are issued. Then this government has to communicate with their officers in every Dominion polling division in the unorganized territories of Quebec and Ontario, in Manitoba and in British Columbia. And these are distant places. What kind of communication can you have? Communication & la Mr. Richard Scott, by telegram and telegram only, without instructions of any kind ? Is that the kind of communication which is to be had ? It


Mr. CRAWFORD.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) allow me a question ? How could we do it in sixteen days, as provided in the order issued in the ' Gazette ' in Manitoba at the present time?


George Eulas Foster: In Manitoba the proclamation is issued on the first of May and the revision is to be completed by the first of July-two months for the operation and in the best season of the year. And the time given for registration under present conditions is ample and the notice that is given for registration is from ten days up to thirty days.


John Crawford: If the hon. gentleman will allow me


George Eulas Foster: I cannot afford


John Crawford: The rest of us have to wait for you sometimes.


George Eulas Foster: Oh, very well.


John Crawford: In the Beautiful Plains electoral division only sixteen days is allowed from the time the registration begins until the operation is finished.


William James Roche: And how many days' notice prior to registration? At least ten days.


George Eulas Foster: How much notice was given in Beautiful Plains?


John Crawford: I am speaking of the time allowed in which to do the work.


George Eulas Foster: How much notice was given. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crawford) may answer


John Crawford: I have not the ' Gazette ' before me.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman does not wish to answer. That is the kind of information my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is going upon-information given by a man, who, when he is asked a direct question, dare not answer it.


Mr. GAELIHER.: Can you put on voters during the time of notice that is given ? You cannot.


George Eulas Foster: You have to register within the sixteen days and then comes the revision and these are two different operations.


John Crawford: But the time for registration and revision has been fixed at sixteen days.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose I admit that in the case of Beautiful Plains. Will my hon. friend (Mr. Crawford) be honest-thoroughly honest-and say in how many cases that takes place out of the forty-one divisions ?


John Crawford: In Gladstone, the adjoining constituency, it is seventeen days.


George Eulas Foster: gistration board of Manitoba, a board ofl judges, and one Alexander Macleod, a partisan of the minister, was appointed sole revising board. And every registration clerk was a partisan of Mr. Sifton, and the whole registration and revision was done in defiance of the Jaw of Manitoba, done by this government and by the various partisans of the minister who was running the election. If they do this under a less full legal authorization, what will they do when they get all they want in the shape of legislation?
Now, take the West Algoma case. An election was called in the unorganized districts. The writ was issued on the 25th of August. On the 27th of August your men had received telegram No. 1 from Hon. Richard W. Scott, Secretary of State, and on that day the enumerators started out to make up nine polls. And on the 2nd of September every one of those polls was made up and the enumerators were back and ready to have their lists printed. Did they follow out the law of Ontario? The law of Ontario was absolutely smashed into atoms by the mere telegram of the secretary of my right hon. friend's government. Does he deny it? Where was the notice that was given? Before the candidate of the Liberal Conservative party knew anything about the electors being registered what was shown him? Five hundred and forty-three names made out, absolutely settled with the exception of revision, shoved under his nose and this enumeration was done in less than six days. Did they tell him that there was going to be a registration at such and such and such a place ? They absolutely concealed it, and concealed it from every Liberal-Conservative. The candidate of the government was the (man who appointed the enumerators, was the man who appointed the revising judge and was the man who, as clerk of the peace, held the lists and had them in his possession after they were made. Are these fair methods? Is that honourable treatment? Does my right hon. friend wonder that the Liberal-Conservatives in this House, with those two examples before them of the work of my right hon. friend and his ministry, view with suspicion and with dread this legislation? Take the Manitoba case of 1904: The lists were made; they wrere printed; they were complete; they were sent out to the returning officers, the returning officer under the law was to look after and distribute the voters in the overlapping and intersected polling divisions. What took place. Sir? With every Liberal-Conservative that could possibly be kept in the dark, kept in the dark-for there is Mr. Leach's oath, and Mr. Leach is an eminently respectable and heroic figure, the right hon. gentleman declares it-I believe his oath, and on his oath he declared that he doctored nearly all the polling divisions in the province of Manitoba and that he took mighty


George Eulas Foster: good care that the other fellows did not know what was going on. I appeal to any man on that side whether that is playing the game fair? Now, is it? I have every hope that if the hon. member for British Columbia, who is smiling at me, were to get up and in his manly fashion say exactly what he thinks he would say that is not playing the game fairly. My right hon. friend was at a press dinner and by his sale was the present Speaker. Mr. Speaker gave us a noble recitation and the refrain of every verse of that recitation was 'Play up, play up and play the game.' I would like to have Mr. Speaker's view, honestly and unreservedly given, as to whether this was playing the game. There was Duggan, your returning officer in Selkirk. Under the law the instruction to Duggan was to see that overlapping voters were properly parcelled out. He wras not to see that any other polls were touched. What did Duggan do? He put the list into the hands of Leach, tile Liberal organizer, had it doctored by him, got it back when it was ready, and dozens and scores of people had their names erased, yet the Minister of Justice euphonically named that transference of electors. When this was all done, Mr. Duggan took the risk and on his oath, which I believe, he declared he never gave it a glance and that there might have been on it a hundred men or five hundred disfranchised for all he knew. He took the revision made by the organizer of the Liberal party by which Conservatives were left off and disfranchised, and a member sits in this House to-night who would not sit here if it had not been for that. I ask my right hon. friend if that is playing the game fair ?


Mr. S. J. JACKSON.: I would like to know how the hon. member can prove anything of that kind. I am the hon. member wh<5 is sitting here.


George Eulas Foster: You are ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Very well, go ahead.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I would like to ask what foundation you have for that statement ? Not a tittle.


George Eulas Foster: The foundation I have-


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I characterize that as a false and misleading statement.


George Eulas Foster: That is all very well, if my hon. friend will stop bobbing up I will give the foundation.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Give it then


George Eulas Foster: The foundation I have for the statement I have just made is Duggan's own sworn statement.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Give the quotation from his evidence.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend may deny it till he is black in the face, but it will not



190S

[Stage Direction]
change the record, for there is Duggan's sworn testimony.
Samuel Jacob Jackson: No. such evidence is there.


George Eulas Foster: His evidence has been read in this House by myself and others.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: The hon. gentleman ought to be ashamed to make a statement like that in this House.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman is not ashamed to quote from the records, the sworn testimony


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Quote from the records.


George Eulas Foster: -of even the men appointed by this government to carry out their behests.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Quote from the records or else take it back. I ask, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is not entitled to take that back when he makes a statement that is not true.
Mr. FOSTER, Shall I go a little further?
Mr. S; J. JACKSON. Cannot you explain that first?


George Eulas Foster: I have explained everything that is necessary.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: You have not.


George Eulas Foster: And if my hon. friend wants more explanation let himi go and look for it in the records.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: That from an old parliamentarian


George Eulas Foster: That is an answer that is perfectly suited to my hon. friend.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. SPEAKER, Order.


George Eulas Foster: The Prime Minister this afternoon and up to this afternoon was absolutely unaware that Leach and the returning officers in Manitoba had carried on their operations of erasing and transferring from one polling list to another in a large number of the non-overlapping polling divisions in the province of Manitoba, and to-day he denied from his own knowledge, or lack of knowledge, that anything of that kind had been done at all. We go to the word and the testimony and it is plain, as I told him this afternoon, that that was done.


Mr. BURROWS.: Is -the hon. mtimber aware that in the local election just previous to that, in 17 out of 40 counties, polling subdivisions were subdivided by the provincial authorities with no more shadow of law than there was in this case, just for the convenience of the public?


George Eulas Foster: I do not know that that contravenes my statement. These are the three examples that I give of the way the government has acted in cases where they have had this work of revision and registration to do under their own Act. Have we, or have we not, the right to believe that what they have done in the past they will do in the future if they get fuller legislation ? The same ministers, the same men, greater power-have we any reason to believe that they wil not exercise it in the same way ? The attempt has been made and will be made to put the Liberal-Conservative party in the wrong for opposing this IegislatiQn. It is an attempt which will fail because the people are honest and the people are intelligent. Is it the dictum of constitutional or parliamentary government that His Majesty's loyal opposition is bound to let pass in time every measure that the government may propose ? It certainly is not. If the House of Commons holds the purse strings and can demand that grievances be remedied before it gives an appropriation we have the same right to consider a piece of ill conceived and tyrannical legislation. when proposed, as being a grievance and refuse supply until that grievance has been removed. There is no difference between the two. They are the exercise of the same generic power. The representatives on this side of the House are the representatives of a great party with a history, a party with a policy, a party with a future. I make there three assertions. We must do what is best for the party and we have sometimes to submit to a great deal of inconvenience and trouble which we would not personally submit to if it were not that the interests of the party and the cause we represent demand that sacrifice at our hands.


John Crawford: What about the country ?


