1914-02-18

QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions^answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	Is Mi-. Geo. J. Ryan in the employ of the Department of Customs at Newport, Vermont?
2.	If not, when was he dismissed?
3.	At whose request was he dismissed?
4.	What salary did he receive?
5.	By whom was he replaced?
6.	What salary is paid to his successor?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	31st August, 1912.
3.	Was employed as a temporary officer, and services were dispensed with in accordance with letter authorizing his temporary

appointment, being subject to discretion of the Minister of Customs.
4.	$4 per day.
5.	Charles A. Boright.
6.	$4 per day.


Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	Is Mr. Charles Hamlin in the employ of the Department of Customs at Newport, Vermont?
2.	If not, when was he dismissed?
3.	At whose request was he dismissed?
4.	What salary did he receive?
5.	By whom was he replaced?
6.	What salary Is paid to his successor?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	4th October, 1912.
3.	Was employed as a temporary officer and services were dispensed with in accordance with letter authorizing his temporary appointment, being subject to discretion of the Minister of Customs.
4.	$4 per day.
5.	Frank S. Baker.
6.	$4 per day.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-ST. MALO TUNNEL.
*Mr. GRAHAM:: What Is the estimated cost of the proposed tunnel beginning at a point on the National Transcontinental between the Quebec bridge and Champlain terminal, and connecting with the St. Malo shops?


Mr. BORDEN:: In the absence of the
Minister of Railways, I might remind the hon. gentleman that the estimated cost of proposed works is not given to Parliament, in the ordinary course of events, until the tenders have been opened.


RED HEAD HARBOUR WORKS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Was any dredging or other improvement work done at or near Red Head harbour, countv of Guysborough, N.S., during the season of 1913?
2.	If so, who was foreman?
3.	How much was expended?
4.	How much was paid to the foreman?
5.	What are the names of the workmen employed, the number of days work done by each, and the amount paid to each of them?
6.	Is the work completed?


Mr. ROGERS:: No information in the
department that any work was done at Red Head, N.S. in 1913. The only dredging in Guysborough county was done at Port Mulgrave. A telegram has been sent to the district engineer asking for information.


ST. PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	When was the St. Peter's Indian reserve surrendered?
2.	How many Indians of the St. Peter's band have removed to the Fisher River reserve?
3.	How many are still in residence on the St. Peter's reserve?
4.	What area of land on the St. Peter's reserve was sold by the Government?
5.	What area of land on the St. Peter's reserve was sold by the Indians individually?
6.	What amount of land is still held by the Indians in their individual right?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	September 24, 1907.
2.	Three hundred and fifty-three as per annuity pay-list of 1913.
3.	Eight hundred and sixty-seven as per annuity pay-list of 1913.
4.	15,123-27 acres.
5.	Not definitely known to department.
6.	Not definitely known to department.


EDMONTON AND FORT GEORGE MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Has a mail service been established on the Grand Trunk Pacific between Edmonton and Fort George?
2.	If so, what is the frequency of the service?
3.	Does the service include parcel post?
4.	If so, what are the parcel post rates on parcels up to 25 pounds?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Mail service has been established on the Grand Trunk Pacific railway between Edmonton and McBride, 145 miles east of Fort George. The advisability of extending the mail service from McBride to Fort George is now engaging the attention of the department.
2.	Daily except Sunday, Edmonton to Edson; distance, 130 miles. Tri-weekly Edson to McBride; distance, 212 miles.
3.	Yes.
4.	Parcels up to twenty-five pounds are not accepted anywhere in Canada, the weight limit being six pounds for the first three months, and afterwards eleven pounds.


IMMIGRANT DEPORTATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS.
Mr OLIVER:: 1.	What was the number of deportations under provision of the Immigration Act during the fiscal years 1911, 1912 and 1913?
2.	What was the number of deportations during these three fiscal years to the British Isles, the continent of Europe, and other countries, respectively?
3.	How many exclusions have been made at ocean ports during each of the fiscal years 1911, 1912 and 1913?

4.	How many of the excluded Immigrants came from the British Isles, from the continent of Europe, from the United States, and from other countries, respectively?


Mr. ROCHE:: 
VANCOUVER DRILL HALL SITE.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Who was the Government purchasing agent in connection with the purchase of Block 43, D.L. 246 A., Vancouver, for a drill hall site?
2.	When did such agent receive his instructions?
3.	Upon what basis is he to be paid?
4.	How much has been paid to such agent and upon what account have such payments been made?
5.	Was such agent personally interested in any of the lands acquired?
6.	Is such agent any relation to Mrs. McSpad-den, from whom the larger part of the block was purchased? If so, what was his relationship?
7.	What commission or remuneration has been paid or agreed to be paid to such agent in connection with the purchase of lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 21, 22, 23 and 24?
8.	Was any refund or payment or allowance made to such agent on account of moneys paid by him to secure options on any of said lots in January, 1913?
9.	If so, what sums have been paid, refunded or allowed to him, and on account of what lots have such payments, refunds or allowances been made?


Mr. HUGHES:: There was no Government purchasing agent in connection with the above drill hall site. Mr. Geo. H. Cowan was the legal officer for the Department of Militia and Defence.


ATLANTIC, QUEBEC AND WESTERN RAILWAY.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is the Atlantic, Quebec and Western railway being operated during the present winter between New Carlisle and Gaspfi? If so, by whom?
2.	Has there been any interruption in the service, and for how long?
3.	How were the mails handled during such interruption, by whom, and were tenders called for such service?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes. By Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway Company.
2.	No interruptions so far as the department is aware except some delay due to weather conditions.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


BONAVENTURE PUBLIC WORKS.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	How much money has been expended on public works in the county of Bonaventure, Quebec, since October 11, 1911?
2.	Of the money so expended, how much was provided in the estimates of 1911-12?
3.	What amount was expended on the works for which money was not included in Estimates of 1911-12?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	$53,350.42.
2.	Matapedia bridge, $4.10; River Bonaventure, $5,000; Carleton wharf, $1,500; New Carlisle, $117.24; New Richmond, $1,366.68; Paspebiac East, $5,000; Port Daniel, $1,200; St. Charles de Caplan, $5,000; Shigawake, $499.85, total, $19,687.87.
3.	Anse aux Gascons, $6,272.40; Bonaventure Island, $89.29; River Bonaventure, $4,349.31; Carleton wharf, $1,059.72; Caplan river, $1,352.15; Cross Point, $2,556.17; Maria, $9,284.79; Matapedia road, $998.99; Paspebiac East, $2,181.94; Port Daniel, $2,887.96; St. Charles de Caplan, $2,292.90; St. Godefroy, $337.93, total, $53,350.42.


RURAL POST OFFICE LIBRARIES.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Has the Prime Minister received any communications setting forth the idea of establishing libraries in the rural post office of Canada?
2.	What does the Government think of the idea, and is there any possibility of the establishment of such libraries?


Mr. BORDEN:: 1.	Certain communications were received.
2.	The subject is under consideration.


IfBRUARY 18, 1914 STE. BRIGIDE MAIL CONTRACT.
Mr. DEMERS:: 1.	Did the Post Office Department receive during last year a complaint from Israel or Isale Deslauriers, in connection with the granting of the contract or contracts for the conveyance of rural mail in the parish of Ste. Brigide, county of St. Johns and Iberville?
2.	If so, what is the nature of such complaint?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


ST. JOHNS, QUEBEC, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS.
Mr. DEMERS:: 1.	What is the salary of the collector of customs at St. Johns, Quebec?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to have such salary increased and fixed to an amount more adequate to the present cost of living?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	$1,G00.
2.	The intention of the Government will be determined when the appropriation for 1914-15 is available.


COMMISSIONER DUCHEMIN.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	With reference to statement made by H. P. Duchemin, Commissioner, as found in a certain return submitted to the House, in the case of the dismissal of R. Conroy, postmaster at Country Harbour, N.S., in which the following language occurs, namely:
A Mr. Floyd, who is, I understand, a solicitor in the town, asked if he might represent one of the accused at the hearing. I declined to allow him to act, herein following the precedent laid down by Mr. J. T. Rose, the commissioner appointed in 1896-1897, to do similar work. I had months before declined to hear counsel, on the ground that it would unduly prolong these hearings and would involve very great delay in reaching the many cases that had to be taken up. My attitude in this regard was subsequently confirmed by the department for which I was carrying on the inquiry.
2.	What department of the Government confirmed the attitude of Commissioner Duchemin in refusing to permit counsel to act for parties accused of partisanship?


Mr. J. D. REID:: The Department of Customs issued no instructions authorizing refusal to permit counsel to act for parties accused of partisanship.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-MONCTON PROPERTY PURCHASE.
*Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Did the Intercolonial railway purchase a residential property in Moncton from the estate of the late Peter S. Archibald, C.E. ? If so, through whom was the purchase negotiated, and what was the price paid and to whom?
2.	How was the valuation of the property made, and were valuators appointed? If so. by whom appointed, what are their names and residences respectively, and what was their compensation; what was the total cost of valuation and expenses charged connected with securing title?
3.	Is the property now occupied by F. B. Brady, general superintendent of the Intercolonial railway, was it purchased as a residence, and is it now used as such for him, is any rental for its use charged and paid, and what is the amount of such rental per month or per year?
4.	Were any repairs made on the said property and buildings? If so, what was the nature of said repairs and what was the total cost of same?
5.	Were car shop men employed in such repair work? If so, what men, what wages, and what was the total cost of such labour?
6.	Was the lumber used in such repairs procured from the Intercolonial railway stores department, and at what cost; how was the lumber conveyed from lumber yard to the building, and was it carried by railway men?
7.	What is the total cost of said property to date?
8.	Is the Government aware that the late P.
S.	Archibald paid $1,200 for said property, purchased by him from the late John Murphy, a former paymaster or other official of the Intercolonial railway?
9.	How old was the house on said property, when was it first built, was it in the early fifties or about the time of the completion of the construction, or during said construction, of the European and North American railway, which became a part of the Intercolonial railway after Confederation?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	The Intercolonial railway did not purchase property in Moncton from the estate of the late Peter S. Archibald, but did purchase a property from Mrs. Clara G. Archibald, widow of the late Peter S. Archibald. The purchase was the result of a direct written offer from the owner to the railway authorities. The price of $25,000, or 82 cents per square foot, was paid to Mrs. Clara G. Archibald.
2.	The valuation of the property was made by two valuators, namely, Lester H. Higgins and Wesley McAnn, both of the city of Moncton, appointed by R. Hewson, agent of the Minister of Justice, securing title. The valuators were paid $10 each, in the whole $142.60.
3.	The property is now occupied by F. P. Brady, general superintendent of Canadian Government railways. It was purchased to provide for the diversion of Archibald street, and to reduce the amount of compensation that would be payable as damages on account of the construction of the approaches to the proposed Main street subway, provided for by last year's par-

liamentary vote, the remnant of the property on which the building stands to be sold after the completion of the proposed subway. The rental of $25 per month is charged and paid for the property.
4.	General repairs were made to the residence on the said property at the total cost of $2,900.
5.	Yes, carpenters, painters, tinsmiths, masons, labourers; at the regular schedule wages, total cost of such labour in the whole being $2,080.86, which amount is included in the cost of general repairs set out in question No. 4.
6.	Yes, at a cost of $300, which amount is included in the cost of general repairs set out in question No. 4. The lumber was conveyed from the lumber yard to the property by transfer car and truck team.
7.	$28,042.60.
8.	The department has no information.
9.	The department has no information.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-LUMBER PURCHASE.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Has the Government, since the month of November, 1913, bought any deals or other material from the firm of John Fenderson Company, of Sayabec?
2.	If so, at what price and by whose order have those materials been bought, and have tenders been asked before such purchase?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Spruce planking, T and G, planed on one side, at $21 per thousand; dimension timber, spruce at $19, $20, $21 and $25 per thousand, according to size, purchased on orders of the general tie and timber agent. This being an emergency order, regular tenders were not called, but offers were asked of eleven firms and the lowest offer received accepted.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-SUNNYBRAE-GUYSBOROUGH BRANCH.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Is there a party of surveyors now engaged in surveying the proposed branch railway from Sunnybrae, N.S., to Guysborough?
2.	If so, who is in charge of said survey, and who composed the staff of assistants, if any?
3.	Has the Department of Railways and Canals sent a traffic expert over the said proposed line at any time? If so, who was the expert?
4.	Did such expert, if any, make a report to the department?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.

3.	Yes. A. J. Gray.
4.	Report not yet completed.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-RATES ON FRESH FISH.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What is the present local rate of freight charged by the Intercolonial railway per 100 pounds on fresh fish between Mulgrave and New Glasgow, Mulgrave and Truro, and Mulgrave and Amherst, N.S. ?
2.	What was the local rate of freight by the said Intercolonial railway on fresh fish per 100 pounds between said points prior to October, 1911?
'Mr. COCHRANE:
1.	Present rates on fresh fish: Mulgrave to New Glasgow, 26 cents per 100 lbs., less carload quantities; 16 cents per 100 lbs., carloads. Mulgrave to Truro, 32 cents per 100 lbs., less carloads; 20 cents per 100 lbs. carloads. Mulgrave to Amherst, 36 cents per 100 lbs., less carloads; 20 cents per 100 lbs., carloads.
2.	Prior to October, 1911, corresponding rates were: Mulgrave to New Glasgow, 24 cents per 100 lbs., less carloads; 15 cents per 100 lbs. carloads. Mulgrave to Truro, 30 cents per 100 lbs., less carloads; 19 cents per 100' lbs. carloads. Mulgrave to Amherst, 34 cents per 100 lbs., less carloads; 21 cents per 100 lbs., carloads.
INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-POINT TUPPER-MULGRAVE^ FERRY.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: -1. Has a contract been awarded for the construction of a ferry steamer for the Intercolonial railway between Mulgrave and Point Tupper?
2.	If so, who are the contractors?
3.	What is the contract price?
4.	When will this boat be delivered?
5.	How does she compare in size with the ferry steamer Scotia?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 
INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-EMPLOYMENT OF THOMAS WILLIAMS.
Mr. TURGEON:: 1.	Has Thomas Williams, a former treasurer of the Intercolonial railway, been employed at any time since October 1, 1911, in the service of the railway, either temporarily or permanently? If so, what were the services rendered, what amount or amounts were paid him in each year, and what is the total so paid?
2.	Was he during the period named employed by any department of the Government? If so, which, what were the services rendered, and what compensation was paid him?
3.	Is the said Thomas Williams in receipt of a superannuation or retiring allowance, under any statute of Canada, yearly? If so, what amount, and out of what fund is it' paid?
4.	What is the total of the amounts paid him since his retirement as treasurer of the Intercolonial railway?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes. Appointed by Order in Council December, 2, 1911, to prepare inventory and valuation of all stores, supplies, rolling stock and equipment, machinery and plant belonging to the Intercolonial railway and the Prince Edward Island railway. .Paid in 1911-12, $1,100.89; in 1912-13, $3,373.79; total, $4,474.68.
2.	Answered by No. 1, as far as the Department of Railways and Canals is concerned.
3.	Yes, under the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act he is paid $1,782 per annum.
4.	He has been paid from the 1st September, 1908, to the 31st January, 1914, on superannuation account, $9,652.50; and for special services as cited in No. 1, $4,474.68; total, $14,127.18.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-SAMUEL KING AND WILLIAM AIRD.
Mr. TURGEON:: Have Samuel and William Aird been in the employment of the Intercolonial railway permanently or temporarily at any time? If so, for how long, since October 1, 1911, what were the services rendered, and the amounts paid as compensation therefor, respectively?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1. Yes. Samuel King was employed by T. Williams, with the approval of the department, to assist him in making a valuation of the rolling stock of the Intercolonial railway and the Prince Edward Island railway-92 days. Paid in 1911-12, $427; in 1912-13, $462.10; total, $889.10. William Aird was employed by T. Williams, with the approval of the department, to assist him in making a valuation of the motive power of the Intercolonial railway and the
Prince Edward Island railway-36 days. Paid in 1913, $290.95. He was also employed temporarily inspecting engines being built at Canadian Locomotive Works, Kingston, for the Intercolonial railway, for which he was paid $521.43.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-EXPENSES OF INVESTIGATING COMMISSION.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Have the commissioners appointed to investigate the construction of the Transcontinental railway concluded their labours? If so, on what date?
2.	What is the total cost in connection with the work of said commission?
3.	What has been paid to each commissioner to date?
4.	What amount is yet due to each?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes, the report of the commissioners was laid upon the Table of the House of Commons on February 11, 1914.
2.	$63,388.45.
3.	To F. P. Gutelius, $27,465.48; to G. Lynch-Staunton, $24,038.01; other official services, expenses and reporting, $11,884.96.
4.	All accounts presented have been paid.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-OXFORD-PICTOU TRAIN SERVICE.
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:: Is it the intention of the Railway Department to change the system of running the trains on what is known as the short line between Oxford Junction and Pictou, by running through trains to and from New Glasgow and Stellarton and return, instead of from Pictou, as has always been the practice?


Mr. COCHRANE:: No.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCraney.-For a return showing how many towns in the province of Ontario have a population larger than the town of Chesley, South Riding of Bruce, which was 1,734, according to the last census, and how many of such towns are served by letter boxes on the street.
Mr. Sinclair.-For a copy of all telegrams and letters written or sent by G. A. R. Bowlings, of Sydney, N.S., Arthur McDonald, of Sherbrooke, N.S., and J. L. Hattie, of Caledonia, N.S., to the Department of Militia and Defence, or to the Minister of Militia, or any officer, relating to Fenian Raid bounties, and also of all replies to such letters and telegrams.
Mr. Boulay.-For a copy of all correspondence, investigations or other documents respecting the loss of a horse killed on the Intercolonial, on the 10th of September last, the property of Johnny Roy, of Amqui.
Mr. Graham.

For a copy of the contract with Mr. Joseph Gosselin for the locomotive and car shops at St. Malo, and of all telegrams, letters and correspondence between the department and Mr. W. J. Press, mechanical
[Stage Direction]
engineer, or the chief engineer, with regard to change of the price of 85 cents per cubic yard for common excavation to the price of $2.30 per cubic yard for frozen earth.
Mr. J. J. Hughes.-For a copy of ail charges, complaints, memorials, correspondence and telegrams not already brought down relating to officials in any department of the Government since October 10, 1911, the number of officials dismissed, reports of investigations held in respect of such charges, items of expenditure and costs of each investigation, the names of persons appointed to office in the place of dismissed officials, and of all recommendations^ received in behalf of persons so appointed' in the province of Prince Edward Island.
Mr. Demers.-For a copy of all documents, petitions, letters, telegrams, &c., exchanged between anyone and the Post Office Department, in connection with the establishing of a rural mail service in the parish of Ste. Marguerite de Blairfindie, county of St. Johns and Iberville, and of all documents, letters and telegrams, &c., relating to the contracts for the conveyance of rural mail in said parish.

[Stage Direction]
Interim Report of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission to December 31, 1913.-Hon. Frank Cochrane.
Minutes of Evidence taken in Australia by the Dominions Royal Commission, Part 1; Minutes of Evidence taken in Australia by the Dominions Royal Commission, Part 2, Minutes of Evidence taken in New Zealand; and Second Interim Report of the Dominions Royal Commission.-Hon. George E. Foster.
Mr. FOSTER:: The first interim report
was simply a covering to the first volume of the evidence; the first real report issued by the commission is that which I now put on the table of the House.


THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY IN AUSTRIA.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Rouville) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence and papers generally, exchanged between the Government and the Home authorities concerning the closing of the offices of the Canadian Pacific Company at Vienna and Trieste, Austria.
He said:	In presenting this motion, I
need not say that I hold no brief for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I bring the matter to the attention of the House because it seems to me that this question involves the status of a great Canadian corporation in a foreign country, and it affects every British subject, whether he be a Canadian, an Australian a New Zealander, or a native of the British Isles. The treatment to which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company wa? subjected in this

instance, has aroused much resentment in England and in Canada. The history of the case is possibly well known to members of the House, but I may be pardoned for recalling the circumstances attending the closing of the Canadian Pacific Railway offices in Vienna and in Trieste. First of all, we know that the Canadian Pacific railway, having some years ago completed its Canadian establishment, so to speak, decided to start a direct steamship service between the port of Trieste in Austria and Canada. We know also that the Canadian Pacific railway has inaugurated on Austrian territory a special tourist observation car service, which is quite a credit to that great corporation and which has been the means of advertising Canada and Canadian products.
The question which affects the present case, however, is more in relation to the steamship line of the Canadian Pacific railway. The Canadian Pacific railway had organized transportation and was carrying tourist passengers, steerage and freight business. The general manager of the Canadian Pacific railway in Austria-Hungary was Mr. Altman, who, I believe, is an American citizen, but who was acting there as the general manager of the Canadian Pacific railway. The company had also some other agents in different parts of Austria to look after its business; in fact, the organization of the Canadian Pacific railway in that respect did not materially differ from the organization of the other transportation companies.
In November last, the press of the country was informed that the offices of the Canadian Pacific railway in Austria had been closed; that all the papers had been seized by the police, and that the general manager of the Canadian Pacific railway, Mr. Altman, had been summarily arrested, without any previous notice being given to him although he was very prominently known throughout Austria. The pretext for Mr. Altman's arrest, the closing of the Canadian Pacific railway offices and the seizing of the papers, was that a breach of the emigration regulations of Austria had been committed. It was freely stated that the agents of the Canadian Pacific railway had enticed young men of Austrian origin to emigrate, in contravention of the military laws of Austria. As a matter of fact, this accusation has been denied and had been successfully attacked. As regards the statistics of emigration from Austria to Canada on the Canadian Pacific railway and also on the competing lines, perhaps it

' would be well that I should give the figures. It is established beyond any doubt that between January 1, 1913, and September 30, 1913, the Canadian Pacific railway carried, as first-class, second-class and steerage passengers, 30,850 persons. Out of that total number there were only 11,860 Austrian subjects. Of the others, many were Russians, Ruthenians and emigrants coming from adjacent territories.
What about the rival companies? It is well known that there exists on the continent of Europe a very powerful pool, composed of the following well known companies: the North German Lloyd, the Ham-burg-American Company, the Holland-Amerika Company, and the Red Star Company. They are under the control of Herr Balin, a distinguished and influential German financier. It is established that this German-Austrian pool carried during the same period as the Canadian Pacific railway, that is to say between January 1, 1913, and September 30, 1913, as many as 460,000 steerage passengers, of whom, according to the London Times, fully 50 per cent were Austrian subjects.


Robert Laird Borden: Are the computations
which my bon. friend has given, official in their character ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have these figures from the London Times, and I might be able to furnish them to my right hon. friend during the debate.
Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER: Does mj hon. friend know whether those figures which he has taken from the London Times have been really got, as a source, from the investigations of the committee in the Austrian Parliament?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not think so, because they are taken from a date precedent to the investigation which was held, but I take it for granted that the Times *editorially would not make a statement unless it were authentic. The Times is well known in the world as being one of the best informed papers.


George Eulas Foster: I was not questioning that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No. It is precedent to the investigation held by the Austrian Government.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as my hon. friend is aware, these figures have not been controverted ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No. It became quite evident, after the summary arrest of Mr. Altman, representing this great corporation abroad, that the whole question was nothing more or less than the result of a quarrel between divergent interests. Immediately on the accusation made that the Canadian Pacific railway was violating the immigration law of Austria, an official statement from Montreal was published in the press of London and Canada simultaneously, under the authority, I understand, of Sir Thomas Shaughnessy. With your permission I will read that statement:
Seeing that considerable misconception seems to exist with regard to the nature of the Canadian Pacific on the continent of Europe, it should be explained that in conducting the passenger business strict instructions have been issued to all the Canadian Pacific agents on the continent of Europe to follow strictly the letter of the law of the respective countries. It has always. been the policy of the Canadian Pacific to conform without question, to the wishes of the governments of the countries in which their agents were permitted to do business. In Austria, the Canadian Pacific, knowing the natural dislike of the Austrian Government to heavy emigration over the frontiers, went out of the way to show the Austrians how to control emigration by concentrating the stream on the Austrian port of Trieste, where a careful examination could be made of the emigrants' antecedents and papers.* The company also recommend to the Austrian Government that inspectors should travel in the steamers from Trieste to insure the proper treatment of Austrian subjects on their voyage and to prevent the possibility of exploitation of undesirables. Such examination and protection was not effective under the previous conditions, where the emigrants left so many different frontier stations that no effective control was possible.
The Canadian Pacific obtained the concession of the emigration business in Austria purely as a carrying company. It has strictly forbidden its agents to conduct or promote a propaganda in favour of emigration, the tickets issued being almost entirely prepaid by friends and relatives settled in Canada or in the United States, and the passengers would therefore have left their native country in any case. The p-tssenge** offices were established in Austria with the consent of the Austrian Government, the Canadian Pacific agents in each case were approved, and in some cases even nominated, both by the central authority in Vienna and the local authorities in the respective provinces, the object being to prevent any possible abuse by irresponsible agents.
The line of steamers established by the Canadian Pacific between Canada and Trieste was put on at the direct request of the Austrian Government in order that the merchandise business between Austria and Canada might be shipped direct fro man Austria port. The carryings of Austrian subjects in all the Canadian Pacific steamship lines this year amounted to only 11,361, against 14,000 in 1912.
That is one of the important sources of information as to the number of emigrants carried by the Canadian Pacific railway.