George Eulas Foster: The country is served by one party or the other and it is a sample of the fine statesmanlike sense of my hon. friend that he separates one from the other. He can separate his own party interest from the good of the country if he pleases, but the fact is that with party government one party or the other is always in power and always administering theoretically and, generally, in the main, for the good of the country. Now, what happens ? The Liberal-Conservative party was thrown out of office in 1896. It gathered itself up and commenced its march again to power. Is there any man in this House who denies that sooner or later the Liberal-Conservative party will get into power ? It has a policy, it has a history, it has traditions, it has theories and these theories it proposes to put into practical working. It advertises these to the country, it makes an impression upon the country, it gathers strength and is

gathering strength to-day. It has another duty to perform. It exposes the policy or lack of policy of the party in power. It uncovers their misdeeds, it shows their maladministration, it brings the people face to face with their corrupt acts and in these two ways the party out of power marches gradually up till it becomes the party in power. We have fought an open fight, we have fought a straight fight, we are gaining in the! country and we are close upon the time when the country will place the Liberal-Conservative party in power. When we have gained by our work and our policy and when hon. gentlemen opposite have lost by their work and lack of policy and it is coming to be near the deciding time the Liberal-Conservative party refuses to prejudice the future of its party by allowing the government to seize the franchise and by that means to gain a support in the country which it would otherwise not have. That is the purpose of this clause as it has been placed in the Bill and as it has been advocated by hon. gentlemen behind the right hon. first minister. Therefore the country will see, all fair-minded men will see that there come times when the opposition is bound to be true to itself, to its party, to use its utmost endeavour and to make its greatest self-sacrifice in order to prevent an injustice being done. I say that a repetition of the acts perpetrated in 1901, of the West Algoma case and of the Manitoba case of 1904 would be simply the robbery of the Liberal-Conservative party as to its future if it allowed these acts to be again perpetrated or if it gave a chance for the perpetration of them in the broad constituencies of Manitoba and British Columbia. Therefore, we are bound to stand against it and we are bound to stand against that legislation until its provisions are ameliorated. It is pur duty and we propose to do it.
The right hon. first minister said that in 1885 they did not stop supplies and use that as a weapon. They could not do it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why ?


George Eulas Foster: But I know a time when the right hon. gentleman did stop supplies and! used it as a weapon.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


George Eulas Foster: No ? In 1896 we brought Supply into this House, our period of existence legally terminated at a certain time and I can point to page after page of ' Hansard ' of 1896, in the month of April, showing that they absolutely shut down on supplies for the payment of wages due, for the payment of contracts completed, for the payment of services which had been performed and for which the credit of the country had been pledged and for all services in the main which contemplated anything to be carried over during the succeeding Mr. FOSTER.
year. I, myself, owing to the fact that the elections must be held and that it would be impossible for any government to get back and in harness before the first of July and that consequently the treasury would be absolutely bare, made the proposition that these gentlemen, who were then in opposition, grant two months' Supply in order that the country's interests might be conserved whichever party came into power and in order that the necessity for recourse to illegal and wrong methods by the issue of Governor General's warrants for unforeseen expenditures should not exist. I met with the absolute refusal of the right hon. gentleman. I met the same refusal of Sir Richard Cartwright and I heard man after man on this side of the House simply get up and say : This item shall not pass ; drop it-and it was dropped. Never used Supply as a weapon ? That was the one burnished weapon in the first session of 1896. It is fair to use it sometimes and there are periods when it is absolutely necessary to use it.
Now the right hon. gentleman made some statement in reference to this particular clause but I cannot understand what he meant. It was very hurriedly done as he himself will acknowledge. I have therefore treated the clause exactly as it stands here and as the Minister of Justice pleaded for it in the House. I would suppose that the Minister of Justice has the mind of the Prime Minister when he introduces and pleads for a Bill in this House. I have treated it as every member on that side of the House has argued and pleaded for it. I should imagine they did not commit themselves until they knew the mind of the government. I have argued it upon the language as it is in the Bill and on the arguments which have been presented by the other side of the House in favour of it, and I leave it at that.
I now come to another phase of the question. There has been 'something said w7ith reference to the inconsistency of parties and as to the principles upon which each party worked for or against the Franchise Bill of 1898. These principles have not been fairly represented by the Minister of Justice and perhaps they were not quite fairly represented by the Prime Minister. It is true, as he says, that you cannot take any one sentence out of a speech on a subject and define from it absolutely the views of the speaker. That is often the case ; but sometimes it is not. But in view of the discussions upon the Franchise Act from 1885 to 1898, I venture to say that the Prime Minister had his opinions pretty well in hand in 1898 when he crystallized them time after time into expressed language. Am I not right in saying that my right hon. friend, in the position which he took from 1885 to 1898 and in the legislation which he introduced in 189S. based himself absolutely on

two things: Provincial franchise and provincial lists. The very resolution the right lion, gentleman read to-day coupled the two, and in that resolution he tied himself to not only provincial franchise but provincial lists. Read his arguments in 1885 and in 1898, and over and over again he repeated that notwithstanding there may be grievances, notwithstanding there may be inequalities, notwithstanding there may be things that militate against us in the Dominion, yet taking it all in all his basic principle was the provincial franchise and the provincial lists as they are made by the provincial authorities. Does my right hon. friend object to that version of his views?
I shall read some citations from his speeches on that point, not because they have not been read before, but because they are mightily pertinent to the very tiling we are discussing at this moment. In 1898 my right lion, friend had a Bill introduced by Mr. Fitzpatrick, and Mr. Fitzpatrick stated the object of the Bill to be :
_ The object of this Bill is to repeal the existing franchise and to substitute therefor the laws of the different provinces as to the qualification of voters, polling divisions and preparation of the lists.
That is the legal interpretation of the Bill given by the hon. gentleman who introduced It and who was fully able to state its meaning. There is no talk there about municipal systems, or municipal officers preparing the lists at the start. Now, every province had a different system at that time as it has now, but no matter about* that, as Mr. Fitzpatrick said, the object of tile Bill is to adopt the different provincial qualifications the provincial polling divisions and the provincial preparation of the lists. Sir Wilfrid Laurier put himself largely upon ' Hansard.' Sir John Thompson had introduced a franchise Act and Sir Wilfrid Laurier criticised it and said in 1898 :
The blemish in the Act introduced by Sir John Thompson, and it is to me an absolute and irredeemable blemish, was, that while he adopted the provincial franchise, yet he retained the revising officer and the preparation of the list by the revising officer. I say this is the blemish of the Act. The wording of Sir John Thompson's Act was that the Governor in Council may from time to time appoint a proper officer to be called a revising officer, and so far as that is concerned that was a blemish.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier goes on to say :
It was far more logical according to our view, having adopted the principle of provincial franchise, to also accept the voters' list so prepared under the authority of the provincial legislature. On this side of the House we have an absolute hostility to the revising officer and the lists prepared by the revising officer.
That Is sufficiently plain. He goes on :
I propose that we shall revert to that system. If we apply the principle of the provincial franchise why should we not take at the same time the means and methods by which the principle is applied.
Again he said :
If hon. gentlemen opposite have a better way, let them offer it. But as between the Dominion and the provincial franchise as between a Dominion list and provincial lists there can be no hesitation because we have had for 19 years the provincial lists and the provincial franchise.
That is clear, is it not. Again he said:
Local legislatures .are likely to represent the people of the province.
That is exactly my argument this afternoon :
They are elected to represent the same people we represent here and no other people. It is supposed, and it is not a very violent supposition to make, that they will exercise that power to the best interests of their constituents according -to their judgment and light. It is supposed they will adopt the best franchise to suit the province.
And having done that the right hon. gentleman says that he adopts the provincial franchise. Again he said :
It is possible that the control of the several provinces may pass into the hands of the Conservative party. Still, on a question of this kind, I am quite disposed, for my part, to accept the franchise prepared by the legislature, whether Liberal or Conservative. Would it not be far better as a matter simply of good government if the elections for this House should be conducted on the local lists and that the members of this parliament and the members of the legislature should represent the same body of people and should be elected by the same electors?
There cannot be anything more definite than that, but he goes further and he says:
There can be no difference of opinion, at all events from this point, that even if we had the power to pass such an amendment, its adoption would create great confusion. You would have a set of lists prepared for the local elections and by this amendment you would introduce federal legislation to take effect at the same time which would take the lists away from the local jurisdiction and bring them under federal jurisdiction as to the method of their preparation.
That is as explicit as it is possible to make English words. The Nova Scotia and New Brunswick situation was brought up. My right hon. friend was ready for it then:
I have no doubt that if the people of Nova Scotia find the present system not satisfactory, the system which has given satisfaction hitherto, if they thought that the sheriff being appointed by the executive authority did not give them the same security as in former times, when the sheriffs were appointed by the judicial authority, they will undoubtedly 1 in the exercise of their rights as citizens of