Robert Laird Borden: The motion which has just been moved by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) brings to the attention of Parliament and of the country a subject of more than ordinary importance. There is no objection to the passing of this motion; but of course the hon. member for Rouville 571
will realize, in common with all other members of the House, that there is a good deal of correspondence and other documents in connection with the matter which is either of a confidential character or which, under present conditions, could not be brought down and laid on the table of the House. I appreciate fully the observations which he has made in regard to the good work which has been done by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, not only in the development of our country, but in making Canada known to the British Isles and to a great many other countries of the world by its activities in connection with the business of transportation; and it would be ja matter of great regret if that company should be treated by any nation abroad in such a way as to justify the charge of discrimination which has been alluded to.
It would be entirely undesirable for me to pass any judgment upon a matter that is still under diplomatic negotiation, and which, if I understand the facts correctly, is at present also the subject of investigation by the Austrian Government or by the Austrian courts. It is sufficient to say for the moment that the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which has been put forward very cogently, absolutely disclaims the commission or omission of any act which would justify the course which has been taken in that regard. The representations which were placed before this Government by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, to which I have just alluded, were forwarded without any delay whatever to the Foreign Office through the Colonial Office. If I remember correctly, the representations were also placed before the British Government by Mr. George McL. Brown, who is the representative of the Canadian Pacific railway in London.
My hon. friend the member for Rouville has alluded to the earnestness with which the British press has taken up the discussion of this subject, and it is well to note that the tone of the British press in that regard could not have been more forcible or more earnest if the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had been a company organized within the British Isles, and altogether connected with those islands, instead of with Canada.
While I cannot touch the question in any but a general way at the moment, I may say that the attitude of the British press, to which my hon. friend has alluded, has also been the attitude of the British Government, and of the Foreign Office in par-



ticular, and that no action has been omitted, and no step has failed to be taken, which could assist in placing the representations of the Canadian Pacific railway before the Austrian Government, or in bringing about redress of the incidents which, according to their point of view, were altogether uncalled for and unjustifiable. Since the subject was first brought to our attention in the way already intimated, it has been from time to time the subject of further representations from the Canadian Pacific railway and of further negotiations with the Foreign Office. I am not aware-and therefore I cannot give my hon. friend any assurance at the moment -that the proceedings against Mr. Altman have been concluded or discontinued; but my impression-I do not speak with absolute confidence-is that proceedings are still pending against him and that no decision has been arrived at.
The incident that has taken place is regrettable. So far as the conduct of the officers in Austria is concerned, that is still under investigation; and as to their conduct I do not venture any opinion whatever, because I do not understand the circumstances sufficiently to judge as to whether there was any irregularity on their part. Whatever may be the case in that respect, it must be perfectly apparent to [DOT]every member in this House and to all the people of this country that the general management of the Canadian Pacific railway in this country and Mr. George McL. Brown, the company's London representative, are entirely blameless in the matter, and never had from the first the slightest intention of infringing in any way the laws of Austria, or the regulations made under those laws by the Austrian Government. Pending the negotiations which are still being carried on between the Foreign Office and the Austrian Government, and pending the investigation into the conduct of the officers, it would be undesirable that any of us should pronounce an opinion one way or the other, because we cannot claim to have a sufficient knowledge of the facts. I would be very glad to have the motion of my hon. friend passed subject, of course, to what I have already said as to the undesirability of bringing down papers of a confidential character or of bringing down any papers at all, the production of which might in any way affect the negotiations which are still being carried on.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Rodolphe Lemieux: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, telegrams, &c., between the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, and one Edouard Lapointe, of Quebec City, concerning a contract between said Edouard Lapointe and the Post Office Department.
He said: I do not intend to dilate at any length on this motion. I wish simply to say to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister that.I am informed that there has been correspondence exchanged between the said Edouard Lapointe and himself. Of course, if this correspondence is of a personal nature I shall not insist, but if the correspondence can be made public I would ask my right hon. friend to lay it on the Table of the House.
Mr. BORDEN. I appreciate the considerate tone in which my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has made the motion in regard to this correspondence. To tell the truth, at the moment, I have not the slightest recollection of it. Possibly some such correspondence may have taken place.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You might perhaps let it stand, Mr. Speaker, and, if my right hon. friend finds that he has any such correspondence he may let me know later on.


Robert Laird Borden: I see no objection to the motion passing as it is at present. If it should turn out that the correspondence is of a personal nature, I will acquaint my hon. friend of the fact. On the other hand, if if is a document of a public character, not of a confidential character, I shall bring it down at once.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to enact more effective provisions to punish bribery and fraud at elections, to ensure thorough publicity as to expenditures by political organizations, to prevent the accumulation of campaign funds for corrupt purposes, and to prohibit contributions thereto by corporations, contractors and promoters, to expedite the hearing of election petitions, and to prevent collusive arrangements for the withdrawal or compromise thereof, to provide for a thorough investigation of corrupt practices, and if necessary to appoint an independent prosecuting officer charged with that duty, to simplify the procedure thereof and to enforce the laws so amended.
And that a selected committee of nine be appointed to inquire into the Acts relating to

Elections to this House, and the prevention of corrupt practices thereat, and the procedure and practice upon petitions relating to such elections, and to report to the House if any changes are desirable therein. That the said committee have power to send for persons papers, and records. That three be a quorum of the committee.	[DOT]
He said:	Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to invite any protracted debate on this resolution. My remarks upon it will be of a very general character. It is also my desire to abstain from any partisan observations, which, of course, would only invite recrimination, because, as is realized by all hon. members of this House, one party alone is not responsible for any corrupt electoral practices, nor is the other of our two great political parties immune and faultless in this respect. If our law in respect to the subjects which are mentioned in my resolution are ineffective, or defective, I take it that it is the desire of hon. gentlemen to reform the same and remove the defects. Therefore, I desire that the resolution be debated purely upon its merits and not upon the past records of either political party with respect to electoral practices.
You will notice that the resolution is contained in two paragraphs. It is of rather distinguished parentage. The first paragraph is a declaration of principles enunciated by the present right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) in a speech which he delivered at Halifax quite a number of years ago-I think probably in the year 1904. The remarks that the Prime Minister made on that occasion, and which are contained in the first paragraph of the resolution, were later known to the public as one of the planks of the so-called Halifax platform of the Conservative party. I assume that the declarations of principle as contained in this portion of the Halifax platform are considered as sound to-day as they were on the occasion when first uttered, and I trust that hon. gentlemen opposite will recognize that I am performing a public service, and a service to the party of hon. gentlemen opposite, when I bring to the attention of this House the Halifax platform in so far as it relates to the subject matter that I am now discussing. I think I may truthfully say that hon. gentlemen upon this side of the House are quite ready and willing to co-operate with the Government and hon. gentlemen opposite in aiding the House to provide legislation, if it does not already exist, to make effective the principles contained in the first part of my resolution.
The second paragraph of the resolution is
also a literal reproduction of a resolution moved by the right hon. the Prime Minister in the year 1906. That motion, as I recollect, was accepted on behalf of the Government by the then Minister of Justice, Sir Charles, Fitzpatrick. The motion was referred to a committee for consideration but no definite action was taken or report made to the House by the committee. I gather from a cursory perusal of ' Hansard ' in reference to this matter that the committee were not very energetic in their meetings and failed to make a report. Shortly after that motion was made by the Prime Minister, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick went out of office and was succeeded by Sir Allen Ayles-worth, who was unable during that session to take time from his other pressing duties to give the matter the attention it demanded.


Mr. BOEDEN:: Were not certain Bills
referred to a committee?
Mr. MACLEANCertain other Bills proposing amendments to the Elections Act and the Corrupt Practices Act were introduced by the Prime Minister and referred to the same committee. I do not remember what was the fate of these Bills, whether they were ever reported to the House or not, but at all events no legislation resulted. In 1903 a committee was appointed to consider such matters as those referred to in my motion, and that committee made a report, accompanied by a proposed Bill, Which was discussed, but with no concrete results. The suggestion of compulsory voting was contained in this Bill, and that feature of it was debated at considerable length. The Bill, however, failed of enactment.


Frederick William Borden: If I remember correctly, Mr. Alcorn, then member for Prince Edward county, introduced a Bill.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am told that Bill
never received its second reading.


Mr. GUTHEIE:: It was discussed a little in the House and allowed to stand over.


Frederick William Borden: I had the idea that Mr. Aylesworth, when Minister of Justice, accepted Mr. Alcorn's Bill in whole or in part.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have no recollection
of the Bill introduced by Mr. Alcorn.
All laws respecting corrupt practices, now upon our statute books, are designed to prevent or discourage such practices. It may be said, with some degree of truth, that we now have very stringent provisions, but the question arises whether these pro

visions are successful in preventing or minimizing the evils they are aimed at. 1 regret that my experience and observation leads me to conclude that our laws in this respect are more honoured in the breach than in the observance; I regret to say, that in my judgment, unfortunately, corrupt practices at elections are very prevalent in Canada. I doubt if there is any portion of the British Empire in which corrupt practices in elections are so prevalent as they are here. It is my opinion that in this respect matters are in such a deplorable condition as to call for a remedy from the representatives of the people in this Parliament. Almost every election brings forward the usual charges of corrupt practices by one party against the other, and inevitably counter-charges follow. I think I may safely postulate the statement, that corrupt practices in elections are undesirable from every standpoint, and that it should be the desire of every good citizen, particularly of all men engaged in public life, who should be the leaders in Teform, to provide legislation which will prevent, or at least minimize, this evil. Democratic institutions must be a failure if the electorate fail to express their opinion in a pure and incorrupt manner, and elections are a needless expenditure of money and labour if they be not a free and honest expression of public opinion. Government of the people, for the people, and by the people of which we in Canada boast, is impossible of accomplishment in any country where corrupt electoral practices extensively prevail. The evils which spring from corrupt electoral practices are not only felt within the constituencies, but beyond. Political corruption in constituencies will lead to corrupt lobbies in Parliament; to corrupting influences in public life generally, and gradually to a lowering of the plane of the whole social and commercial life of the country. I do not intend to elaborate this view, but it must be obvious to hon. gentlemen that corrupt practices cannot prevail in elections in individual constituencies or in the country generally, without giving rise to analogous conditions in our commercial and social life.
By the elimination of corrupt practices in elections, I believe we would eliminate also a great deal of the bitterness and acidity which obtains in the political life of this country. In respect to our laws as we now find them upon the statute-book, it may be truly said that there are very stringent provisions against the practices to which I am now objeot'ng, but I

think it can also be successfully contended that these provisions can be so amended as to make them much more effective.
I desire to refer very briefly, but in a general way only, to some of the provisions of the statutes of Great Britain in reference to this matter. There we find the provisions of the statutes relating to corrupt practices in elections to be much more effective in practice than they are in this country, although in principle they are very much alike. Still, there we find some provisions which assist very much in the prompt and effective administration of the laws in respect to elections, and which I think we might very well enact in this country.
I would like to invite a brief consideration of some of the provisions of the English statutes in reference to this matter. 1 do not propose making an analysis of all the provisions of these statutes; I desire merely to invite the House to consider two or three of the most important of them. For instance, I find in respect to expenses incurred in elections that the provisions of the English Act are very much more effective and comprehensive than they are in this country. In Great Britain a candidate is compelled to file within two months a statement of all expenditures made by him or on his behalf by agents. Accompanying this statement there must also be a declaration of the candidate. It is true that under the Canadian statute a candidate is obliged to file a statement, but this even is rarely observed by candidates. There is nothing, however, requiring a declaration on oath to accompany the statement. At least that is my recollection of the statute.


Mr. MARCIL:: In England are agents
appointed by the candidates in writing?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, I think so. 1
think that the provision requiring that a declaration or oath must accompany the statement by a candidate, or by an agent on his behalf, showing the expenses for any election is quite effective, and that a similar provision should be inserted in the election laws of this country.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: The hon. gentleman will remember that under the Dominion Act not only has a statement to be furnished, but the accounts themselves all have to be left in the hands of the returning officer so that either party can see what has been spent.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The point I am making is that there is not any sufficient penalty

provided by our statute for failure to file and publish the statutory statement of election expenses. The result is that such a statement is rarely, in this country, published as required by the statute. Further,
' my recollection of the statute is that no declaration need accompany the statement. The form of affidavit as required by the British statute is as follows:
And I hereby further solemnly and sincerely declare that, except as appears from that return, 1 have not and to the best of my knowledge and belief no other person, nor any club, society or association has on behalf of the said candidate made any payment, or given, promised or offered any reward, office, employment or valuable consideration, or incurred any liability on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the said election.


Robert Laird Borden: If I remember correctly, in Great Britain the member elected is not permitted to take his seat in Parliament unless the statement has been filed; and if it is irregular in any way, he must go to a court and get relieved from the effects of that irregularity before he can take his seat.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Prime Minister is
right in that respect, and I intend referring to that. Not only must the statement be accompanied by the declaration which I have read, but until that statement with that declaration is filed, the member is disqualified from occupying his seat in the House and from voting therein. If the candidate for any reason is unable to make that declaration, he is still disqualified from taking his iseat in the House and from voting therein until the prohibition has been removed in some way or another, as provided by statute, by an order of the court.	[DOT]


Mr. BURNHAM:: Is not that assuming
that the man who has made the declaration will tell the truth? Is not that also assuming a great deal?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is a fair assump-. tion; and if it proved incorrect, the man making the declaration would be liable to a severe penalty, either in the loss of his seat or in some other form. I therefore submit to the House that these two provisions of the English Act are well worthy of consideration and of adoption in this country.
The English Act also provides for a limitation of expenditure according to the number of electors in any constituency, and the amount which any club or any person may expend on behalf of any candidate. Upon this point, of course, we have an apparently very stringent provision in our Act, namely, that section which requires the payment of all accounts or expenses incurred in any election to be made through the statutory agent appointed by the candidate. The section in the English Act appears to me to be much more effective, and I would like to read it to the House, particularly in so far as it is referable to the matter of contributions by other parties towards the liquidation of election expenses.
It is as follows:
Except as permitted by or in pursuance of this Act, no payment and no advance or deposit shall be made by a candidate at an election or by any agent on behalf of the candidate or by any other person at any time, whether before, during, or after such election, in respect of any expenses incurred on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of such election, otherwise than by or through the election agent of the candidate, whether acting in person or by a sub-agent; and all money provided by any person other than the candidate for any expenses incurred on account of or in respect of the conduct of management of the election, whether as gift, loan, advance, or deposit, shall be paid to the candidate or his election agent or otherwise.
This section also gives the definition of the word * person ' so as to include:

an association or body of persons corporate or incorporate and where any act is done by any association or body the members of such association or body who have taken part in the commission of such act shall be liable to any fine or punishment imposed for the same by this Act.	.


Charles Marcil: If that would invalidate
the election, that would mean that candidates must suffer from the action of parties who are not their agents.


Robert Laird Borden: They are their agents in one sense though not in another.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A great deal might be
said in favour of the provisions I have just given to the House, but it is not my intention to argue the matter at greater length, as my desire isr simply to submit the suggestion to the House. Another provision in the English Elections Act which is particularly referred to in the motion, and to which the present Prime Minister frequently referred in the discussion of this matter in the past, is the appointment of a public prosecutor to conduct election petitions or proceedings, or to interpose therein whenever he deemed it proper. I do not propose expressing any personal opinion upon the efficacy and propriety of inserting such a provision in our statute, but desire merely to refer to it in order to invite the attention

of the House to the same. I have no doubt that it is found very effective in the administration of the law in England. I apprehend much greater difficulty would be found in this country in administering such a provision, but the idea has a great deal to commend it, and on the whole should have our very best consideration. The provision in the British Elections Act with respect to a public prosecutor is as follows:
On every trial of an election petition the director of public prosecutions shall by himself or by his assistant, or by such representative as hereinafter mentioned, attend at the trial, and it shall be the duty of such director to obey any directions given to him by the election court with respect to the summoning of any witness to give evidence on such trial, and with respect to the prosecution by him of offender^, and with respect to any person to whom notice is given to attend with a view to report him as guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice.
Then, under another section of the English Act, it is provided that upon any motion to withdraw an election petition, copies of the affidavits are to be delivered to the director of public prosecutions, who can attend and cross-examine upon the affidavits, or take any course which seems desirable, if he has any suspicion that the proceeding is the result of any corrupt agreement between the parties to an election petition. There is much to be said in favour of such a power being granted to a public official, because I am sure it is the experience of many hon. gentlemen in this House, if not of all, that petitions are filed with a knowledge, or almost a certainty, that they are to be later on discontinued, being initiated for protective or retaliatory purpose. This brings about the inevitable result-and I have no doubt it has been the practice to some degree at least in this country-that after the commencement of election petitions wholesale compromises are effected. Then, there is this other virtue about the appointment of a public prosecutor, that he would be in a position to carry on to a conclusion petitions that have been commenced, no matter what be the desire of the parties to the petition. It does frequently happen that in an election court admissions are made of one or two violations of the statute which generally end the proceedings, and the seat is declared vacant. If there existed a public prosecutor, he would have the power to carry the proceedings further should he think it in the public interest to do so. Respecting the provision of the English statute providing for the public prosecutor, I merely repeat what I have already said,

that it is worthy of our best consideration. It is quite evident that a similar provision in our statute would assist very materially in putting into force the provisions of our law against corrupt practices, and in the event of this resolution being referred to a committee, I trust that this matter will have their best consideration.
When the present Prime Minister was discussing this resolution in 1909, he quoted from an article which appeared in the North American Review written by Mr. Arthur Bottow, evidently a man of much experience in the conduct of election trials in England. For the purpose of giving to the House a summary of the English statute and showing its power as a deterrent of corrupt practices in elections, I will read briefly from this article. The writer pointed out that, up to a certain time, conditions had been very unsatisfactory. He proceeds:
The end came through the law of 1883, and ever-blessed let me call that law. For, under its benificent powers, the knife of the public prosecutor cut deep down into the very roots of the political ulcer, and the scandal which originated in the lax morality of the court of King Charles XI, and had in the two hundred years of its orgy permeated the very vitals of the body politic, ended its pestiferous life. All previous legislation had been half-hearted, ambiguous or narrow; the drag-net of Sir Henry James caught the whole breed of corruptionists and its provisions left no loop-hole but cessation on the jail. If for no other reason, it would mark a new era inasmuch as for the first time it brought under discipline political clubs and associations; but it has many other claims to everlasting gratitude.
It may assist in suggesting some points to our present day reformers, and I make no apology for summarizing some of its most novel and drastic provisions.
I may say that, to all intents and purposes, this is still the statute in England.
It starts by defining bribery and treating and extending these offences to periods before, during or after any election, and in making the receiver as well as the giver guilty of a corrupt practice, punishable by one year's imprisonment or $1,000 fine. It makes the aider, abettor, counsellor and procurer of personation as guilty of felony as the personator punishable by a term of two years' imprisonment with hard labour. Its next blows are at long-established abuses, never before unlawful. It makes it an illegal practice, punishable by $500 fine on summary conviction, to hold any committee in public houses or saloons; or to pay for the use of any house or other premises, for the purpose of exhibiting posters ; to pay for any bands of music, torches, banners, ribbons or other marks of distinction, or to pay for the conveyance of voters to the poll.
It disfranchises every person employed for money by the candidate, and cuts down the number who may be employed *to one agent, one polling clerk and one messenger for every 500 voters.
I

It defines the purposes-so much for printing, so much for this, and so much for that-for which alone money can be spent; and it limits the total maximum to $1,750 where voters number 2,000, and $750 for each 1,000 voters above that number; a subject never before touched by law.
It prohibits a single cent of this expenditure being incurred by any other person than the agent. Whatever aid any club or association may desire to give must be in cash to the agent, of which hereafter the spending agent has to make an itemized account with the names and duties of every person employed or bills incurred, confirmed by their vouchers. Within thirty-five days after the election, the agent is compelled to file a statement of all moneys received by him from the candidate or from any other person, with the name of every person, club or association from whom the same was received. Both the candidate ^.nd the agent are charged with actual personal knowledge of all the details of these receipts and payments, and each of them has to declare solemnly and sincerely that, except as appears on the returns, they have not, nor to the best of their knowledge has any other person, nor has any club, society or association, on behalf of the said candidate, made any payment or incurred any liability on account of it, or in respect to, the conduct and management of such an eiection.
To clench the whole legal fist, and to bring it down swiftly and mercilessly; if there be a petition against the member the director of public prosecution is to attend it, and it shall be his duty, without any direction of the court, to prosecute persons guilty of corrupt or illegal practices before any court competent to deal with the offences.
Whether any enactment providing for the appointment of a public prosecutor in Canada such as they have in England, would be practical useful legislation, may be open to question. At any rate it is desirable and urgent that some reform be made in our law in order to ensure the prompt and effective trial of election petitions. I think there can he little doubt but that in England the existence of such a public official ensures an early trial and conclusion of election proceedings. If we can bring about the same results in any other manner, it would, perhaps, be just as acceptable, but some radical change is necessary. In discussing this matter in 1906, the Prime Minister spoke as follows:
A very radical change should be made there so that an immediate inquiry could be had, the attendance of a judge procured at once, an investigation held immediately, possibly the candidate not allowed to take his seat until that summary and prompt inquiry had been held; if that could be brought about I think it would be a very desirable change. Certainly the law as it stands at present does not accomplish very great results. The withdrawal, the abatement, the pairing off of elections are undoubted evils, and whether or not the suggestions which I make be approved by the Minister of Justice, at all events greater simplicity of procedure and greater expedition in disposing of these cases ought to be ensured.
I think that is a very complete summary of the conditions now prevailing in this country in respect to the conduct of election petitions. The suggestions made by the Prime Minister on that occasion were certainly most proper, particularly those wherein he pointed out the great
4	p.m. necessity for simplicity of procedure and greater expedition in disposing of election trials in our courts.
There are one or two other matters to which I desire to refer briefly, just by way of a isuggestion to the House. In the statutes of several states of the United States, provisions have been introduced requiring publicity respecting election campaign contributions. As these provisions have not had a very long trial, perhaps it is too early to demonstrate their efficacy. However, I think that in the United States these provisions have accomplished some reform, and that they are worthy of the consideration of this House. It is true that such a provision does not afford direct evidence which is accessible to any party in conducting any prosecution or legal proceedings wherein it is sought to prove a corrupt expenditure of public money. However to some extent, it does afford some assistance; for by tracing the expenditure in any district or constituency it can be ascertained whether the contributions as made public were complete, or whether some were eliminated. I desire to give to the House the opinion of Senator Clapp, of the United States, who was chairman of a Congressional committee appointed in 1912 to inquire into corrupt practices and campaign contributions in that country. The article which I am about to read appeared in the Montreal Daily Mail not many months ago, and in it Senator Clapp, specially deals with the results of the provisions requiring publicity in campaign contributions. He says:
Whatever may be said on the subject of campaign expenditures, I think the evidence taken by the committee shows a marked improvement during the last few years. The fact that a report now has to be made and preserved, thus insuring at least some degree of publicity, is in itself an improvement not only in the recognition of the right of the people to know what is done, but while we cannot close our eyes to the fact that there is still a great deal of money collected and expended which does not find its way into the public reports of the national committees, still the degree of publicity now required has beyond doubt lessened contributions of a questionable character, assuming that some contributions are to be recognized as proper.
An examination of the abstract of contributions and expenditures will show another