George Eulas Foster: and voters' lists; we are not inconsistent when we oppose an effort to seize the thing that they hated in the general with reference to two provinces where they propose to get a party advantage by so doing. That is the position with reference to the two parties.
Now, I come to the last part of the subject that I propose to deal with to-night. My right hon. friend says that a position has arisen in Manitoba which imperatively demands interference. That Is in justification of the position which he says he took, and incidentally he did, that something might happen at some time In some province which would make it necessary for the Dominion to assert its rights. No one denies that something might happen. And so he says: That condition has now arisen and I am not inconsistent when I come to this parliament and propose a remedy. It all depends on the basis of your demand, the reality of the grievance. I will take my right hon. friend's own definition-a condition has arisen in Manitoba which imperatively demands Dotminion interference. He goes on to explain two elements. One is the overlapping of constituencies. We admitted that from the first; we admit it still ; it was a grave difficulty. The lawless and partisan manner in which it was attempted in 1904 to do the business was absolutely unauthorized by law and absolutely unauthorized by the fair rules of the game. But it was a difficulty which demanded the fullest and best legislation, and we hit upon the expedient, upon which both sides are agreed, and the overlapping difficulty therefore drops out Qf sight in. this discussion. What is the other? The other is the vital point of the lists. The grievance was the overlapping, but in bringing about the remedy for that, the bright thought instilled itself into the mind of the Minister of Justice, and found its expression in section 1 of that Bill, that they would go a step further and actually seize the lists. They broke it to us gently and to the country gently. It was as though-the Minister of Justice should go to a servant of his and say :	' Bob, I am going
to give you a different kind of a hat; it will be a good hat, and it will keep off the sun and the rain. I am going to change your style of coat, but I will give you a good, serviceable coat. The cut of your pants is a little out of date; I am going to-give you new pants, and they will be good pants. The shoes you are now wearing are obsolete; I am going to give you a brand new pair of a new style.' And Bob says :
' I have no particular objection to that; I like my old clothes, but if you give me nice new clothes of an approved pattern I do not know that I can raise any objection.' A day or two after that the. Minister of Justice comes along and says :	1 Bob, there
is just one little thing that I omitted ; I told you what I was going to do, but I

forgot to tell you that I am also going to hang you and X have got the timber all ready for the gallows on which you are to be suspended.' So the Minister of Justice comes down to this House and says : We are going to give you new styles, new patterns, new clothes, and they will be good ones. He says nothing else when he intro duces his Bill, but by and by he comes down and acknowledges that what he is really going to do is to hang the party, and that he is getting the timber ready to make the gallows.
Now, I take my right hon. friend's definition of .what should constitute a crisis. I took down his own words : ' If fraud is committed or if hostile legislation is passed by the provincial legislatures, we must act; we would be recreant to our duty if we did not.' I propose to argue that out with my hon. friend. In the first place, if fraud is committed, against whom is it committed ? Against the party in the province or against the party in the Dominion ? Under the arrangement of the voters' list, as it is in Manitoba, it is impossible to commit a fraud against the one without committing it against the other. Well, is it possible that fraud has been committed against the Liberals of Manitoba and that up to this date, though that fraud has been going on for years, not one of their leaders or representatives has raised a voice against it in the provincial legislature ? So that I think my right hon. friend has to prove something more than a fraud against the provincial electorate. He has to prove outside of that, he has to prove fraud against the Dominion electorate. That would be fraud against this House, which this House would have a perfect right to remedy. That would be hostile legislation which we would have a perfect right to resent. Well, I propose to look at this legislation and ascertain whether Manitoba, from the time the Conservatives came into power in 1899, has been guilty of putting legislation on the statute-book hostile to the party which supports my right hon. friend. And to do that well, you must contrast it with the legislation which Mr. Greenway had before Mr. Hugh John Macdonald came into power. You must trace the course of legislation. Now what was Mr. Greenway's franchise and list preparation ? In his time and under his regime, they were Liberal partisans who were the registration clerks and not officers of municipalities. Does my right hon. friend agree with that ? In Mr. Greenway's time the legislation on the statute-book provided that the revising barristers should be partisans and not judges, and they all were partisans, chiefly lawyers, mostly sent out from the city of Winnipeg. Am I right in that or not ? Under Mr. Greenway, the registration clerks actually prepared the lists. That is they had wider powers by far than the registration clerks have under the present legislation. Is that denied ? And after they
had done their work, it went for revision to a partisan appointee of the Greenway government and not to a judge.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: The difference between the registration clerk then and now is this. Under the Roblin Act, the registration clerk to-day takes the names of the applicants and writes them in the register. Unless there is an application to strike the names off, they remain there, and the judge has nothing to do with it. They are registered as voters once the clerk writes them on.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How was it before ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Just the same, only he put them on the list and the list was published and advertised a month so that any one could apply to have the name struck off. But now the lists are not published at all, and no one ever sees the names from the time of revision.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Not correct.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend has tried to enlighten the House and instead has led us into an absolute fog of untruth. What lie says is not correct.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: In what way ? It is absolutely correct.


George Eulas Foster: I am coming to that. Mr. Greenway's legislation, which I have described, was acted on in the elections of 1892, 1896 and 1899. Then Mr. Hugh John Macdonald came into power, and he immediately made a change in the registration and the list preparation law. Was that change hostile to the Liberal party ? What was it ? It put the lists absolutely into the hands of a registration board from beginning to end. The registration board consisted of the judges of Manitoba and appointed its own revising officers and registration clerks as well. I ask my right hon. friend if that is correct or not ? Comparing that With Mr. Greenway's law, was it hostile legislation ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: That portion of the Act is repealed.


George Eulas Foster: Let my hon. friend not be in such a hurry. I know that he was born in a hurry, and since these timber limits and timber leases are concerned, he is not disposed to wait. He will get all he wants if he is just patient as I go through with this question. What I ask now is was there any indication of hostile legislation in that of Mr. Hugh John Macdonald, passed in 1899 or 1900. comparing it with the legislation which Mr. Greenway had in force in that province before ? You have an absolutely unpartisan board. You have your board of iudges appointing your registration clerks. You have your board of judges appointing also the revising barristers. It appointed nineteen Conservatives and sixteen Liberals, and the other five constituencies went to the judges themselves. They themselves

were the revising barristers. Could anything be more unpartisan or fairer than that board and that registration? Under such a board, the lists were absolutely made anew. No man got on the list under that board unless he came up and made his application anew. Am I not right in that ? Consequently, on that revision, done in that unpartisan manner, you had an absolutely new and an absolutely clean list, so far as you can ensure it, by a non-partisan board of judges acting on their own responsibility throughout.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: That law has been dead four years.


George Eulas Foster: Oh, yes. That is not an answer to my question. Does that, I ask, show hostile legislation as compared with the previous legislation ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: How long did it last ?
Mr. FOSTER, There is another impatient man. There is a class that is always impatient. A strong man waits and bides his time and takes what the gods give him and when they give it to him. Why cannot my bon. friend wait ? Now changes were made in that legislation.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. FOSTER, One thing, however, was not changed. Under the succeeding legislation, under to-day's legislation, the judges are the revising board and they revise the lists themselves or the revising barristers that they themselves appoint. Is that true or is it not ?


William James Roche: I would correct my hon. friend to this extent, that in practice, the last two years, the judges do not appoint any revising barristers. They do all the work themselves.


George Eulas Foster: That is still better. I have waited for an answer and have got no denial. Changes were made in that legislation, but one thing remains to this day and that is that the revising board is made up of judges and that the judges do the whole of the revising, either by themselves or by the revising barristers they appoint, and for the last two yeais they have done the whole business absolutely themselves. Is that hostile legislation? Will mv right lion, friend rise in his place and say that frauds under such revising and such a board of revisers were practised on the voters in Manitoba ? He dare not do it; that would be to impugn the judges of bis own appointment, the judges of the land. But there may be disabilities, there may be cases of hardship. Some men may not get on the list, some men may not get before the revising barrister-all this may be true. It is true in Ontario or any other province ; it is true wherever you have an election Jaw. There must be due diligence on the


George Eulas Foster: part of the elector, or he will be left off. But, says the Prime Minister, the men at Lac du Bonnet did not get in, and the revising officer, going there under 'the circumstances, put himself out of court. But was there any disability that prevented the electors of Lac du Bonnet from coming to that registration's clerks office in proper time and putting in their applications? If they did not exercise due diligence, that is their fault. The only possible grievance can be that the local government does not provide a sufficient number of registration booths to properly and reasonably provide for the necessities of the counties. One gentleman declares that a man has had to walk a hundred miles to get his name before the registration clerk. Are you going to condemn the law because that happens? In a county of great distances and small population, one, or two, or three, or a dozen, may lie at some extreme point of the constituency, and it may be impossible to have a registration booth for them. But is that to govern the whole matter? Because an isolated case of this kind happens are you going to declare that fraud is committed and that there is hostile legislation? Let us come to the present legislation as it stands, what is it? There is a registrar for each polling subdivision or nearly so. The registration is not by registration districts today in Manitoba, but by polling divisions, and from six to twenty registration booths are open in every local constituency. And it is said, on fair authority I think, that the present distribution and number of registration polling booths are sufficient for the wants of these constituencies. But, even so, it may happen that some men may have to travel very many miles in order to get their names on the register. Is it hostile legislation that you have to register when you have a registrar for each polling subdivi- ' sion, or nearly so, and that you have from six to twenty polling booths in each local division and that you have that distribution in every part of the province? You may say that, in some cases, it is inadequate. But that is not evidence of hostility or fraud. Now, the registration clerks are local men. Is my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in favour of that principle? Does he not think it better that local men should be the registration clerks than that strangers should hold those positions? We may have a difference of opinion on that point, but there is no hostility or fraud involved in a condition of that kind. These registration clerks sit for the time named in the proclamation. These times are sufficient in the main, and every one of these registration clerks is bound by the law under penalty to extend the time of the sitting provided there are applicants in the place to have their name put upon the registration list. Now, is that an evidence of hostility? The duties of these registration clerks are not judicial in any sense, they