marked improvement. In this, formerly committees depended more or less upon a few large contributions from great financial interests. Whatever the motive for such contributions might be, the effect is obvious. Of late, the tendency has been to depend less upon such contributions and more upon small contributions gathered generally from the country at large.
A change for the better.
This change may be due in part to the growth of sentiment which recognized the obvious evil of depending upon a few great contributions, and it may be due in part to the necessity for dependence upon small contributions as the making of large contributions by great financial interests was, in a measure, checked by publicity. It may be due in part to the fact that those in charge of campaigns realized that small contributions received from the country at large were sure to result in an increased interest and activity upon the part of such small contributors.
Whatever may be said of partisanships, the great majority of voters have, or may have, if properly developed, a feeling toward party akin to a sense of loyalty based upon the things for which the party stands, and such sentiment really partakes of patriotism. This feeling is lessened in proportion as the voter feels that the contributions his party receives are made by a few great interests, and increases as he feels that his party, instead of depending upon a few large contributions, depends upon a vast number of small contributors of which he is one.
This is the opinion of one having some experience upon the effect of that particular provision in the American law requiring publicity of campaign contributions. There is a great deal to be said in favour of it, and it is one well worthy of our consideration. The election law of this country lacks a ether provision which I think should be found there. I refer to the matter of simultaneous voting in by-elections-a matter which has been discussed in this House on previous occasions. In fact I think the Prime Minister introduced a Bill a few years ago dealing with this very matter. My suggestion is against the idea of permitting by-elections to be held upon dates to be selected arbitrarily by the administration of the day. I do not wish to provoke any discussion upon this matter particularly, but I may be permitted to say that I understand-possibly I am mistaken-it was the practice of the late Government to hold elections in all vacant constituencies upon the same day, and I was led to believe that in this respect we were in practice living up to that which might be well inserted in the statute. However, during the last year, several federal by-elections took place, but on different dates, and in one constituency a vacancy existed for, I think, over seven months, notwithstanding the fact that by-elec-ions had
LMr. A. K. Maclean.]
taken place in other constituencies which became vacant much later. I allude to the constituency of South Lanark. I think that the provisions of the English Election Act -and our practice was in accordance with that for some years-should find a place in the laws of this country. In Great Britain when a seat becomes vacant the machinery is set in motion automatically. In the recent Beading by-election, which may be cited as an example, the seat was vacated on October 22nd. The London Times of October 22 contained a formal notice that six days after October 22 the Speaker would issue a writ for an election in the constituency of Reading, in the room of Sir . Rufus Isaacs, who had been appointed Lord Chief Justice of England. The election followed in the course of a few days. I admit that it would hardly be possible or practicable for us to adopt exactly the same provisions in Canada, hut I venture to express the opinion, and I believe it will meet with the approval of hon. gentlemen in this House, that the bringing on of byelections should not be a matter to be arbitrarily dealt with by the Government of the day, but that there should be same statutory provision dealing with such a matter. I would say that it is an eminently fair provision of the law to compel simultaneous polling in by-elections. Just a word or two more, before I conclude my remarks. Whatever may be the defects in our statute regarding the several matters referred to in my motion, the graves't are to be found in the Act respecting controverted elections, and that of course has reference to the conduct of election petitions or trials. There should be some provision in that Act whereby it should be possible to commence and conclude an election petition within a very reasonable time. There should also, I think, be some provision whereby the Government of this country could see to the conduct and conclusion of that trial, if the petitioner was financially unable to bear the expense of the same. Whether this can be accomplished by what is known in England as a public prosecutor I need not say, but I think there are many strong reasons why changes should be made in our statute in respect to election trials, so that they may be determined speedily when onee commenced. I have nothing further to say to the House on this motion at the present time. I trust that the motion will meet with the favourable consideration of the Government, and that they will be pleased to. recommend the appointment of

a committee to take into consideration this question, and that such committee shall he given power to hear testimony and make such a report to the House of Commons later as in the circumstances may seem fitting.


John Hampden Burnham: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
say a word or two on this subject, especially as I regard it not only as my privilege but my duty. Those who remember the history of affairs in England prior to 1881 will remember that England had become so absolutely rotten politically that it was almost impossible to carry on a system of government there. The consequence was that they brought in Sir Henry James' Bill, which was carried out so well and so thoroughly that political corruption amongst the masses-I do not mean amongst the titled classes

was very largely stopped. In the United States, as the Rev. Dr. Rainsford has lately said, they are at least twenty years ahead of us in grappling with corruption. I do not think that in either of these countries the people are better inherently than we are, but it is because there has grown up in Canada a certain cynicism as terrible as it is pathe-' tic, which affects pretty nearly every one and which regards as a joke the man who stands up for clean elections. The only hope in all this is that when things get so bad that they cannot get worse and have to be reformed, necessity makes it imperative that we 'shall reform them. Therefore, if things have not reached that stage in Canada yet, they shortly will be there, and from the very necessities of the case we shall have to reform them if from no higher motive than that.
I would like to say also that it is well understood, by the risen as well as by the rising generation, that men who will condone or practise one form of crookedness will condone and practise every other form. The gentle art of lying requires, on their behalf to be carried out in its entirety. As for saying that people shall, by declaration and otherwise, file certain statements, I have only to remark that such a proposition is absurd. We know that some people would file anything under heaven and stop only as near as possible to the margin or limit at which they are likely to be found out. I have had plenty of painful experience in this regard and I know whereof I speak without presuming to know too much. I think the remedy is not to encumber the statute book with
further provisions, which make it a long, weary and expensive task for those who would undertake to vindicate the law, but that a simple Temedy would be found byadding a clause, if necessary, to the Criminal Code stating that each individual offence as it arises may be treated before a magistrate or two justices of the peace. If you make that change in the law you have the difficulty solved. Instead of waiting to make a long bill of complaint with one, or two, or four, or five hundred charges in it and watching your witnesses, you could deal at once with the persons who had perpetrated bribery if necessary by that method. You could carry out your plan at once upon the material provided. The petitioner under the present circumstances when the list of charges is served, in the hands of an unscrupulous and cunning opponent, might as well put his head on the block and have it chopped off at once and save a lot of expense and trouble. If, however, he could get a constable, if he could go before a magistrate and promptly state his case, lay an information if necessary, and, if the gravity of the offence warranted it, swear out an information or get a warrant, if he could not get a summons, or vice versa, have the accused individual brought before the magistrate and have each individual case treated in this way it is my opinion that it would prove the most effective method of putting a stop to these corrupt practices. Then, instead of waiting for an election petition to be tried, the material is provided at hand, the case is really settled before any one can get away and before the hostile forces have been collected for the killing. I know myself that we would have saved several thousands of dollars, a lot of time, a lot of worry, a lot of abuse and a lot of absurdity if we had had the privilege of going before a magistrate with our men, one by one, and making our charge then just as if it were a case of common assault. If we had had that privilege we would have nailed the whole lot without waiting.
But beyond and behind all this little remedy li s the fact that such a condition of cynicism, of apathy, has taken possession of the people of the country that we, I believe, simply wait for the deluge. It is a well recognized fact, so well recognized that no one denies it, that corruption is rife, that it fairly smells to heaven it is so rank. Yet a country that will send missionaries to convert the heathen will not take time to convert itself. It would be a

good thing if we should devote a little of our time, a little of our leisure, to introspection. Everybody knows that men who spend money must be recompensed that they must get it back in some way, that they must get it back from somebody, and the result of this admirable practice is found in the frightful scandals that we have from day to day; so much so that when I use the word ' scandals ' now I am reminded of the story of the man whose wife had wakened him over fifty times to tell him that there were burglars in the house.	He said: Burglars be
blowed; let me sleep; let them rob the house. The people of Canada believe that a great many people are in public life for what they can get out of it. This was the principle recently enunciated by a gentleman who was remonstrated with in the United, States for having perpetrated some political crime. He said: Why, robbing the country? What is the good of the country if you cannot realize upon it? It will not be long until that will be the idea of patriotism in this country unless we can imitate the older and more highly civilized countries more closely.
The responsibility rests upon ourselves- upon Parliament and upon this Parliament. The time is ripe. A great public duty has been performed by the . hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) in bringing the matter forward. We cannot escape our duty. We cannot escape the fact that the people are crying out against this tide of corruption, and unless something is done that will allow people inexpensively, as in other cases, to proceed to law and to proceed to the vindication of their rights as citizens, we might as well dissolve Parliament and let everybody have a free hand. The law is only there to restrain honourable men. Since a dishonourable man can avoid it, it serves simply to keep honourable men out of public life. It would really serve a better object to do away with this law and let men cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war, a fair field and no favour. But these things are far from being a matter of merely casual complaint; they are serious things, and they affect the honour of every Canadian and the vital well-being of this country.


Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: We can all .sympathize with the desire to make more secure, purity in the conduct of elections, and having that feeling we may well congratulate the hon. member (Mr. A. K. Macleanl for calling

this important matter to our attention in the manner in which he has. I may say that we have had under consideration for quite some time the desirability of improving our election law, and perhaps more especially the desirability of improving our Controverted Elections Act. I need not say that the subject possesses very great difficulties. There has to be considered the importance of the end in view, namely, the enactment of such laws as shall, in the first place, require that our elections be .so conducted as to enable us to obtain by their means an absolutely impartial and honest verdict from the electors, and, on the other hand, one has to bear in mind the danger there is of overstepping the mark and making the law so severe and so restrictive that perhaps public sympathy might be alienated from its enforcement. While I am not disposed to take a pessimistic view of the character and conduct of the Canadian people in regard to their liability to be improperly influenced in elections, I think we must all agree that there is room for the exercise of improper influences, and that no doubt to a greater or lesser extent those influences are sometimes put into operation, and probably do in some cases affect the results of elections. To the extent that it is so, there exists an evil which we should strive to overcome. I entirely sympathize with the hon. member in so far as he insisted on the importance of free and pure elections to the proper carrying out of our institutions and system of government.
This question, as I have said, has been under consideration, and I myself have given some thought to it. I welcome the proposition of the hon. member (Mr. A. K. Maclean), because I think the appointment of a committee of this House, composed of members of both sides, willing to meet and put their collective experience and judgment into the shape of a proposed Bill for the consideration of Parliament, is a wiser and better course in respect to such a matter, than to leave the responsibility to any one minister, even though he can avail of the assistance of his colleagues in the Cabinet. At all events, a Bill prepared by such a committee would come to this House entirely free from the suspicion that it was inspired by any party political consideration. In such legislation, the cooperation of members, without distinction of party, is to my mind most valuable, if not absolutely necessary. I think we are all disposed to approach the consideration of this matter having in mind to aim

at results which would secure absolute purity in elections, or which would at least, help towards bringing about that very desirable object. If we were to judge by past experience, we might be somewhat discouraged as to the effectiveness of committees of this kind. In 1903, this House appointed a committee for practically the same purpose as this committee is now asked for. The appointment of that committee arose out of the introduction of a Bill proposing to introduce certain amendments to the then existing Elections Act, and to that committee were referred one or two other Bills with a similar object in view, introduced during that session. That committee appears to have given a great deal of time and consideration to the subject, and its labours resulted in the production of a report in the form of a draft Bill, which contained a number of amendments to the Elections Act. Most of these amendments seem to have met with the approval of the House at that time, but the Bill failed of adoption, principally, if not entirely, because the House did not look favourably upon what was described as compulsory voting, which was one of the proposals favourably reported upon. The draft Bill provided that any person entitled to vote at an election, and failing to exercise his franchise at least to the extent of going to the poll and depositing a ballot, should be deprived of his right to vote for a period of, I think, six years. This proposal met with a great deal of opposition and the effect of that opposition was that, the discussion of the Bill being very protracted and I believe the session nearing its end, the Bill was for the time being dropped or I think withdrawn. There were some other reasons for that action; there was -some criticism of the form in which certain of the provisions were drafted, and the House at that time seemed to have reached the conclusion that the whole matter had better be left for further and more deliberate consideration. At all events, whatever the reasons may have foeen, the work of that committee, although I must say that it would appear that they went at their work with energy and that they devoted time and study to the important question with which they were dealing, resulted in nothing.
. My hon. friend referred also to a motion made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) in 1906, a motion which was in the terms of the second paragraph of the motion which is now before us, and the hon. member has given us the advantage
of very considerable citations from the speech of the present Prime Minister in support of his motion. The result of that motion was that the Minister of Justice of that day himself presented a motion for the appointment of a committee. A committee was appointed, but its labours produced no result. It would appear that that committee never reached the stage of making a report. What number of sittings it had I am not in a position to state, but towards the end of the session of that year I find that upon the question being asked as to the result of its labours, it was stated by the then Minister of Justice that for different reasons, particularly because he had been exceedingly busy in connection with meetings of the Railway Committee, it had been impossible for him to attend the meetings of this select committee on election laws, and because the work of the committee was so extensive it would not be possible to bring down a report at an early date, and he added:
I cannot say any more except that it has occurred to me that no great public interest would suffer if the work of that committee were left, without concluding it, to another session.
That seems to have been the end, so far as I have been able to gather, of that committee and of the matter submitted to it.


George Eulas Foster: What year was that in?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That was in 1906. While we are speaking of committees upon questions of this kind, I may say that in England in 1897 a committee was appointed for a purpose similar to that for which it is asked that the present committee be appointed. That committee carried on its work during the session of 1897-98; and it made a report in 1898 which contains very valuable suggestions looking to the improvement of the English Act. I am not in a position to say whether the suggestions made by that committee were subsequently adopted or not. They had before them and examined certain judges who had experience in the trial of election petitions and also counsel who had experience in the trial of such cases, and they heard from them such suggestions as their experience led them to deem desirable.
As I have said, with the motives that inspire my hon, friend who has made this motion I am in entire sympathy, and I feel that we may hope for more practical results from the work of the committee that

may be now appointed. If it would meet with his approval, I am disposed to follow the course that was adopted in 1906. At that time, upon, the motion of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice of that day himself agreed to introduce a motion proposing a committee. That was done with the result that the committee came into existence. If the hon. member sees no objection to that manner of procedure. I would propose that it be followed in this case.
Inasmuch as the purpose of this motion is to have a committee before which all suggestions looking to the improvement of our Election Act and Controverted Elections Act may ibe submitted and considered, I will not this afternoon go into any discussion of those improvements or those respects in which the hon. member has suggested that our present legislation is susceptible of improvement. I think that the fact that it is so susceptible of improvement, and perhaps one might say that it calls for improvement, is sufficiently established by what we have before our eyes all the time, that is to say that to a very large extent the dispositions of our Election Act are inoperative. We all know how few election contestations are carried to an ultimate determination; and we all see, I fancy with regret, that that number is so small compared with the number of contestations that are instituted. Perhaps also, sometimes it may seem surprising that out of the number of elections that take place, in view of the statements that are made in public, so few contestations take place.
As regards our election law itself, I am not quite sure but that it might perhaps be said that in some respects its very severity tends to defeat its purpose. As I have said, I do not propose this afternoon to discuss the particular improvements that might be made in that Act, in the sense of expressing and supporting by argument any opinion one way or the other. The proper time for that would be before the committee which is to be appointed. I would like, however, to say a few words with regard to some of the questions that might arise and that call for consideration.
Perhaps the first question that might arise is whether or not our election law does not by reason in some respects of its extreme severity tend to defeat its own purpose. I am not at all suggesting that anything in the nature of a corrupt act be looked upon as a matter of trifling importance, but I think there are disposi-
[ Mr. Doherty. ]
tions in our present legislation which proceed upon the assumption that acts that may be perfectly innocent in themselves, because they are done during an election are to be assumed to be done with corrupt intent.
We have acts of that kind declared to be corrupt acts, and we have attached to their commission by the candidates themselves, or by other persons w'ho are, or are held	to be,
agents of the candidate, the result of annulling the election. It will perhaps be thought that there are no acts .so treated which ought not to be designated corrupt acts, but I think the committee might well consider the wisdom of continuing to treat these acts as corrupt acts while making a greater difference between the consequences attached to acts of different kinds. You may have conduct that is deserving of condemnation and punishment, but yet it may be wiser not to attach to that particular fault the sanction of the annulment of the election. I am disposed to think that it is a mistake, that possibly our present legislation fails through placing a large number of offences of different degrees of importance and gravity in one category entailing the same consequence. You bring about the result that the candidate who may commit a minor offence, or whose agent, either actual or so-held, may be guilty of some minor offence, is placed in the same position, as regards affecting the validity of the election, as you place the candidate who through his agents- limiting it to cases where he is guilty through agents-of the very grossest form of bribery. If our present law produces that result, I think it a matter for serious consideration whether it .should not be so altered as to make a discrimination between these two classes of offenders and a difference between the consequences of their acts.
Some reference has been made to the frequency of arrangements under which, after election contestations have been instituted, they are dropped or abandoned as the result of arrangement. I would suggest that the committee might well give .serious consideration to the question whether you would not do a great deal to reduce that evil-for it is an evil-if you so modified your law as to place the man who had made an honest endeavour to	carry on	an	honest
election, but whose agent, actual or constructive, had been guilty of some minor

offence, in a different position from the candidate on whose behalf the grossest bribery and corruption had been carried on. And yet, under our law as I understand it, these two men, in regard to the annulment of their elections, are placed upon the same footing. I think that situation must necessarily tempt men engaged in political contests to be more regardless of the law and to go to greater extremes than they would otherwise do. It does present to the man willing to do it, an opportunity by means of a contestation of the election of some other man, to place himself in a position where he has the means to bring about pressure tending to the suppression of the contestation of his own election. And the fact that, though the offences charged against one as compared with the offences charged against the other may be of a very minor character, yet they entail the same consequences-the annulment of the election-tends, it seems to me, to render those who may be disposed to act without regard to the law, ready to act in a more reckless and extreme fashion than they otherwise would. I do not put that forward as an expression of final opinion on the question, but it is a consideration, which, I think, presses itself upon the mind of any one who considers our law and existing conditions, a consideration which, I think, might very well form the subject of thought, and possibly of action, on the part of the committee to be appointed.
I think also that the committee might very well give serious consideration to the methods which, under our present system, are necessarily used to bring voters to the polls or induce them to come to the polls; I am not referring for the moment to corrupt methods. As things stand at present, it is, in effect, upon the candidates and their friends to see to it that the electors come to the polls. Without taking it upon myself to express any final opinion, it would seem well worth consideration whether the law should not provide that it shall be the duty of the voter to go to the poll. I am not suggesting anything in the way of compulsory voting-although that also is open to this committee. I believe in a man's absolute liberty to vote as he pleases or not to vote at all, and I can conceive of cases where a man for absolutely sufficient reasons does not wish to vote. But I think the committee may well consider whether it would not be proper and desirable, and no undue interference with the liberty of any man, to impose upon the voter the duty of presenting himself at the poll and having registered the fact that he has presented himself there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He might be given a
white ballot.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He might have a white ballot, or he might have no ballot. I am not suggesting this at all with a view to compelling the man to vote; I am only suggesting whether it would not be practicable for the law to transfer the burden of bringing the voters to the poll from the shoulders of the candidate and his friends, to the shoulders of the voter himself.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In connection with the penalty that might be imposed in the case of a voter's not presenting himself at the poll, what reasons would be considered as valid excuses for his being absent?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No doubt there are
many things that would be valid excuses; that is a detail for the committee to consider. We have a law which compels any man who is believed to know something about his neighbour's case, to appear in court. He may come to court, and he may know nothing about it, but he is subject to a penalty if he fails to attend.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about the juror?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps that is a more applicable illustration. In the case of the voter, the performance of the duties that the privilege of voting imposes upon him is a duty to the public just as much as the time the juror gives to his duties is a duty to the public. I would not suggest that because it is the duty of a man honestly to use his judgment with regard to the exercise of his franchise, that we should go so far as to say that he must vote, or even, speaking for myself, that we should go so far as to say that he should pretend to vote. But I think it is no hardship to say to him:	You shall come to the election;
you shall give so much of your time as that duty involves. It may be considered, of course, that that from the point of view of any action on the part of the individual, is a useless proceeding. That may be perfectly true, but his doing that would do away with the necessity for the providing by the candidate or his friends of the means of bringing the voter to the poll. It would by so much' diminish the expenditure a candidate or his friends must make and which expenditure though in itself it may be legitimate, very frequently furnishes the occasion for, or helps in the concealment of, corrupt expenditure.
In the second place, I believe it would

tend very materially to hamper the operations of the personator. I am not quite sure whether there is not, in some localities at all events, a greater danger of obtaining an untrue verdict in an election through the operations of the personator than there is through the actual bribing of the genuine voter. It certainly is a very great, and, I believe, in some localities, a very prevalent evil. If a man is determined to obtain success by corrupt methods, it may perhaps appeal to him that it is simpler, by the impersonation practised by somebody who is not a voter at all, to poll the votes of ten, fifteen, or twenty people, than it is to go out and hunt for those people and buy their votes when he finds them. I do not pretend to have considered this sufficiently to warrant my committing myself here to-day to an opinion upon it, but it is a matter, I think, to which a committee such as has been suggested might very well give consideration. I think it might serve as a remedy for what I consider to be a serious evil, and it might, after full consideration, be found not to constitute any undue interference with personal liberty to require oi a man that once in four or five years, or once in a couple of years, as the case may be, he should take the trouble, on a particular day, to go to the polling place and register his name. As to the penalty that ought to be imposed, I have no sympathy with the suggestion that it should be disfranchisement. The purpose is to induce people to perform their duty of voting. I think that in a large number of cases, if a man felt that he had to go to the poll, he would, perhaps, give more serious thought to the matter, and in most cases he would find that there was some reason appealing to his judgment why he should vote for one person more than another. Of course, the more complete the expression of the voice of the entire electorate we can obtain, the better and more effective the result of the election.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In such large centres
as Montreal or Toronto, would it not be a great boon to the people, especially the working classes, to provide that the day of election shall be a holiday?


Mr DOHERTY:: There is very much to be said in favour of that proposition, and if such a system as I am thinking of were adopted, I think it would become absolutely necessary to make the polling day, in whole or in part, a holiday. You would be imposing an obligation of attendance at

the polls, and in so doing, you should make such provisions as would cause every voter to he at liberty to attend.


Mr. GERMAN:: Would my hon. friend
extend that principle to municipal elections?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This House has no
power to regulate municipal elections, so I would rather not enter into a discussion of what ought to be done in regard to them. As to the penalty, that is a matter for the committee. For myself, I would not suggest that as a consequence of absence from the poll, the voter should be disfranchised. In any event, the hon. member for Rouville, in mentioning the case of the juror, has suggested a method by which you could enforce the fulfilment of the obligation.-


William Manley German: The juror is paid to
attend court; the voter is not paid to come to the poll.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The juror is fined if he does not come.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He is fined if he does
not come, but so far as my experience goes, the payment of the dollar that
5	p.m. the juror gets is, at all events as regards a very large class of jurors, something that would not tempt him to spend his time in the courts at very great loss to himself. However, as I have said, I am not expressing any opinion. I have given some thought to the subject, and I think it is a subject that calls for consideration on the part of the committee. The more you do towards reducing the expenses which it is legitimate for a candidate or his friends to make, the more you diminish the possibility of covering up corrupt expenditure. I think that what calls for the most earnest consideration and improvement is not so much the Election Act itself as the Act dealing with its enforcement. Whether it will be possible, as the hon. member says is done in England, for us to have a public prosecutor charged with the supervision of the carrying on of election cases, is a question which certainly gives room for serious consideration on the part of the committee. There would be manifest advantages resulting from the creation of such an office, always assuming the person selected was a proper person, and I see no reason to doubt the possibility of finding proper persons in this country just as they have found them in England. Of course it would be an innovation, some-