are absolutely and simply clerical duties. The clerk must receive every application which comes. The applicant comes and answers the interrogatories, signs a paper and swears to it before the clerk, and the clerk has to receive it and enter it ; he has no power to reject it. If a man be absent through illness or necessary cause, a friend may make application for him, and the application must be received by the registration clerk. Is that not a fair provision ? The applicant has to swear before the clerk himself to these full interrogatories. Moreover, both political parties are represented at that booth. Each party has its representative there. The candidates past and prospective are allowed, and twelve other people, the limitation, I suppose, being designed to keep these booths from being overcrowded. But ail this means that the proceedings are as open as the dal-ail are conducted in the open light and before witnesses for both parties. Nothing could be fairer. The applications must be received. And the hours of sittings for this registration are from nine to ten a.m. and from one to six. In cities they open at eight o'clock for the labouring men and if at the end of the hours there be persons ready to make their applications, the registration clerk has to take their declarations. The lists are all posted up on the outside of the registration booth by the clerk. They are sent to the clerk of the executive, and from there they go to the revising barrister. There are heavy penalties upon the registration clerks for any non-performance or mal-performance of their duties. Could you have a fairer, more open, more reasonable method of carrying on the registration in order to get these people's names into the hands of the revising judges? I ask the right hon. Prime Minister if this is sufficient for a crisis. I ask him if he can say that this is hostile legislation so that we are called upon to act and that we should be recreant to our duty if we did not deal with the situation?
But my right hon. friend says, if fraud is committed. If fraud is committed against whom ? If fraud is committed intentionally as it must be, where is the right hon. gentleman's basis for an attack upon the system, for the imperatively demanded action of this House ? I assume because fraud is committed in the province of Manitoba. Is there any evidence of it? Is there sufficient evidence of it, is it general or is there now and then a single case ? If the fraud is committed it is committed on your provincial voter. Your provincial voter is within walking distance of Winnipeg, in Winnipeg the legislature sits and his representatives are there. Can we believe that if fraud is committed in Manitoba to any extent at all upon the provincial Liberal voters, his grievance has not yet been aired and that he has not made it known throughout the length and breadth of Manitoba and in the 266
political and legislative home of that province ? I think that is conclusive; it is conclusive in the reasoning of my right hon. friend as applied to 1898. Down in Nova Scotia the sheriff revises the list and I have heard reputable people say that appeals have been refused by the sheriff in Nova Scotia. I have heard and read allegations that hundreds have been refused revision by the sheriff and have consequently been deprived of their votes. Let the right hon. gentleman use his argument of the natural right there. It is a natural right that a man should have his ballot. It has been denied to him in Nova Scotia. Then this government has a right to interfere and see that the legislation in Nova Scotia is changed. Does my right hon. friend propose to do that ? Some one has told me that for every case of lack of proper action on the part of the revising authority that you can bring in Manitoba he can bring ten to meet it in Nova Scotia and reputable men make statements of that kind. Does my right hon. friend think that is sufficient ground for interference and seizing the franchise ? Why not advance the argument of natural right there ? My right hon. friend knows that we are governed by laws which in the main work out justly but under which injustice and wrong, as far as natural right is concerned, may happen to many individuals in the commonwealth under the action of those laws.
We now come to the question of revision. Does my right hon. friend find that fraud is committed in the revision ? The revision is by the judges. The last two years judges and judges alone have done it. Judges are dispensers of justice, and a man when he goes upon the bench and is engaged in looking after the interests of justice and of the people forgets, I think in ninty-nine cases out of one hundred, all partisanship and is animated by the desire to do right. Show me an instance where a charge has been brought of breach of faith or fraud committed by one of the revising judges in Manitoba. if fraud is necessary as a foundation for such action bring the evidence of it. bring the proof of it. Where is the evidence ? Where is the proof ? In the press of Manitoba, in the legislature of Manitoba, in the action of the Liberal party in Manitoba ? Not a reasonable basis . It is here, by indiscriminate statement in a way, but where is the evidence of fraud ? My right hon. friend has absolutely no answer. All appeals are disposed of. My right hon. friend hangs his case upon one single occurrence that is possible, namely, that the judge may be revising, the hour may be up and he has no right to extend the hour That is the only point on which my right hon. friend can hang his case with reference to the judges. Will he cite an instance where that has been done ? He brought forward one instance that has been ex-



plained but will he consider it fair to condemn the whole system, root out the whole legislation, replace it by something new, because in an individual instance an injustice has been committed, and committed unwittingly because no judge would commit it of malice aforethought. But, Sir, we contend that the judges as the revising board have the absolute authority to extend the time and they can do it under their powers. It is a fair contention and we ask for the proof that these judges have abused their authority ns revising officers and have committed fraud upon electors.
I have made my plea with reference to Manitoba ; let me say a word with reference to British Columbia. We have beard very little from British Columbia. So little has been said about it that I imagine my hon. friends opposite have no case from British Columbia. The Minister of Justice said there was little grievance from British Columbia. The member who spoke yesterday from British Columbia (Mr. D. Boss) said they had a way of playing fair there, that they were not dishonest and that as a rule every one thought the game was played fairly and honestly. He told how the lists were made and surely there is publicity enough. Your registrar, who is generally a mining recorder, receives the applications. Every application must be by swearing to and signing of a blank form. The revisions are made twice a year which surely is often enough and two months are given between the time for the applications to come in and the revision. The revisions are made, in the first instance, by the registrars. A notice containing every name has to be posted on the outside of the registrar's office, on the court house, published in the ' Gazette ' and in three conspicuous places in the electoral division, so that people may know when the revision goes on and then, after the revision takes place, there is an appeal to the county court judge and from the county court judge there is an appeal to the Supreme Court bench. Surely as a general scheme of registration and revision that is an open, honourable, reasonable scheme. But my hon. friend says the people take no interest in the registration. That is more the fault of the people surely than the fault of the system which is provided for registration.


Duncan Ross: I did not say that the people take no interest.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend will read the speech lie will see that he conveyed the impression-he conveyed it to me at least

that the people took little interest in the registration. However, if he says he did not, it is a matter which does not amount to much.
What are the circumstances of fraud or hostile legislation in the province of British Columbia which make it necessary for Mr. FOSTER.
this House to take over the franchise of British Columbia and Manitoba in regard to voters for the Dominion elections ? Iii what have they become recreant to their duty ? Fraud ? Where is the evidence of it ? Hostile legislation as to the lists ? Where is the evidence of hostile legislation ? Where is the necessity of the action founded upon fraud and upon hostile legislation in the provincial legislature ? Can it be pointed out now in the province of British Columbia ? Not so much as it can be even in the province of Manitoba : absolutely free from either of these so far as we have any evidence presented. And yet I doubt not that that there are many cases in that province of men not having a vote. They wake up on election day to find that they are not on the list. It happens everywhere. To-day, in the city of Toronto, there are 45,000 names of male adults that are not upon the regular lists and the process of registration is now under way which will end in as many of these as wish, if they have the qualification, being placed upon the voters' list.


Robert Laird Borden: Within what time ?


George Eulas Foster: Commencing, I think, next Monday and going on until the Saturday following with two days intermission.


Mr. R. E. BORDEN.: Five days?


George Eulas Foster: Four days. Tha booths are not scattered everywhere, but they are fairly numerous, there are notices given in the newspapers and otherwise and the two parties are actively, I suppose, at work trying to get the voters registered. But the work of the municipal officers with reference to these people does not amount to anything. That vast number of people in the city of Toronto are to-day looking to the manhood registration, as it is called, in order that they may get upon the list and be able to vote. In every city in Ontario of over 9,000 people there will be an opportunity to register under these conditions during the next two -weeks.


Haughton Lennox: Four days are given.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, four days are given and there is a chance for an appeal to the court of revision. I have made these remarks directly to the subject in hand and the consequences may be a little more momentous and more important than the right hon. First Minister thinks of attempting to seize in this way the franchise for Dominion purposes and for the partisans of the government in two provinces and make an invidious distinction which the history and the work of these two provinces in the matter of the preparation of their lists give no warrant for at all. If I lived in Manitoba and were singled out for this invidious action on no better basis than that which has been given, I would feel like fighting against that invilious distinction I would

feel like fighting for fair treatment, for being placed on the same basis as my brother from Nova Scotia and my brother from Prince Edward Island and my brother from Ontario. Why should you single out these two young provinces for this invidious legislation? It is demeaning, it is humiliating, it is insulting and I tell the right hon. First Minister, for he may not know it, that he has raised up a storm against himself and his party in these two provinces that it will take (many many years to allay, and I mistake the temper of the people of these provinces if they do not make their dissatisfaction known -when the proper time comes.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the very able speech delivered by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). But I was not able to find out from him whether he was in favour of accepting the very fair offer made by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) or whether he was going to vote against his suggestion. He went on to discuss the Bill which is before the House, paying no attention whatever to the explanation (made by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) in his speech, and, in so far as I could make out, he paid no attention whatever to the suggestion which my right hon. friend made this afternoon to the effect that if the opposition felt there was any intention on the part of the government to have a partisan voters' list in the province of Manitoba they were prepared to suggest that the whole matter be placed in the hands of the judges so as to prevent one side or the other from getting any particular advantage. To this suggestion I do not see how anybody could object.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the government do the same for the province of Nova Scotia?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: I am not speaking for the province of Nova Scotia. I come from the west.


Frederick William Borden: But I am speaking about it.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: My hon. friend ought to know more about Nova Scotia than I do.


Mr. TALBOT.: I thought the hon. gentleman had forgotten about it.


Robert Laird Borden: I know something about it.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: The Bill now before the House provides in its first clause for two things so far as the province of Manitoba is concerned, viz.: A complete and full revision of the Manitoba provincial lists and their proper application to Dominion constituencies, thus removing the difficul-
206i
ties the returning officers had to meet in 1904, when it was necessary for them to use the thin red line in readjusting polls where local constituencies overlapped Dominion constituency boundaries.
The opposition say we are singling out Manitoba for special treatment and treating that province differently from the others in regard to the voters' lists and that our action in this regard is exceptional and indefensible.
The explanation and justification are found in the character of the lists themselves. The Ontario lists are compiled by (municipal councils and are, in point of fact, complete and impartial, While the Manitoba lists are incomplete, defective and partisan. The law governing the compiling of lists in Ontario is permanent, stable and well understood, while the Manitoba election law, which formerly placed in the judges' hands the power to make and revise voters' lists, was repealed in 1904, and full power was placed in the hands of the executive to appoint partisan registration clerks and control the date, time and place of making and revising the lists. It therefore can be called partisan. For instance, in 1903, when the law was administered by the judges, 430 registration clerks sat for six days each taking applications, or an average of eleven registration booths, held for six days each in every local constituency to put names on the list, while in 1905, under government direction, there was only one place in each local county allowed where a registration clerk sat for only one day to take applications, followed by a one day revision in each count}'.
There was only one registration clerk appointed for each constituency; that is, 40 registration clerks for the whole province of Manitoba, and they sat on one day in each constituency, or 40 days in 1905 to take the applications for the whole province of Manitoba as against 2,000 in 1903. 'The hon. (member for Marquette stated that the chief aim of the Bill was to place the preparation of the lists in the hands of partisans. In justice to the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) I would call attention to the remarks he made at page 8102 *of ' Hansard ' where the Minister of Justice said in introducing the Bill that he did *not intend to place the making of these lists in the hands of partisans.
We have lists that ought to be submitted to the work of a revising officer, a county judge or a barrister according to the Manitoba system, with time given him within which ^ he can effectively do that work of revision, within which he can effectively purge the lists of dead men and of absentees.
Again the Minister of Justice said :
We prefer to adhere to the provincial lists, and accordingly, in the Bill I am submitting, the lists as established in the provinces, shall be taken in the preparation of the lists for

Dominion purposes, and to them shall be added the names of any persons qualified to vote which are not on them and from them shall be struck the names of all those who are not qualified. The lists so prepared, subject to the revision of a county court judge, shall be allotted and distributed to the polling divisions, to be used in the Dominion elections. That is in brief the outline of this clause.
It will be seen that the Minister of Justice was careful to point out that the government intended to adopt the laws of Manitoba with regard to the making of the lists and that the lists were going to be revised by the county judge. I have noticed that all through the debate, hon. gentlemen opposite referred to clause 1 of the Bill as being designed to take the power of making the list out of the hands of the judges and to place it in the hands of partisans. That is an unfair presentation of the case, because we know that the Minister of Justice provided that exactly the same machinery that is adopted by the province of Manitoba will be adopted by the Dominion government in making the lists.


George Eulas Foster: Would the hon. gentleman point to the clause of the Bill which provides for that.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Clause 1 which says :
In the preparation of such lists the provisions of the laws of the province regulating the preparation and manner of revising and bringing into force the provincial voters' lis-ts in the like cases shall as far as possible be observed and followed and no person whose name is not included in the voters' lists so prepared and revised shall be entitled to vote.


George Eulas Foster: Exactly ; ' as far as possible.'
Mr. BURROW'S. The Minister of Justice stated in his speech explicitly what line would be followed iu that regard and nobody could arrive at any other conclusion from the remarks of the hon. minister, but that he intended to follow absolutely-not as far as possible, but absolutely the law as it was in the province of Manitoba.


George Eulas Foster: May be my hon. friend will explain to the House how it is possible in the time intervening between the issue of the writ and the polling, to carry out absolutely, as he says, the Manitoba law.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: That might be answered by my stating that at present in Manitoba they do not take any more time to make their lists than the time which would ensue between the issuing of the writ and the election. However, so far as that is concerned, I would say that the time given is pretty short in some parts of Canada and I have no doubt that when this Bill is considered in committee that point will be gone into and that the government will meet any suggestion which will result in giving us a working basis which will be satisfactory to both sides.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: 


George Eulas Foster: All we can do is to take the Bill as we have it before us.


Mr. JOHNSTON.: That would not satisfy you.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: If it is clearly shown that tlie time given in the court of revision is too short I have no doubt that a remedy will be provided in the Bill. I know cases in Manitoba where the two opposing candidates agreed among themselves that in order not to subject their friends to the trouble and inconvenience of coming to court they would go to the revising officer and put iu a certain number of names on each side. They did go to the revising officer but of course he expressed his regret that he could not agree to any such proposition. However, that goes to show that in a country of such distances it is necessary to resort to some means to get voters on the lists because of tlie great inconvenience that may be caused by those wishing to register travelling very many miles to tlie registration booth. Another great objection we have to the Manitoba law is tlie fact that it is unstable and unreliable. Its administration is erratic, unreliable, and defective. There has been no permanency and tlie conditions regarding the preparation of tlie lists have been changed from year to year to suit tlie whim of the Manitoba government. In 1905 there were seven Dominion election protests pending and the preparation of the lists that year was a farce. They only had one day in each county on which they received applications and only one day in each county when the court of revision sat. and if any of those gentlemen whose elections were protested had had to run a by-election the election would have taken place on these very imperfect lists. I have a clipping here from a prominent western newspaper which gives a brief sketch of the working out of the Manitoba election law. It says :
In 1905 there was only one registration clerk for each constituency, and the registration lasted for only one day at one place. In Mountain constituency an elector, not on the list, had to journey to Baldur to protect his franchise. In the city of Winnipeg, with thousands to register, there were only three booths open for the one day only.
In 1906, with an election pending, there was a registration clerk for each polling division; but the booths were kept open, not for six days, hut for two only.
In Winnipeg, in February, 1907. when there was a special registration, prior to the elections, the booths were open for three days only.	*
In 1907 the government reverted to the device of the perambulating registration clerk, one for each constituency, who stopped here and there for an hour or so.
It will therefore be seen that there is nothing stable in the manner of making up the lists in the province of Manitoba. Some years you may have a good revision and some years a very imperfect revision. As

a matter of fact since the present law lias come into operation there has only beeu two years in which sufficient time was given for registration ancl revision and these were the years 1903 and 1906, immediately preceding a local election, when the local government found it necessary to male pretty good lists for themselves.- But at any time between these local elections the revising of the lists is merely a matter of form. The Manitoba government held no annual revisions until the year 1904, when they decided to revise tile lists annually in order that they might be able to control the preparation of the lists on which Dominion elections would he held, and that action on the part of the Manitoba government was a piece of political sharp practice. They do not require to incur the expense of revising the lists annually for provincial purposes, hut they deemed it necessary to do so in order that they might have these lists used in Manitoba elections. In Manitoba the revision and preparation of the lists is not in the hands of judges as has beeu represented by our hon. friends opposite, for the government has power to decide from time to time what kind of a revision they will have and whether it will be a complete revision or a partial revision. I submit that the policy of placing in the hands of five men who form the executive of any provincial government the absolute-power of saying from time to time what kind of voters' lists we are going to have for the election of members to this House of Commons is a policy which this Parliament should not submit to. But yet, if we retain the lists as they are in Manitoba that is just the policy we would be following. The hon. leader of the opposition and other gentlemen opposite have challenged us to show where any person was left off the list of electors by any official of the Manitoba government, or where any complaints had been made against the lists that had been prepared. My hon. friend from Selkirk gave last night a good many instances of this kind, but I might refer in addition to the incident at Balsam Bay where 28 voters applied to the registration clerk to put their names on the list, but they could not get the registration clerk to receive their applications and they were disfranchised. The registration clerk, in making the return, wrote to his friend, who was the candidate for the constituency, and said :	' Nobody had applied but a few
Grits, and you bet I did not put them on.' There was a case where some electors were disfranchised. In the city of Winnipeg a large number of electors could not get on the list in 1904, in West Winnipeg, in North Winnipeg and in South Winnipeg, there were about a hundred who could not get on the list. Some 28 were in the registration booth at the time it was closed. I have here an affidavit, made by George John
Lovell of the city of Winnipeg, which reads as follows :
Dominion of Canada-Province of Manitoba.
In the matter of the preparation and revision of voters' list for Winnipeg Centre, prior to the last provincial election in 1903.
I, George John Lovell, of the city of Winnipeg, province of Manitoba, agent, do solemnly declare:	.
1.	That I was organizer for the Liberal partv for Winnipeg Centre prior to and during the compilation and revision of the list for Winnipeg Centre in May and June, 1903, and as such took great interest in and closely followed all matters pertaining to the said compilation and revision.
2.	That at several of the registration booths, .
owing to the large number of persons registering, several persons qualified to register as electors were unable to apply for registration during tbe week set apart for registration (viz.: May 25 to 30 inclusive) although several of the aforesaid persons presented themselves on various occasions at the registration booths for the purpose of so registering.	.	.
3.	That in particular at the booth in registration division No. 6 in the neighbourhood of 100 persons were unable to apply to be registered as voters during the said week on account of the large number of persons in the booth waiting to apply at the time when the said 100 persons severally appeared.
4.	That I was present at the court of revision for Winnipeg Centre held on the 15th day of June, 1903, and at some time during the day over 160 persons favourable to the Liberal party and fully qualified to he registered as voters in the electoral division of Winnipeg Centre appeared in the court of revision to he registered as voters but on account of the dilatory manner in which the court of revision was conducted by the revising officer, and on account of the unnecessary delay caused by the counsel appearing for the Conservative party, and permitted by the revising officer, only some 45, or at the most, 50 of the aforesaid 160 were registered when the court of revision was closed at 5 p.m.	..	.
5.	That at the hour of" 5 o'clock the revising officer closed the court of revision notwithstanding the fact that there were over 30 persons then present in the court room for the purpose of applying to he registered, 23 names of whom are as follows:
I will not read the names, as it would take too much time.
6.	That, in accordance with what was apparently a well-prepared scheme on behalf of the Conservative party, over 87 appeals were made against voters of which not more than 20 at the very outside could be sustained, such being entered for tbe sole purpose of taking up the time of the court of revision so that Liberal electors appearing at the court of revision for the purpose of being registered would not have an opportunity to register. My reason for believing that this was premeditated is the fact that a large majority of the parties appealed against were old and well-known residents of the city of

Winnipeg, well known to be Liberals and fully qualified to register to whom there could be no possible exception taken.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the 9ame to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893.