thing to which we are not accustomed in this country, and therefore before we adopted it we ought to carefully consider the * matter. There are some other considerations from the point of view7 of the man who has been willing to serve his country and has become a candidate. As the first result of the voting, if he is chosen a member, he is subjected to all the disagreeable incidents that usually attend being made a defendant in a petition in contestation of an election. Looking at it from the point of view of the general interest that the law, in cases calling for it, should be enforced, and looking at it from the point of view of protecting the man who may be subjected to unfounded contestations, the most important thing that presents itself for consideration in connection with that is how we are going to secure a more prompt method of carrying on the proceedings and bringing them to a termination. Under our present method the petition dies unless proceeded with within six months, but there is a power to extend that period when causes justifying that extension arise. Preliminary exceptions -may be taken, and there is the right of appeal on these preliminary exceptions. Then there is the provision, proper in itself, that where the presence of a member is required at the trial of a case, it shall not go on during the session of Parliament. The reasons for the extension of delay are so many, and the occasions for the exercise of this power so many, that I doubt if it operates very much in hastening the termination of cases to which it may be applicable. The provision of this delay of six months has also, I am afraid, in some cases been availed of as a means for facilitating the dropping of contestations, without inquiry as to the motives for such action. I think that the committee might very well devote much of its time and attention to the consideration of how we can best bring into existence a system which would render the proceedings in cases of contested elections more prompt. I think, too, in that connection that serious thought ought to be given to the manner in which petitions are now allowed to be made. Suppose a man finds his election contested. He reads the petition served on him and finds it a copy of the sections in the Act enumerating all the possible causes for which an election may be annulled, and charging him with being guilty of them. I think that in all fairness 58
a man should have, I do not say every detail, but there should be in that petition such information as would indicate what it is that he is supposed to have done. It would be almost as fair to indict a man and present him as an indictment with the Ten Commandments, and charge him with having violated them all. So far as all other legal proceedings are concerned, as I understand it, the plaintiff is asked to tell the defendant in some manner what is the charge against him. Now what would be the hardship in asking a petitioner who has had forty days to gather information to specify the particular charge he brings against the member? Another point that should be considered, is the fact that today in support of a petition a petitioner is required to make an affidavit that he is credibly informed and that he believes all these things. It has been held that the making of such, an affidavit fulfils the requirement-and the respondent is not entitled to raise the question of its truth. I think that it is hardly possible that it is not practicable to make such provisions as to require not only an affidavit but a true affidavit. It is worth while considering the question whether there can be found some possible method of requiring from the petitioner some guarantee of a more substantial character that he is acting in good faith.
With much that was said by the hon. member for Halifax as regards the desirability of more detailed statements of election expenses and especially of a provision compelling the publication of statements that are required, I have a great deal of sympathy. Those are matters to which a committee might very wisely direct its attention. The advantages that might come from the publication of electoral contributions are apparent. I shall not detain the House at any greater length. I do not know whether these particular things that I have mentioned as being worthy of consideration are the most important but they strike me as being things that are worthy of serious consideration and things the consideration of which, even if they stood alone, would make it quite worth while that the committee asked for by the hon. gentleman should be granted. Following the proceeding adopted in 1906, I shall, with the hon. gentleman's consent, substitute for his motion a motion of my own looking to the appointment of a committee. In connection with that I notice that the hon. gentleman asks for a committee of nine. It is not quite clear to me that a com-


REVISED EDITION7 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
mittee of a smaller number might not be more effective. I do not want to insist upon it, but I think that the experience of .such things shows that when you have a small committee every member of it has a more realizing -sense of the necessity of his actively occupying himself with the duties of the committee than if you have a committee that is too large. In 1906 the committee which was appointed was a committee of five. I would be willing to adopt that number, or, if the hon. gentleman thinks that seven would be better, I would be willing to accept that number.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Seven.


Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma):: The junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) has brought to the attention of the House in a' very broad resolution a very important matter which ought to receive the attention of the people of Canada and which has excited the people of Canada during past years as the hon. member for Halifax very well knows. The different subjects which call for reform as regards electoral purity requiring the amendments of the electoral law are dealt with generally by the hon. member for Halifax within the four corners of his resolution. I would that the hon. member for Halifax had been able to show outside of the four corners of this resolution something of the spirit, something of the intensity of earnestness, which characterized a few of the remarks which he made to the House.
Amongst other things, the hon. member for Halifax, in the long speech which he delivered, outlined a woeful condition of electoral irregularity calling for a reform of the law in order to make more effective provision to punish bribery and fraud at elections, to ensure thorough publicity as to expenditures for political organization, to prevent the accumulation of funds for corrupt purposes and to prohibit all contributions whatever. I regret that I cannot, as I should like to, congratulate the hon. member for Halifax upon bringing these matters to the attention of the House in the way that he has done. I will be frank about it. I cannot congratulate him because I do not believe in his sincerity and if I did believe in his sincerity to-day I can only say that his sincerity to-day is of a very recent origin indeed.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is not permissible to question an hon. member's sincerity or to impute anything other than proper motives.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Well, then, I will say that the expression of my hon. friend, as contained in his speech and as contained	in the wording of this
resolution, is not consonant with the attitude, or the want of attitude, of my hon. friend in this House in the past. I am constrained to make these few remarks simply by reason of the fact that my hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) has touched the crux of this whole question of electoral corruption, in the short speech he made, in which there was a great deal that might well appeal to the judgment of this House, and that is the want of sincerity in dealing with a matter so potent and so nearly affecting the rights of the people in order to secure the purity of elections.
My hon. friend from Halifax, amongst other things, asks expressly for a greater and more complete disclosure of election accounts by candidates and a disclosure of the contributions to political funds. My hon. friend sat in this House in the session of "1907-08, and he was a great admirer of the then able Minister of Justice, Sir Allen Aylesworth. When the Dominion Elections Act was introduced into this House, heralded by the Speech from the Throne in language almost word for word that of my hon. friend's resolution, and purporting to be aimed at preventing all these acts which are complained of, a resolution was offered to the House along the very same lines that my hon. friend's resolution now follows, and it was rejected by the then Minister of Justice, whom my hon. friend supported and with whom he agreed on that particular occasion without one word of dissent. More than that I find that the then Minister of Justice stated that he had never heard any complaint, such as was sat forth in the amendment moved by the then Opposition, which called for the strictest possible enforcement of the principle of disclosure in regard to contributions, the very thing that my hon. friend asks for now in this resolution. If I am permitted I will quote from ' Hansard ' of 1908, page 11,886:
My hon. friend from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) warns to reiorm all that. He wants more particularity in several respects. He wants the vouching of accounts, the making of affidavits and the greatest fulness of minute details in the statements that are to be made out, supported by statutory declaration which are the equivalent of affidavits. He provides the candidate may not take his seat until these returns and declarations are made. He provides a penalty for failure on the part of the candidate to comply with the requirements of this section; also a special penalty in case

there be anything untrue in the declaration; and so on, through an elaborate set of sections, to provide for a condition of things in regard to which I have not heard at any time of any grievance existing under the system which has been so long in force in this country.
My hon. friend from Halifax sat in this House during that session when the electoral law .was under consideration for the best part of three months, and I have searched and searched in vain for one word spoken by the hon. gentleman for or against the proposed changes in that law. When that amendment, moved by the Conservative party then in opposition, and calculated to bring about a r,eform in the Elections Act, was negatived by the then Minister of Justice, the hon. gentleman supported his minister, or, at all events, never, during the whole of that session, raised his voice upon the subject of that Bill, or to protest against election corruption. I would that I could congratulate the hon. gentleman upon his sincerity; I would that I could believe he means all he says in his resolution. But I do congratulate him and those who sit with him upon a circumstance that will appeal to the better judgment of this country, and that is, that although the hon. member be not sincere, he has been met to-day, by the Minister of Justice, with a very much more cordial reception, and in much better faith, and with a much more evident desire to remedy the evil, than ever was extended by the Liberal Government to any mover of a resolution, having for its object the securing of purity in elections. I congratu late the Minister of Justice upon the course he has taken to-day, and I earnestly commend to him the consideration of the whole question from a generous point of view, having regard to the making of such changes in the electoral law as shall moderately, and at the same time firmly, provide for the removal of existing defects.
The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) spoke about making polling day a holiday; but he was Postmaster General in the late Government when my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Mac-donell) introduced a Bill to make election day a public holiday, and he entered no protest when that Bill was rejected by his government. These things go to show the insincerity of hon. gentlemen opposite in now displaying anxiety to remedy electoral corruption, when, notwithstanding that they were in power for fifteen years, they took no measures towards that end. These hon. gentlemen opposite, when in office, rejected every resolution which tended to 58J
reform, and they aggravated their rejection by the statement that they never heard of any such thing as political corruption existing in the country. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) says that these evils are of long standing in the country, but he made no protest in 1908 when the Minister of Justice in the Liberal Government declared that he never heard of them. According to the contention of my hon. friend, political corruption prevailed in 1908, and he came to this House in the general elections of that year, elections which under the Liberal Administration was bristling with irregularities and corruption,-but he kept silent on the subject.
I do hope that something will be done in consequence of the broad-minded action of the Government in leaving this question open for consideration by a committee, and I am satisfied that the action of the Government in this matter will meet with the approval and the plaudits of the people of the country.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: It would have been surprising indeed if in this discussion we did not hear the tu quoque argument, which is the standard argument of gentlemen opposite.' Whenever any question of this kind is brought before the House, the answer of hon. gentlemen opposite is: We are no better than you are, and you are just as bad as we are. My hon. friend (Mr. Boyce) says that when he and his friends were in opposition they brought to the attention of the House the laxity of the electoral law such as it was then, and such as it is now, and that the Liberal Government failed to amend it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: ' Hear, hear,' says my hon. friend; then why do you not amend the law, now that you have the power to do so? Tne Conservatives proclaimed that if they came into power they would remedy these evils, and indeed they made that one of the planks in their Halifax platform. This Government has been two years in office and nothing has been done. The Prime Minister was in favour of reforming the electoral law once he got into power, and I recall to his mind these words in the Halifax platform:
More effective provisions to punish bribery and fraud at elections, to ensure thorough publicity as to expenditures by political organizations, to prevent the accumulation of campaign funds for corrupt purposes and to prohibit contributions thereto by corporations, contractors and promoters, to expedite the

hearing of election petitions, to provide for a thorough investigation of corrupt practices, and, if necessary, to appoint an independent prosecuting officer charged with that duty, to simplify the procedure thereof, and to enforce the laws so amended.
If hon. gentlemen opposite question our sincerity, what are we to say of their sincerity when, although two years in office and having the responsibility of carrying out that programme on which they sought the support of the people, they have done nothing?
The only thing to the point in the speech of the Minister of Justice-a speech in which in some respects I would largely concur-is that, in his opinion, if the electoral law is not as satisfactory as it might be, it is because in some respects it is too severe. I think I heard him so express himself. So that even with the opinion of the Government to-day that the law is too severe, we are very far indeed from the position taken by my right hon. friend when he laid down the programme which he placed before the people at that date. It is no use bandying accusations from one side of the House to the other upon this question. Let us try to deal with it in a fair manner. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) *has to-day given us an example of moderation in the manner in which he has presented the question to the House. He has done it in a very moderate manner, more moderate than I perhaps might have expected. He has abstained from all recrimination, although the temptation might have been great to him to go into some matters in which he might have had a wide field to attack the party now in power. Instead of that, he has asked Parliament to throw aside all other considerations, and to approach the question simply from the point of view of formulating principles so as to deal with what is admittedly an evil. He has been moderate in his speech and moderate in his conclusions. After the statement in which he recalled the speech of my right hon. friend, he might well have called upon the Government to implement the promise which they made when they were soliciting the suffrages of the people. Instead of taking that position, he has simply taken the very moderate course of asking that the matter be investigated by a committee of the House so as to report what, if anything, is to be corrected. Certainly no more moderate course could have been pursued by my hon. friend, and I do not know if I had been in his place that I would have

been as moderate as he has been. Perhaps I would have been more tempted to call upon the Government to do what they have promised to do, and to bring on the legislation which they have promised.
Since my hon. friend has asked tire two parties in this House to lay aside all recrimination and to look upon the question in its broader aspect of the national honour and safety, I am disposed to follow along the same line. If we were to follow the bad example-if my hon. friend will permit me to speak my mind-which has just been given by my hon. friend from Algoma (Mr,. Boyce), I would not speak as I do now; but I think that my hon. friend on reflection will come to the conclusion that the speech' which he delivered was not called for or in keeping with the question now before the House.
Let us deal with the matter simply as it is. So far as corrupt practices in elections are concerned, I do not know that there are any gentlemen on the other side of the House who are in a position to cast stones at members on this side. There has been great temptation and I do not know that the party to which I belong is without sin in that respect. I do not wish to make any political capital out of this question; I rather approach it from a broad point of view, admitting that there are offences against the law; that the law is not so perfect as it ought to be, and that there is room for improvement.
When my right hon. friend the Prime Minister laid down his Halifax programme, he made with the public a very large contract, one rather greater than he is in a position to implement even now that he is Prime Minister. But there are some suggestions there that are worthy of consideration, and that the committee which may be appointed may well consider; amongst other things the advisability of ensuring thorough publicity as to expenditures by political organizations. The American people have adopted this system. The law of this country also at this moment provides to some extent for publicity as to expenditures; but in that, as in many other things, the law is a dead letter. What is the reason of that?' If we are to speak with absolute candour, I think I agree to a large extent with my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that the law to-day is too severe; but whilst it is too severe in some respects it is too lax in others. The law can be amended in these two respects, to lessen this severity and at the Same time to ameliorate the laxity which may exist.