GEORGE JOHN LOVELL.

George Eulas Foster: What is the date of that ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: June 16, 1903.


William James Roche: Who was the revising barrister ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Mr. Barnett.


William James Roche: Who appointed him ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: He was appointed by tile registration board.


William James Roche: By the judges ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Yes, by the judges.


William James Roche: The hon. member would not say that such a thing could occur again., since the Act has been amended.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: I think the same could occur again.


William James Roche: Oh, no ; the hours for registration have been increased.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: The great fault we have to find with this election law is that there is not enough time given to register and not enough time for the court of revision. X read that declaration for the purpose of showing that in the city of Winnipeg, right in the shadow of the parliament buildings, with the knowledge of the government, people tried for a whole week to get on the list, and hundreds were turned away. At that time there was a good deal of agitation on this question, and Mr. Lovell, acting on behalf of some electors, applied to the court for a mandamus to compel the revising officer to receive the applications of those present when the court closed. The revising officer agreed to appear, and the case was set down for the following day. The case was tried. Able counsel appeared on both sides. Mr. John S. Ewart appeared for the /.appellant, and* Mr. Andrews, I think, for the revising officer. The judge decided that the revising officer had power to take the names of those who were in the booth at the time. In the meantime, however, the revising officer played a trick, by which he returned his papers to the registration board, and as he was not an officer any longer, the judge could not issue the mandamus, and for that reason it was not issued. There is a case in point where a large number of electors in the city of Winnipeg were deprived of their franchise because of the very short time given for revision. That is the greatest complaint *we have against this Franchise Act.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: 

C. J. MICKLE.

[Stage Direction]
At the same time he telegraphed to another hon. member of this House the following :
The Act better in 1903. New amendments have largely destroyed best features. Grievous complaints of unfair administration by government in many parts.
That is the latest expression of Mr. Mickle's opinion on that question. I have in my hand a clipping which shows what Mr. Mickle said in the House when that Bill was introduced. I think my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Jackson) read it last ni°-ht. I do not intend to read it all again. It"was in the main a criticism of the amendment to the Act of the year 1904. He said that the government were going back on their principles altogether in amending the Act. They had first appointed a registration board. By, the amendment of 1904 they went hack on that altogether, and took into their own hands the power to appoint registration clerks, to which he objected. The only thing he said with regard to that Act of 1903 is quoted here, and it is from this my hon. friend took his inspirations :
Another .advantage claimed for the present Act of 1903 was that the making of the lists was taken out of the hands of partisan officials and put into the hands of judges. 11ns provision also was wiped out by the proposed legislation. It was reasonable and fairly satisfactory in practice under the present Aot
[Stage Direction]
That is the Act of 1903.
But now it was done away with. Hence forth the registration clerks are to be appointed by the government. True, there was still a board of registration hut it was not for the receiving of names but for the appointment of revising officers. If the principle adopted under the present Act had the merits claimed, what reason was tneie toi the changes now sought to be introduced.^
You will see that at the very time when the government of Manitoba introduced the amendments which now form the Election Act of Manitoba, Mr. Mickle, as leader or the opposition in that province, objected and pointed out that they had gone back on the principles of the Act of 1903 and had tal>en the power to appoint partisan registration clerks.	_ .
Another case which has been cited before, a very glaring case,-a case which shows we had grievances under this Act- was the deliberate disfranchisement of tlilrty-eight electors at Lac du Bonnet. In this case the revising officer, Mr. Heap, m order to enable the people who were living at Lac du Bonnet to be placed on the list and at the request of representatives from that district, adjourned his court and agreed to go to the lake and take the applications of the residents there. 1 lie train goes to Lac du Bonnet once a week, remains about two hours and returns. The clerk sent word that he would be there on a certain train, the residents met him, [DOT]and he took all their applications. They were bona fide electors. Nobody raised the claim that they were not entitled to vote. But as soon as the government found out that he had adjourned his court, they notitied him that his action was illegal; and [DOT]notwithstanding the fact that the registration board certified to the list, when the [DOT]election took place ,tbe sheets containing [DOT]these namies were torn off and these men were disfranchised.
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), at the beginning of his address, [DOT]launched out in very vigorous terms against [DOT]my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg (Mr Bole) as did other hon. gentlemen on [DOT]that side, particularly the hon. member for [DOT]Marquette (Mr. Roche). Apparently, my hon. friend from Winnipeg displeased these gentlemen by reading in this House certain affidavits which went to prove that certain fraudulent transactions had taken place in Winnipeg, whereby 492 nfames of men who were not entitled to vote were put on the voters' list. Well, since that time other affidavits have been obtained in Winnipeg, and I propose to read an affidavit which appeared in the ' Free Press,' the original of which can be got if necessary :
To wit: I, John Hyzv, of 627 Lorette avenue, in the city of Winnipeg, do solemnly declare I aim at the present time vice-presi-den/t of 'the Polish Conservative Club. I have seen in the * Free Press 3 of this morning cei-tain affidavits from Theodore Rudneski and others as to the way in which naturalization papers were made out just previous to the last election, in March, 1907. I have also seen in the Winnipeg * Telegram 3 of this evening affidavits denying such charges, and, with a full knowledge of the facts and the seriousness of such charges, I do say and solemnly declare:
1.	During the month of February, 190/, 1 went to the headquarters of the Conservative Club, in the Maw block, and met Mr. Rud-neski and Mr. Sablewski, and asked them about the naturalization papers for Mr. Des-put and Mr. Jaworski and others, and they told me that they were not ready, but Rudneski said it was easy to make them out.
2.	Mr. Rudneski then sat down and filled
in one of the papers and several others afterwards. I had to spell the name of Desput for him. He then went into an inner room on the right hand side of the large room where I was. I followed him to the door ot the inner room, but he told me not to come in. There were other persons there whom I did not know.	,,
3.	I saw him go 'to the table, then the door was closed. He came out a few minutes later with the papers. Before he took them in I noticed they had no stamp on them, but I could not say whether the signature of the clerk of the court was on them or not. When he came back and gave me the papers they had the stamp or seal'of the court on them down in the left hand corner.
4.	He gave me the papers, I thunk only two at that time, and I took 'them away, but I was suspicious that they were not genuine, [DOT]and 'so I took them to my former employer and asked him to look at them and see if they were all right. He looked at the stamp and the signature and said he thought they were. I afterwards gave them to the men for whom they were intended, but not before I bad
[Stage Direction]
shown them to other persons, all of whom seemed to think they were genuine.
5.	I am quite positive that the court seal was not on the blank papers before Mr. Rud-neska tilled them in and carried them into the inner room, but it was on the papers when he returned, and I could not understand now the seal could be there, and this was whv I showed them to certain jpeople before i gave them to the men.
,6- I lad. a conversation about the matter with a friend this morning, and was afterwards asked to see a ' Free Press ' reporter and repeat what I had said to my friend. I was then asked if I was willing to make this statements and to swear to it, and I consented to do so, as I know the facts to be true and as I have stated-.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as it made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893.
(Sgd.) JOHN HYZT.
Solemnly declared before me at the city of Vy inniipeg, in the province of Manitoba, this 7th day of May, A.D. 1908.
(Sgd.) J. B. HUGO,
A Commissioner in B. R.
William D. Staples: Who secured that affidavit ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: I could not tell the hon. gentleman.


William D. Staples: Was it the provincial Liberal organizer, Mr. Walton ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: I could not tell. I did not get it from Mr. Walton.


William D. Staples: Can yon give us information as to how much that affidavit cost ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: How much did Rogers pay for the cheque ? With regard to that cheque I might say that the hon. meniber for Marquette (Mr. Roche) tried to create a false impression. I have a facsimile of it which shows that it was given for eight days work and for securing certain affidavits.


William D. Staples: I have in my desk the original cheque and it does not state any such thing. It states that it was given for eight affidavits. I can show it to the lion gentleman.
* PTJRROWS. You can see the facsimile in the Winnipeg ' Telegram.'


William D. Staples: There is nothing like the original documents.


Mr. PATERSON.: If it has not been cashed.


William D. Staples: No, it has not, but it is marked and can be cashed at any time.