I will give two cases in point. In controverted elections men have been unseated and disqualified for the most trivial offences. I remember a case of a young friend of mine who many years years ago was a member of this House, whose election was protested, and who was unseated and disqualified because he had paid the sum of $2 to a cabman for having taken him a certain distance, and the court thought that it was excessive. If that money had been paid outside of an election, nobody would have thought anything of it, and I do not believe it would have been questioned. The young man gave the $2 to the cabman perhaps because he had no coin in his pocket at the time. I am sure that he had no thought of corruption in his mind; but owing to the fact that it was during an election the judges were very severe upon him.
On the other hand, there have been cases in which, from the information which I have had, outrages of the most damnable character have been committed in the elections and nobody has been examined at all and no evidence offered. In the case I have in mind, the sitting member resigned his seat and the judges thereupon declared that they had no jurisdiction, and that therefore they would not go into those allegations. To-day the law is such that a man can be unseated for a trivial offence of which he may not have been personally cognizant in any way whatever; if done by his agent. On the other hand, another man who has been elected, simply through an abuse of the law, through corruption unlimited, can escape the consequences merely by resigning his seat, upon which the. court can say that it has no jurisdiction. In this respect the law can be amended and improved, and there is room for investigation. If the committee goes into its work as it should be gone into, simply to find what are the faults of the law and what are the appropriate remedies, I think it will do a good work; but I have my doubts as to the advisability of having a committee upon this question. The matter, however, has been decided upon. I hope that the committee will report during the present session, and that it will make a report upon which legislation can be based and action taken.
There are one or two suggestions which have been made as to which it might be just as well for me to give my views. My hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Boyce) a moment ago stated that the late Government had rejected an amendment of the
law to make the polling day a holiday. For my part I question very much the advisability or wisdom of making the polling day a holiday.
If you make election day a holiday, you will invite many offences against the law. We must not forget than when polling day comes, public opinion is often wrought up to an almost feverish point. If you make such a day a holiday and prevent people from working at their usual avocations, the temptations to disorder will be very great.
I believe, on the contrary, that polling day should be a working day as usual. But I should welcome a provision in the law that every man shall have an hour, or two hours, to record his vote. I know of cases, as everybody must, for these cases are not isolated, of working men being restrained from the exercise of their franchise, perhaps not actually prohibited, but impediments placed in their way. If the law should provide that every man could get from his employer at least an hour to record his vote,
I should welcome such a reform.
Then, as to compulsory voting:	I have
not very strong views on that point. I am far from being sure that compulsory voting would effect the reforms expected of it; at the same time I should not object to it if it were enacted in the law. Suffrage is not a right but a privilege, and if the voter does not choose to exercise the privilege, it is his own misfortune, and I do not know how you can remedy it. If you bring him to the poll I do not know that that will insure his having better judgment in the matter. There are circumstances, we all know, where men have conscientious scruples against exercising their voting privileges, having no sympathy with any of the candidates. I do not see how you can compel a man to vote against his conscience. But, it is said-bring him to the poll, even if he only casts a blank ballot. I think it would be better to leave it as it stands and let it be a matter of conscience for every man to vote as his judgment tells him.
But these questions are of little consequence and minor usefulness. The great thing is to prevent corruption and bribery in election. The hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) says that this country is awfully corrupt, that our offence in this respect is r'ank and smells to Heaven. I do not share that pessimistic view. I know that there is in every election some corruption. Unfortunately, it has been so ever since there were elections, and I am afraid that so it will continue. The most

that we can do is to remedy the evil so far as posssihle by providing punishment for curruption, and proper machinery for enforcing that punishment. We must recognize that the machinery we now have has been for some years almost dormant; election petitions have become almost a farce. I think that in this matter the Minister of Justice has a worthy field of operation, and should propose such amendments to the law as will make the Controverted Elections Act more effective than it has been in the past. That is the primary reform, in my judgment-to provide that the trial of elections shall be speedy, that they shall 'be based upon facts and not upon -general allegation of facts as at present, and when the facts are alleged, there should be a most thorough investigation.


Robert Laird Borden: I remember very well the occasion when I moved in this House a resolution very much along the lines of that proposed by my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean). Let me say at once, I find nothing in the manner in which my hon. friend has presented this matter to which I desire to take the slightest exception.
When I proposed a somewhat similar motion, I remember, gentlemen who at that time were members of the Government inquired of me, before the motion was to be reached, whether or not I proposed to take advantage of the occasion to engage in controversial discussion as to election corruption in the country. I told them that I had not the slightest intention of saying one word of a controversial character, as my object was to bring about some reform in the laws which, I thought then-and still think-desirable. The gentleman who was then Minister of Justice, now Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, told me that under the circumstances there would be no objection to the motion.	He informed
me that it was the	proposal of
the Government to introduce a resolution itself, whereupon I at once consented that my motion should be dropped and his take its place. That was done, but owing, if I remember well, to the fact that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick shortly afterwards became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and another succeeded him as minister, no action, so far as I recollect the matter, was taken upon the report of that committee.
My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has

alluded to some observations of the Minister of Justice (Mt. Doherty) and seems to conclude that the only object of the Government is to bring about a relaxation of the election law. I do not think my right hon. friend put that quite fairly. The, Minister of Justice, as I understood his observations, stated that in some respects the law as it exists at present oversteps itself, that it is not enforced for the Teason that it does not command the sympathy and support of public opinion. Laws of this character, like sumptuary laws, must depend on the respect and support which they obtain from public opinion throughout the country, and in any particular community in which they are invoked. It is not the desire or intention of the Government to relax the law, but to give to the country an election law which will be properly enforced.
My right hon. friend has alluded more particularly to the operation of the Controverted Elections Act, and I am entirely at one with him in the opinion that the committee might find very good scope for its activity in bringing about some reform in that respect. On more than one occasion in this House, and on the public platform as well, I have called attention to the very great expense, and especially the very great delay, involved in the operation of the Controverted Elections Act as it stands at present, and by reason of the interpretation placed by the courts upon certain provisions of that Act.
Owing to a decision, which I do not intend to criticise, made by the highest court in this country a good many years ago, we find ourselves confronted with this situation. A petitioner files a petition against a candidate at a particular election. It is immediately urged against him that, under section 271 of the Dominion Elections Act, he had not the right to vote, by reason of the fact that he had paid for the conveyance of some voter to the poll. The result is that the court, instead of proceeding to determine whether or not the candidate
i.s guilty of an infraction of the election law, occupies months, sometimes years, in determining whether or not the petitioner has been guilty of an infraction of the election law. That sounds like a story from .some comedy, but in the sober recital of legal proceedings in the various courts of Canada such instances will be found. As a matter of fact, I think the proceedings upon what are known as preliminary objections have obtained a scope and been

permitted an operation altogether beyond what was the intention of those who framed the statute in the first instance, and I hope that the labours of this committee may result in some improvement of the law in that regard.
My hon. friend the member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil) has alluded to the fact that candidates in this country are subject to the consequences of the actions not only of those whom they appoint as their agents, but of those who, within a certain construction placed upon their acts by the courts of the country, are deemed to be their agents, although they had no actual authority. It will be borne in mind that any person who actively works or canvasses for a candidate, although without his request but to his knowledge, becomes his agent and renders him responsible for the consequences of his acts to the extent of voiding the election. Some amelioration of the law was made in 1892 or 1893,
I think, when Sir John Thompson was Minister of Justice, in this respect:	If
the candidate could show that he had taken certain precautions to avoid the commission of offences by his agent, and if the improper acts committed by the agent were of a trivial character, the candidate might not be unseated. I would like to remind the House that the English law goes far beyond our own in that regard, because, if I remember correctly, an offence by a certain class of agents in Great Britain, although committed without the knowledge or consent of the candidate, renders the candidate, for the remainder of the parliamentary term, ineligible to sit in the House of Commons.
The hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) alluded to the importance of summary proceedings. If I am not mistaken, under the election law at the present time, summary proceedings can be taken against any person.


John Hampden Burnham: I do not think in that way.


Robert Laird Borden: They can be taken, I think, before a magistrate. I speak with all deference to the hon. gentleman; I have not examined the question closely, but there is a provision in the Dominion ' Elections Act for the taking of summary proceedings against persons who are guilty of infractions of the law, and it is a very-common custom, in hotly contested elections, to have persons watching the proceedings in order that they might take the summary proceedings alluded to with the
least possible delay, and prevent any repetition of them. However, if there is any defect in the law in that regard, 1 certainly agree with the hon. member for Peterborough that it should be remedied.
The statute in regard to expenses, the provisions of which are contained in sections 263 and 264 of the Elections Act, goes pretty far if it is observed. I think most members of this House have been careful to observe it, but I would like to point out that those who do not observe it render themselves liable to a penalty of $20 for every day during which they fail to make the necessary declaration within the prescribed time. Further than that, any candidate who makes a statement of the expenses incurred in his election whicli to his personal knowledge is untrue, is guilty of an indictable offence. We will admit that those are fairly stringent provisions, but, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), the difficulty is that the law does not seem to be enforced in that regard as it should be.
I would like to say to the hon. member for Halifax that I investigated the English election law and its results very carefully some years ago, particularly at the time when I made the motion to which allusion has been made this afternoon, and I can say that there are difficulties in Great Britain just as there are in this country. In England the judges have had a good deal of difficulty in endeavouring to prevent evasions of the election law through what is known as the nursing of constituencies by means of payments, adroitly spread throughout the constituency, and effected in such a way that they do not come within the exact terms of the election law. We must all realize that no matter how stringent we make our election law in this country, fraud has manifold devices at its command, and we must, after all, depend tp a great extent on the force of public opinion. The subject of compulsory voting, which was alluded to by my right hon. friend, has been the subject of discussion in this House on more than one occasion. I recall that one of the committees made a report on the subject, in which it was suggested that any man having the right to vote, who did not exercise that right at a particular election should, unless he could show good cause to some court for having abstained from voting, lose his right to vote at the succeeding election. I agree with my right hon. friend that de-

vices of that kind would be very difficult to carry out in an effective way. I also agree with him that we are liable, per, haps, to exaggerate the extent to which actual bribery of the electorate is carried on. Personally I do not believe that it is carried on anything like the extent to which is represented in some quarters. Undoubtedly the offence of personation, particularly in large cities, is of very wide-spread extent, and the offence of conveying voters to the poll is one common not only to the city constituencies, but to all the electoral districts of Canada. There was grave question, when this subject was discussed here some ten years ago, as to whether the law should not be modified in that regard, because public opinion does not respect it very much. I remember very well that when a most worthy organization to enforce purity in elections was established in the Maritime provinces during the election campaign of 1908-and this organization performed excellent work

it did not attempt, if I remember correctly, to exercise any supervision over offences of that kind, because it did not consider that the law in that regard was sustained by public opinion. I realize fully the difficulty in that respect; on the one hand if you do not have some law governing cases of that kind you leave the door wide open for bribery of a , certain character and, on' the other hand, if you make provisions too stringent, you bring about a condition of affairs which public opinion does not respect. The suggestion made on a previous occasion was, if I remember correctly, to permit the conveyance of voters at an election under certain restrictions and subject to certain safeguards. Whether or not any change in the law in that regard could be advantageously brought about I do not know; that would be a matter for consideration by the committee.
I do not intend to enter into any controversial aspect of the subject, nor to deal with what has been alleged as to our supposed delay or neglect. If we had thought that a general election was so imminent as some of our friends on the other side seemed to think, we should have taken up the subject before; but we considered that reform would be brought about before the next general election. The subject has been under consideration for some time by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, and would have been brought forward at an early date in this session; but as my hon. friend the junior member

for Halifax had placed his motion upon the Order Paper at the very commencement of the session, it was thought desirable to give him an opportunity of bringing the subject under discussion upon his motion, rather than to intervene before that motion had been reached. I must apologize to the House for having trespassed a few minutes beyond the hour for recess. I move now that the debate be adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned with question put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, February 19, 1914.