Mr. RI  RROWS@: I might also point out, speaking of irregularities, a case that occurred in tiie election of Morris where the result was changed by the fact that three men were allowed to be put on the list illegally. i am not here to say whether these men were entitled to vote, but the same Mr. BURROWS.
consideration should he given to one side as to the other. If the registration clerk is going to receive applications in an illegal manner from the government side, he should if he wants to be fair, receive them from the other side. I mention this case to point out that, in the administration of this Act, a good many irregularities have occurred, and it is to these irregularities that we object. I may add a word in explanation of what my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) said the other night t he case was this : A certain gentleman wrote a private letter to the registration clerk asking that three names he placed on the list. The registration clerk put these names on the list, as there was no application in the legal form justified by the Act. No application was made to strike the names off the list, and according to the Manitoba Election Act the judge has no power to strike off a name unless the parties have been notified to appear. When the revision was held, the gentleman acting for the Libera] party asked to see the interrogatories and found that there were no interrogatories, but that the cases were irregular. He pointed this out to the judge, but the judge said that although the names were on Irregularly he wquld not strike them off because proper notice had not been given to the parties. As a result these three names were left on the list, though they should not have been there. This is a case with which I am quite fami-iar. Probably, X should not have mentioned it, had not the hon. member for Marquette mentioned it. In that election, the attorney general was elected by two votes, and these three men improperly put on the list were supposed to be the means of electing him. There was a recount resulting in a tie and the attorney general was declared elected by the casting vote of the returning officer. Another case may be cited which Mr. J. A. Campbell, the local member representing the county of Dauphin, brought iff up in the legislature. He was accused of making a charge against the judge who was tiie revising officer. He said he made no charge. He made a motion for a return of the papers in the case, but tiie government refused the motion and it was voted down. The government said they had not the original papers and would not bring them down. The motion was voted down on a straight party vote of 18 to 12.


Duncan Ross: The hon. member for North Toronto said there was no discussion in the local house.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: The discussion lasted for two days. I know every one of the men whose names were put on. Mr. Campbell appealed against them. I know that they were not entitled to vote. There Is no doubt that there was some jugglery practised in connection with these names.
Another complaint and one very common-

ly made by the people of the west who are trying to look after the voters' lists, is that there is great difficulty in securing electoral lists. I, myself, through a gentleman in Winnipeg, tried to secure voters' lists for my own division, and a letter received the other day said that they could not get the lists of 1906. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I am not able to get the lists to give my co-workers so that we may be prepared to apply to the court of revision. In North Winnipeg during 1905, there were great complaints. I desire to read an extract from the ' Voice,' a paper published by a gentleman who used to be a member of this House and published in the interests of organized labour. It gives an account of the meeting of the Trade and Labour Council :
When the president announced ' good and welfare ' a number of delegates proceeded to indignantly tell how they had been handled in their attempt to get into the registration offices during the day and evening for the purpose of having their names put on the voters' list. One delegate who had changed his residence from North to Centre Winnipeg wished to register for the latter constituency in the Market square. He had found the premises besieged outside and inside by a sweltering crowd. Exit was made through the windows. He had made two attempts but had failed to meet the clerks. Other applicants gave a stronger description of the uproar at the North Winnipeg office. Here the police had been called to clear the place. Scores of applicants had gone away in disgust. Of those at the^counoil meeting, five told of their lack of success to get registered, and there was not a man in the room who got on the list at this year's court.
The resolution printed on this page was passed unanimously. Several were for some action to be taken to enforce the demand and proposed a public demonstration to wait on the government.
The resolution which the Trades and Labour Council passed unanimously and which the 'Voice' printed in large type on its front page, was as follows :
Whereas the facilities for registration of voters have proved altogether inadequate for the purpose, therefore he it resolved:
That this Trades Council demand of the government that registration he re-opened and kept open for at least five days.
Needless to say, the Roblin government did not reopen the registration proceedings.
I have here a copy of another affidavit with regard to the country districts which I desire to read to the House :
Dominion of Canada-Province of Manitoba.
In the matter of the registration of voters in the Emerson electoral division, registration district 8, held May 25-30, inclusive, 1903, to wit:
I, George Walton, of the city of Winnipeg, province of Manitoba, agent, do solemnly declare that:
1.	I was present at No. 8 registration booth
for the provincial electoral division of Emerson on Monday morning, May 25, 1903, and each subsequent day on which the booth was open.	, ,	,	,
2.	That the registration clerk who opened the booth on Monday morning was Thomas Rattan, of StuartbnTn.
3.	That during the forenoon of the first day of registration, five applications for registra-tios had been accepted bv the registration clerk, four of whom were Galicians who answered the interrogatories satisfactorily and took the reading test in the English language to the satisfaction of the registration clerk.
4.	On account of the time occupied by the registration clerk in completing the interrogatories of applicants, it was suggested that the registration clerk should defer entering the names in the register until the noon hour. This was agreed to bv myself as representing the Liberal interests at said registration booth. Mr. Rattan admitted his incompetency to fill the important position of registration clerk which he said had been pressed upon him by the Hon. D. H. McFadden.
5.	That after the booth was closed tor the noon hour, Monday, Mr. Rattan, the registration clerk, stated in the presence ot my* self and others, that when asked by the Hon. D. H. McFadden "to take the position, he had been deceived, that he never had any experience in such, work, and being a poor penman he did not feel competent to do justice to the important position; that he had been tolu bv the Hon. D. H. McFadden that there would probably not be more than 60 or 70 English speaking electors to be registered, and that, as no Galicians were entitled to be registered, he could easilv handle the number applying for registration within the six days. That it was only on this assurance that he accepted the position, and that he said (addressing myself) you have succeeded iu getting four Galicians on during the forenoon, and that there were a large number outside waiting to be registered, he decided not to open this booth acain.
\nd at this juncture myself and others urged Mr. Rattan to keep the booth open until a successor could be appointed, offering to send a messenger to Emerson to tender Mr. Rattan's resignation through Mr. McFadden to the board of registration, and further offering to ask the Galicians to go home and not return until Wednesday by which time Mr. Rattan's successor could be installed. That Mr. Rattan would not consent to this arrangement, but announced the registration booth closed for good, never to be opened airain so far as he was concerned. That at this time, at least 125 Galicians were present waiting an opportunity to register, many having travelled on foot from 10 to 20 miles.
6.	That (the registration booth was not
again opened until nearly 4 o'clock in the afternoon of Wednesday the 27th (no notice having been given as to the time it would be re-otpened) when Mr. John McCodl, of Emerson, a pronounced Conservative partisan, appeared at the booth to continue the work of registration.	.
7.	That I was present at the re-opening of the registration booth, and upon examination of the register, discovered that the names of the four Galicians who applied for registra-

tnon Monday had not been entered upon the register, as. promised by Mr. Battan, the then registration clerk. That upon this discovery I applied to Mr. McColl (Mr. Battan being present) to have the names entered on the register, and that he refused to enter such. I also requested Mr. Battan to make the entry and he refused to do so saying the books were out of his hands.
8.	That notwithstanding the registration booth had been closed for more than two uaysj the registration clerk closed the same at 10 o'clock Saturday evening, the 30fch, refusing to extend the time for registration as provided by the Election Act for cases of interruption.
9.	That only a few of the 125 Galicians present when the booth closed on Monday returned again to register, not having received notice that the booth would be re-opened.
10.	That a number drove from 20 to 30 miles to the court of revision held at Emerson, successfully took the reading test before the revising officer and were put on the list by him.
11.	That in mv opinion from 50 to 100 more Galicians were eligible and would have been registered had the registration booth not been closed.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893.
Declared before me at the	of
in the province of Manitoba, this	day of	, in the
year of our Lord, 190 .
Mi*. STAPLES. What is the date of the affidavit ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Registration was held on May 23, 1903.


Mr.  W. J.@: ROCHE Would the bon. gentleman tell us who appointed the registration clerks at that time ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: I do not know, but I think Hon. D. H. McFadden.


William James Roche: It was the judges


Theodore Arthur Burrows: But I can tell my hon. friend something which he knows but would rather I did not tell the House, that these Galicians were favourable to the Liberal candidate and if they had got a chance to have their names on the list the Hon. Dr. McFadden would have been defeated. He was defeated at the next general election by virtue of the fact that these people got the franchise and he is out of politics to-day.


Mr. W. J ROCHE.: At that time the first law was in operation, the law which the hon. gentleman and his colleagues were lauding, under which the judges had the appointment of registration clerks.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: That only adds strength to the argument we urged for if at the time when there were six days to register the electors could not get on the lists, what is to happen when there is only one day in which to register as at present ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: I have here a clipping from the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' of June 2, 1903, referring to the registration in Winnipeg. It reads :
So dense was the rush before the constables arrived that to depart by the door was impossible. Dozens left by jumping from the window to the ground at the rear, a drop of about seven foot. At a quarter to ten, men Sv i. arriving, and when the doors were shut at ten o'clock only about a dozen remained to complete their papers, out of the hundreds who had besieged the court during the evening. . .
The registration at St. Boniface was light, but in the evening there was quite a rush, and from fifty to seventy-five persons were shut out, according to estimate.
I have here an extract from the Winnipeg 1 Free Press ' of June 7, 1905, referring to the distances that people had to go to get on the list. It is as follows :
The * Free Press ' has already printed the facts as to the constituency of Emerson, but the case will well bear recapitulation. The voters at Sprague, Vassar and other points at the east of the riding must take train to Winnipeg, travel thence to Emerson in order to register, since owing to the great swamp completely crossing the constituency, and which nothing without wings can cross, it is impossible to go direct to the point of registration. The voter from the eastern end of Emerson must travel 160 miles bv rail, spend $7 in railway fare, besides his hotel and meal expenses in Winnipeg en route, and take three days of his time in order to secure a right to vote.
It goes on :
In the constituencies around Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba, the distances that must be travelled in order to register are enormous. Parts of Gimli are 210 miles from the registration booth. Parts of Kildonun and St. Andrews are 260. Some voters in Swan river, must go 145 miles to the place of registration. Some voters in Gladstone are 110 miles from the only place where they can procure the right to vote. It must be borne in mind, too, that great as these distances are they are really multiplied by the fact that there are no swift means of communication and in some cases no roads. In Swan river some voters must drive to Lake Manitoba, sail across it, and then drive 30 or 40 miles to the point of registration. In Kil-doman, Gimli and Gladstone it will mean a voyage of 200 miles up and down the lake and more than a week of time, to say nothing of the expense, if the elector desires to preserve his right to the franchise.
I shall also read an extract from the ' Free Press ' referring to the registration at North Winnipeg. It says :
The scenes enacted at the North Winnipeg booth were disgraceful. There was only one door by which to enter and leave the building, which was little bigger than a box. Up the steps leading thereto, swarmed a pushing crowd of would-be voters, at times more than a hundred in number.' It was impossible for a voter who had registered to get

out, so that some of them respectable citizens, men of advanced years, were pulled out by the collar over the heads of the crowd. Doors were burst and windows broken, shirts, coats and collars were torn in the attempt to secure entrance or exit. More than 80 qualified voters were left unregistered when! Clerk McCutcheon refused to register further.
The hon. member for North Toronto this evening advanced a very Ingenious and very able argument to try to point out the enormity of the Act of the Liberal party in 1901 in dividing up certain polling divisions throughout the province of Manitoba. My hon. friends on the other side of the House apparently did not inform the hon. gentleman that at the previous provincial election in 1903, on the same lists, in the same country and under the administration of the Conservative government who brought this election law into force, they found it necessary for the convenience of the electors to subdivide their polls. There was no power on the statute-book to enable a returning officer to do so, but yet they did subdivide their polls. I am making no charge against them fordoing so, because they did so, in so far as I am aware, in the public interest. They stated that they did it for the convenience of the public. I will read the names of some of the counties :	Arthur, Avondale,
Emerson, Gladstone, Kildonan, Killarney, Lansdowne, Manitou, Morden, Rock wood, St. Boniface, Springfield and Virden. There are thirteen counties here and there are four others. There were twelve polls in Lansdowne and the returning officer divided them into twenty-two, and of course he had to use the thin red line to carve up the voters' lists to suit. In Emerson there were nine polls and he made thirteen, and in Gladstone there were fifteen and they made twenty. I have here a copy of the evidence which was taken in the case of the King vs. Duggan in which Mr. Harvey, the Conservative returning officer in the electoral district of Springfield, gave evidence. He was asked why he made eleven polling divisions when there were only nine provided by law. He gave the answer which has been given here before. He stated that he had done so in order to make it more convenient for the public. I will read a short extract frcnn his evidence :


Mr.   HOWELL@: I want to see this, because, although it may seem startling, I have seen several proclamations that were changed after they were signed by the returning officer. and I am anxious to know if this is one.
Continuing, the witness described the territorial division of Springfield into the 9 registration districts in which there were 11 polling divisions.
His Lordship observed that the polling divisions should have corresponded with the registration districts and the witness had thus made 11 polls, where, according to the law, there should have been only 9.
Mr. AIKINS

Acting for the Attorney General and a prominent Conservative.
-admitted that that was so, and said that it was necessary to lay all the facts connected with the matter before the court.
The witness, however, did not appear to be wholly responsible for the violation of the law, handing in a printed notice, signed by the Provincial Secretary, D. H. Mcladden, naming the 11 polling places, the extra 2 being made by the subdivision of 2 registration districts.
I am mentioning this not to find any fault. I have no knowledge of the facts, but I believe that in making the eleven polls they did so in the interest of the electors to make it easy for them to vote. But they had to change the list. They only had nine lists and they had to take these lists, carve them up, use the thin red line, or the thick black line, to scratch out the names of voters. If that was a proper procedure and in the public interest in 1903 on the same voters' lists and in the same constituencies why should the Attorney General of Manitoba take action against returning officers who happened to be working for the Dominion government in the election which was conducted on the sanne lists and in the same country within a year? At the October, 1905, assizes an indictment was preferred to the grand jury charging the returning officer for Macdonald with having struck off 46 names from polling division No. 5 of the local constituency of Mountain. This particular polling subdivision is divided between the three Dominion constituencies-Macdonald, Llsgar and Souris. What the returning officer did was to strike out from the Macdonald list the names of the electors who lived in Souris and Lisgar. Not one of these 46 electors were disfranchised. Had their names not been struck out from the Macdonald list they would have had a vote m each constituency contrary to law.
In regard to the subdivision of the polls, polling subdivision No. 10 of the constituency of Emerson comprises no less than 12 townships, that Is, 24 miles long by IS miles wide, or 432 square miles. For the purposes of the elections to the local legislature there was only one poll and that poll was at the extreme west corner, which made it very inconvenient for the electors to vote. In that polling division there was a large Liberal majority and the Liberals were mostly situated in the eastern end of tlie division remote from where the poll was placed. When the elections took place for the Dominion House the returning officer divided that poll into two and the result was that there was a majority of 105 for the Liberal candidate. I have no doubt that some of the people resented the idea of being sent so far off and on this account voted against the Conservative party. Contrast this with poll No. 11, Emerson, comprising a single township, with an electoral


William D. Staples: It has been read before.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: It will do no harm to read it again. Mr. Hastings is the organizer of the Conservative party and he is the gentleman who has been furnishing the campaign thunder for most of the people 'who are on that side of politics. This is his letter :
My Dear Sir,-You will notice the controversy between the ' Free Press ' and the


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Telegram ' in reference to the proposed amendment to the Dominion Election Act as provided by the Aylesworth Bill now before the Dominion parliament, has grown to be one of considerable interest.
So far as the Aylesworth Bill is concerned, I may state to you in confidence that the real fight on this Bill has not yet begun, but it will start when this Bill comes before the House for its second reading, and the opposition will keep the House in session until the snow flies next winter before they will allow it to pass in its present shape.
If the Aylesworth Bill, as it now stands, should become law, it means that the Liberals will have it in their power to make up voters' lists for Dominion elections along the same lines and following the same tactics as were adopted and used by the officials when voters' lists were made up during the time the Greenway government was in power in this province and exercising their ingenuity along that line. With the voters' list made up after the writs of the election have been issued (as provided bv the Bill), it would be absolutely impossible for the Conservatives to conduct an aggressive campaign and at the same time endeavour to check the crooked work that would be at the same time perpetrated upon the people by the officials in the way of making the lists up, or in other wordi, it would simply mean that we might jusit as well concede the whole of this province to the Liberal party, and waste neither time, energy, or money, in the way of putting up a good legitimate fight.
Our party at Ottawa thoroughly understands this and will make the fight accordingly, but they need to be backed up by the public sentiment of Manitoba, and I therefore write you, upon behalf of the party, asking you, as a favour to the party, to aevote as much space in the columns of your paper as you possibly can in showing up the iniquity of this proposed legislation, and in doing so you will not only confer a favour upon the party, but you will be doins? a great act an the wav of preserving the civil rights and liberties of the independent electors of this province.
I would he much pleased if you would send 'me marked copies of your issue which contains any reference to this matter, and I will be pleased to have the same reproduced in the Winnipeg ' Telegram,' and all Conservative newspapers in the east.
I feel that it is unnecessary for me to say anything further upon the subject as you understand as well as I the great importance that surrounds the question of the passing or rejection of the Aylesworth Bill.
Kindly drop me a line and let me know if you will be able to comply with the request of the party in this regard.
Youts, very truly,



W. H. HASTINGS.

[Stage Direction]
I wonder if Mr. Hastings will write another letter now and state that the government advocates the lists being made by the judges, surely if he were fair he should change his mind in that regard. I may say that I noticed the week after this letter was written there appeared in the ' Telegram ' a whole lot of articles headed ' Western

Press comments on tlie Aylesworth Amendment,' but the ' Free Press ' made so much criticism of these comments that the people got on to the combination that produced it, and the ' Telegram ' ceased publishing these comments. This was manufactured indignation, manufactured under the guidance of the Conservative party organizer in Manitoba.
An hon. MEMBER.: Who is Hastings ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: I think he is a provincial government employee so far as I understand.


William D. Staples: Will the hon. gentleman say Mr. Hastings is a government employee and paid a salary ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: I do not know his salary.


William D. Staples: You do not know anything about it ; play the game fair.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Now, Mr. Speaker, 1 have taken up the time of the House citing quotations from the press, and I would not have done so were it not for the fact that we have been challenged from time to time to show reason why we object to the present legislation in Manitoba. It has been said by our friends opposite that there was no agitation in the west for an amendment of the law, and in consequence of that allegation I found it necessary to cite the public comment on the question. I think it is very important that this Bill should pass. It is a fair Bill, it is a Bill that nobody can take any exception to and I believe that our friends opposite when they come to reflect will decide that they will support the measure along the lines suggested by the right hon. the Prime /Minister
On motion of Mr. Staples the debate was adjourned.	[DOT]
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.

Wednesday, May 13, 1908.